Episode 66 - Tainted Love - Love as an Expression of Hate

Is how we talk about love really an expression of hate? Our desire for everyone to feel loved has changed how love is expressed. Initiatives such as DEI are far more destructive and hateful than we are asked to believe.

What is the churches response and does the Bible actually address the cultural initiatives like these? 

Our Books:

Eating with God - https://a.co/d/9i25LsW

Six Good Questions - https://a.co/d/5BTQ2Tf

Transcript

Tainted Love pt2

Love as an Expression of Hate

Introduction
I find it strangely apropos that we address this subject here at the end of June. The fact that this past month has been pride month could not have worked better. One of the mantras that we hear being preached, chanted, and accepted overall is that love is love. But is it? To quote Fezzik from A Princess Bride, “I don't think you know what that word means.”

Last month I said that we would be talking about DEI and Perversion on today's podcast. How is the Church’s expression of love being impacted by how society approaches this specific topic? I read a Facebook post recently about someone who was done with their church. They said worship had become a platform for performances, the pulpit was a catalyst for self-help, and the Bible was being increasingly ignored.

Has the church, in its desire to be relevant, wandered away from a doctrine of love and embraced hate - clothed in the vestments of
diversity, equality, and inclusion? What's the point of relevance if it means rejecting truth and embracing a lie?

That's what we'll be talking about today.

Diversity
Let's start with a close look at Diversity. Do we really desire diversity?Today’s culture claims to, but what we often see is a desperate race to be unique that ironically results in conformity. The sameness is striking — not in design, but in destruction. In an age that mutilates what God has declared holy, we must ask: Is it necessary to augment what God called “very good”? (Genesis 1:31)

Here's the thing, diversity isn’t a cultural invention — it’s God’s idea. From the beginning, creation was designed to reflect divine variety: light and dark, land and sea, animals of every kind. Humanity, too, is wonderfully diverse. Every child born is a new combination of DNA, a singular masterpiece of God’s creative intent.

In Revelation 7:9 (ESV) we read, “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb…” In eternity, this diversity remains. God's people are not absorbed into uniformity — we are gathered in worship, distinct yet united.

The verse in 1 Corinthians 12:12–14 (NIV), is often quoted for this reason,
“Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ... For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body — whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free…” Paul’s metaphor of the Church as a body illustrates this well. Every part is different but essential. Diversity is not a threat to unity — it is the very thing that makes unity powerful.

Unfortunately, one of the most misquoted and misused verses is Galatians 3:28 (NRSV), “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Paul is not erasing difference — he is declaring the equal spiritual worth of every believer. Ethnic, social, and gender distinctions still exist, but none of them affect our standing before God. We are one in Christ, not identical in function.

When we have a conversation on diversity the danger is the conflation of identity with desire. We have begun to define ourselves by our preferences rather than our purpose. Scripture teaches that our true identity is not self-made — it is Christ-formed. Cultural diversity that stems from self-definition often drifts into distortion. Biblical diversity flows from submission to God’s image in us — not the pursuit of ever-shifting self-expressions.

Our uniqueness is a proclamation of God's Glory. Every human being bears the imprint of divine creativity. Even identical twins, who share nearly the same DNA, think differently, feel differently, and reflect different aspects of God’s nature. Psalm 139 declares that we are
“fearfully and wonderfully made.” Our uniqueness is not merely biological — it is spiritual and relational. We were made not just to reflect ourselves, but to reflect God.

This means diversity is not about human pride; it’s about God’s glory.
When we live into our God-given differences, we declare that His design is good, wise, and worthy of praise.

Christians throughout history have reflected deeply on the beauty of God-given diversity. John Stott, an Anglican theologian, wrote, “We must rejoice in the rich variety of the human race, and thank God for it.
The Church must reflect that variety, since God’s promise is to bless all nations.” [The Message of Acts, p. 113]

Miroslav Volf, theologian and author of Exclusion and Embrace, wrote, “The Pentecost narrative reverses Babel not by erasing difference, but by affirming unity in the midst of it. The Spirit creates a community of equals who remain distinct.” Volf’s insight reminds us that the Holy Spirit does not produce sameness. The variety of languages spoken at Pentecost remained distinct. What changed was the orientation of the heart — toward Christ, not toward self.

Anabaptist author Palmer Becker, wrote, “In Christ’s body, there are no first- or second-class members. The one who washes feet and the one who preaches the Word are equally necessary.” The Church flourishes
not when everyone is the same, but when everyone is empowered to be faithful in their callings.

