In Search of Hate

For last year’s words belong to last year’s language
And next year’s words await another voice.
-T.S.Eliot

Suppose the Ku Klux Klan sets up a local chapter in your neighborhood. You’re shocked and appalled, disgusted to think they’re peddling their poison to your community.

Still, you believe in free speech, so you tolerate – grudgingly – their existence. Then one night someone burns their building down. How do you feel about that?

Be honest. You may be a reasonable citizen who upholds the rights of expression even for groups you loathe. But secretly, I’m betting you’re also be cheering for the arsonist who shut the KKK down. I know I would.

Because face it –who sympathizes with haters? And that’s the power of slapping the label “hate” onto anyone who disagrees with you, your behavior, or
your philosophy.

Clever Tactics —

In the court of public opinion, you can win your case a lot more quickly if you convince the jury that your opponent doesn’t simply hold a different viewpoint than you – no big deal – but that He also hates you, which is a very big deal.

Now you no longer have to argue the merits of your case, or rebut whatever valid points he has. You’ve shown him to be a hater, and haters, as we all know, are disqualified. So the jury finds him guilty; case closed.

Let’s not kid ourselves about this: A case is being made, convincingly, for a revision of Biblically-based assumptions that have influenced church and culture for centuries. Assumptions about the value of unborn life, the definition of marriage and family, and the distinctions between male and female, are all on trial, a trial partially played out in the judicial system and largely played out in the public arena.

One side is prosecuting these assumptions, accusing them of no longer being valid, and calling for them to be revised or abandoned. Those of us representing the defense are, as William F. Buckley Jr. once described, standing astride history and screaming “Stop!” We want them defended and preserved; others want them gone.

And those others are, it seems to me, scoring some impressive victories.

— which not everyone is using.

Surely there are fair minded people of good will on both sides of the aisle, a fact I hope never to lose sight of. So plenty of folks identifying as pro-choice, or supportive of same-sex marriage and transgender advancements, are sticking to the issues and arguments at hand, arguing them with integrity. I disagree with them strongly, even vehemently, and will continue arguing against them. But not without respect.

My respect fades, though, for those who abandon the fair-mindedness of hashing issues out, and instead cop-out by claiming anyone who opposes their views on life and family must be, by virtue of their opposition, a “hater.”

This to me is blatant cowardliness, which also betrays a lack of confidence in one’s position. If you have a good case to make, after all, you can make it on its own merits. But if your case is weak, and you want to win at any cost, then you can skip the hard work of developing a good argument and instead focus on convincing the jury that the other guy just “hates.”

If you succeed, then they’ll feel about him the way we’d all feel about the local KKK. And once the jury feels that way about your opponent, no matter how poor your arguments are, or how good his are, you’ll definitely win.

And sometimes, “hater” applies

That said, I hope we’ll admit that yes, there are people professing a Christian world view who’ve hated others. Whether through the evil of slavery or the atrocities of the Holocaust to the perversions of segregationists, people have tried to blend the faith with hatred, an impossible task some attempt even to this day. Some Christians have said horrible things about homosexuals; some have bombed abortion clinics; some have acted out blind hostility towards racial minorities. Nobody’s arguing that.

What we should refute, though, is the assumption that disagreement and hatred are the same, and that no one can disapprove of certain things without also despising the people involved. That’s not only inaccurate, it’s wildly unfair.

To hate the taking of an unborn life is not the same as hating the woman who submits to an abortion or the doctor who performs it. To believe heterosexual union is a necessary element of authentic marriage is a far cry from hating gays and lesbians. To believe salvation comes through Christ alone is light years away from hating people of other faiths. I can’t believe anyone really thinks these are complicated points.

So it’s time to ask not just for civility in public debate, but for more intelligent conversation as well. When the label “hater” gets thrown onto the person defending assumptions that are now being revised, the accused needs to do more than simply say, “No I’m not!” He also needs to respectfully and clearly ask three simple questions:

1. What is your definition of hatred?
2. What evidence do you have that my words or actions meet this definition?
3. Can you admit there’s a difference between belief and hatred?

Not long ago, as T.S. Eliot said in the quote above, last year’s words – hate and love included – belonged to last year’s language. And, if I recall correctly, we at least had common understanding of the meaning of these words.

This year, the meaning’s been muddled, co-opted by some and revised to suit their goals and philosophies. All of which makes this the year to challenge the muddiness, asking for definition, clarification, and fairness.

Because the rest of what Eliot said above is also true, and perhaps hopeful: next year’s words await another voice.

This is Part 4 of a Five Part Series titled “In Search Of”
For Part 1: “In Search of a Pharisee” click here
For Part 2: “In Search of Judging” click here
For Part 3: “In Search of Christianese: click here

Tomorrow –  Part 5: “In Search of Love”