I figure that most of you reading this meditation have heard the counsel, "Hate the sin and love the sinner". Interestingly, most scholars attribute the origin of this phrase to Mahatma Gandhi, which reinforces my firm opinion that this truism is not reliable Christian guidance.

Paul gave us much better advice in this passage from Romans chapter 14. While Paul had not visited Rome at the time he wrote these words, he was aware of many of the controversies that were dividing early churches. He referenced several of these prominent differences of opinion in this passage to broaden the applicability of his teaching, and in doing so, we can examine two different activities that some in the early church considered to be "sin".

Paul wrote that "one man has faith to eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." (And no, this is not a criticism of vegetarians!) One of the conflicts for Christians living outside of Israel had to do with the prominence of pagan temples, and much of the meat for sale in these towns were sold by the temples from animal sacrifices. Was meat sacrificed to an idol sinful for a Christian to eat? Some early Christians went so far as to refuse to eat any meat so no one could accuse them of supporting pagan religions. To Paul, this discussion missed the whole point of Christianity. Rather than dwell on appropriate responses to the activities of pagan worshippers, the proper focus should be on our responses to the love of the Risen Christ.

Paul also wrote that "One man esteems one day as more important. Another esteems every day alike." This is not so much a debate over whether Saturday or Sunday is the proper day for worship, as some in our era would argue. Instead, this was a matter of whether the Jewish traditions of the Sabbath should be followed by Christian believers. Paul's response was that the structure didn't matter as much as the focus. So long as we are living every day to honor God, we are living out our salvation in a holy way.

Paul intentionally and firmly challenges the authority of long-standing interpretation of the Ten Commandments in both these examples—and this was a deliberate, well-considered position this ex-Pharisee chose to adopt. Jewish practice would consider it a violation of the second commandment to have anything to do with pagan temples, concluding that eating meat bought from such a temple was the same as worshipping that idol. Paul was even more confrontational to the common wisdom surrounding the fourth commandment when he wrote that some true believers treat each day the same.

It wasn't that Paul sought to rescind the Ten Commandments. Instead, Paul was eager to put responsibility for following the Law with each Christian—and take away from other humans the authority to discern what was appropriate and not appropriate. He was defying established religious orthodoxy, but he was also directly confronting human nature to compare ourselves with others. We have strong urges to control, but following Christ is about giving up control. We would prefer to debate what we think we do know than admit all that we do not know. We want to find encouragement in confirming that we are better than some others, but Jesus chastised Peter in John 21:22, "… what is that to you? You follow me."

Some might think even Jesus belittled the Ten Commandments! In John chapter 13, Jesus taught, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another." No "Thou Shalt Not"s. No room for judging others without condemning ourselves. No opportunity to twist the interpretation. No legislation. No debate. No self-righteous indignation. This profound "new" commandment, established before time began, is to love.

Paul used a marvelous first Century metaphor about slavery to make this point: "Who are you who judge another's servant?" If someone had an issue with a slave, they took the matter to the slave's owner. On the one hand, if the slave was acting inappropriately, the owner was accountable to discipline the slave. On the other hand, if the slave were being obedient to the owner's commands, the real issue was with the owner. To Paul's point, do we think we are better masters of other believers that God? How could we forget that we, too, are the slaves of God?

To come back to that misused Gandhi quote, who do we think we are that we can assume from God the authority to decide sins? Even worse, who are we to think we can balance love and hate with a holy precision? We must know that hate has grown to be a sinful cancer inside us, and that our only cure will be in heaven. We risk our own eternal destruction when we allow ourselves to revert to hate, even if we are certain the object of our antagonism is evil.

Forget the first phrase. It is more than enough to simply "love the sinner".