Biblical diversity is not man-made, culturally reactive, or rooted in personal autonomy. Each believer, with their ethnic background, life experience, gifting, and personality, is part of a living mosaic — the body of Christ. Culture’s distortion of diversity as self-expression without submission must be resisted. We should embrace God’s creative design, rejoice in our differences, and pursue a unity that reflects His glory.Ephesians 4:4–5, says, “There is one body and one Spirit... one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Equality
The topic of Equality is a bit tougher but this piggybacks very nicely
off of the discussion on diversity, but I believe that the church has misunderstood equality, especially when it comes to the relationship between men and women.

The Church today often finds itself caught in the cultural crossfire over
diversity, equality, and identity. If we affirm that biblical diversity is not a flaw to be corrected, but a reflection of God's beautiful and intentional design. That design also includes the distinction between male and female — not only biologically but vocationally and relationally.

Looking back at Galatians 3:28 (ESV) again we read: “there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”This verse is frequently used to erase the distinctions God gave us, but its meaning is not to flatten identity — as is the case in the hands of the affirming and progressive church today — it is to declare spiritual equality before God. Paul is not saying men and women are interchangeable in role,
but that they are co-heirs of grace and salvation. The modern church has too often misunderstood equality as sameness, stripping the biblical doctrine of both its beauty and balance.

From the beginning, God created men and women with equal worth and distinct roles.Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in His own image… male and female He created them.” This duality is not an accident, it is a declaration of order. In Genesis 2, Adam is formed first,
given the task of stewardship over the garden, and Eve is created as a “helper suitable for him”. It is important to understand that the word “helper” in this verse is the same used of God helping Israel. [e.g., Psalm 33:20] It is not demeaning, it is powerful, active, and essential.

Complementarianism asserts that while men and women are equal in value, they are different in function — especially in the home and in the church. This is affirmed by Paul talking to the church in Ephesus when he tells them, “Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord... Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church
and gave Himself up for her.” [Ephesians 5:22–25]

This is not a license for domination; it is a calling to sacrificial leadership. Male headship is modeled on Christ, who washes feet and lays down His life — not on worldly models of power. Authority in the Church and family must be Christlike, not coercive. Men lead by serving; women submit by choice, not compulsion. This mutuality preserves both dignity and design.

Culture today pushes back hard against any form of distinction. Anything less than sameness is now seen as inequality — or worse, injustice. But biblical equality is not about erasing difference; it's about reflecting God’s order.In 1 Corinthians 11:3, it says “...the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

Even within the Trinity, there is functional submission. The Son submits to the Father — not because He is less divine, but because there is unity in distinction. This reveals a deep truth: authority and submission can coexist with equality and love. The definitions of equality floated around today are often rooted in self-autonomy, not biblical love. 1 John 5:3 says, “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.”

To love God, and one another, means to honor the roles He has given, not to reject them in favor of cultural trends. Equality that ignores God’s pattern is no longer love — it becomes rebellion cloaked in virtue.

Today, the distinction between male and female is not only challenged — it’s often erased. The ideology of gender fluidity is not merely a medical or psychological issue; it is a spiritual rebellion against the Creator’s intent. Romans 1:26–27 shows this clearly, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions... men committing shameless acts with men...”

This passage is not isolated or culturally confined, it is deeply theological. It reflects what happens when mankind abandons the truth about God and begins to distort the truth about themselves. The rejection of male and female roles — and of biological reality itself — is part of that exchange.

And yet, our response must be redemptive, not reactive. In Ephesians 4:15, Paul details this for us, “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ.” That does not mean we compromise truth, but we also do not mock, attack, or alienate. People caught in gender confusion are not our enemies — they are fellow image-bearers who need the healing and restoring power of Christ, just as we all do.

John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, addressed male and female roles in the home, when he said, “The husband is the head of the wife, but he must lead her not as a master leads a slave, but as Christ leads the Church.” [Homilies on Ephesians 20:5]

C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, wrote,  “The Christian idea of marriage
is based on Christ’s relationship to the Church... The husband is to love the wife as Christ loves the Church — that is, to give up his life for her.”

John Piper, known as a modern complementarian theologian has stated, “Biblical manhood and womanhood are the beautiful handiwork of a good and loving God. The aim is not oppression, but order,
joy, and peace.” [Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p. 38]

Equality, rightly understood, is a gospel virtue — but it is not equal to sameness. God created men and women equal in worth, different in role, and united in purpose. The church must reclaim this design, not only to resist cultural confusion but to bear faithful witness to the wisdom of our Creator.

Inclusion
One of the most insidious parts of what is described by DEI is the end goal hidden under the umbrella of Inclusion. The Danish jewelry Manufacture Pandora has recently been running an ad where the catchphrase is “be love”. But the intention, or suggestion, of the ad is to say that love is only an act of love by accepting whatever lifestyle each person in the ad follows. There are numerous celebrities in the ad who are allies or advocates of this agenda. But what is more bothersome to me is that this message is mixed with references to racial themes as well.

This is how our culture approaches the buzz behind an idea like inclusion. It is much more subversive than simply making minorities or the disabled feel like they can be included in activities. But the church's response has been extremely troubling. On one hand it is very difficult, almost impossible, for us to make one-to-one comparisons between today's culture and those cultures we see recorded in Scripture. When we look to the Bible, we need to focus on how individuals responded to other races and those with disabilities.

Certainly we see David’s response to Saul's grandson, Mephibosheth, as radically different to our perception of the treatment of those excluded from priestly service. We can look at the treatment of Ruth, or Rahab, as foreigners and non-ethnic Hebrews as opposed to other Gentiles as well and see that inclusion and diversity was not unheard of.

But this is not how today's church has chosen to interpret the meaning of inclusion. Most notably we see this in the way the term ‘affirming’ has been nuanced into the discussion.It is an act of intentional cowardice to turn our understanding of empathy into a tool which both strips the created diversity from creation while accenting sin as though it were a badge to be worn.

Last month I talked about a friend of mine who had studied to become a chaplain in the hospital system here in Canada. I haven’t talked to himin over a decade and I thought I would follow up on where his life has taken him. I was surprised to find out that he has become a priest in the Anglican church. But the story doesn’t end there. He has entered into an adulterous affair with someone associated with the church, separated from his wife and family, and yet, he has been embraced – in his sin – by the Anglican church.

By acting in this manner, the Anglican church shows the side of Inclusion which is contrary, dare I say antithetical, to the teachings of Scripture and its definition of love. This version of love clearly supports a hatred of family – an institution of the historical church – a hatred of doctrinal fidelity – where we admit our sins (a Jesus instructed the Samaritan woman, “Go and sin no more.”) and encourages an acceptance of sin as part of a personal definition of being or personal truth.

At its core, the “Love is Love” fallacy assumes that all expressions of love are morally and spiritually equal simply because they are categorized as “love.” To begin with, this has nothing to do with the idea of inclusion; it is both a category error and an equivocation fallacy. Not all love is morally equal because there are many definitions of love (e.g., agapeo, eros, philia, etc.). And the vague use of the word ‘love’ means we can ignore its moral or theological substance. Not all love is good or godly. Love, to be righteous, must conform to God's character and commands.

True love is inseparable from obedience to God's commandments. It cannot affirm what God forbids. 1 Corinthians 13:6,says, “(Love) does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;” Love must be rooted in truth and holiness. Love that rejoices in anything contrary to God’s truth — including sin — is not biblical love. 2 John 1:6, defines Biblical love when it says,, “And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you are to walk in it.”

The theologian R.C. Sproul, once said, “We live in a culture where love
is defined as license. But biblical love always operates within the boundaries of God’s law.” ["Essential Truths of the Christian Faith." Tyndale, 1992, p. 66. ] He was emphasizing that Biblical love is covenantal and moral, not merely emotional or sexual.

John Piper, in response to Rob Bell's book ‘Love Wins’, critiques the idea that any form of love is righteous, arguing that true love calls people out of sin, not into it; when he says, “If love wins by letting sin reign, then it is not love — it is treason.” [“Love Wins? A Response to Rob Bell.” Desiring God, March 2011.]

In his book ‘Practices: Mennonite Worship and Witness”, John D. Roth warns against sentimentalizing love at the expense of biblical discipleship. He says that Anabaptists understand love as self-giving, cruciform, and tethered to a life of obedient nonconformity to the world like we read in Romans 12:1–2.He says, “Love must be defined by the shape of the cross. To bless sin in the name of compassion is to reject the costly love of Jesus.” [“Practices: Mennonite Worship and Witness.” Herald Press, 2009.]

What is the Biblical view of inclusion? The cultural claim is simple, “Love is Love”, but Biblical truth says that all love should be reflective of goodness. Because of this we read that some “love” is sinful in Romans 1:26–27. The truth is that love is not equal to affirmation. In 1 Corinthians 13:6, and 2 John 1:6, the authors make the statement that love equals truth plus obedience.

The theory of inclusion, as it is defined by cultural initiatives such as DEI, taints the Biblical definitions of love.It promotes moral relativism
by elevating emotion over revelation.It leads believers into theological compromise, endorsing lifestyles God calls us to flee from. [1 Corinthians 6:9–11]

Conclusion 
This crush of pressure on Christians to condone and confirm sin in the name of love is today's persecution. How do we measure love for what it is? Is love measured subjectively, or more clearly, is love that which you give someone, or something you've given. Let me say it another way. So if you say I love someone. Is that measured against how you feel about someone? Is that measured against how that person feels about you? 

Scripture says very simply that if we're going to measure anything, we measure it against God. So we measure our love against the love of God, rather than our love. Given that standard, our love is incomplete. How we show that love is supposed to be how God shows love. How God shows love makes our love look insignificant.