Sermon: Love Your Enemies: Remedy to a Culture of Contempt
Scripture: Luke 6:27-36
Imagine a world where love shapes everything. Justice and peace flow like a river. The hungry are fed. The hurt ones are healed.
This is the world that most people, no matter which party they vote for, which culture they come from, or what life they’ve lived, would say they want. For themselves. For the next generations.
But, why, then, is there so much growing enmity in the world? Between nations, between cultures, between neighbours, even between family members?
In the Hebrew Bible, the language around “enemy” is rich and layered. The most common word, ’ayav, means “to oppose” or “to be hostile”—referring to external, alien enemies (“enemy of God”), often in war. Then comes tsar, which means “to press” or “to constrict”—the oppressor who causes deep emotional and psychological distress. Finally, sane’, derived from the meaning “to hate”, refers to the other who causes emotional hatred, or deep resentment.
In Luke’s Gospel, when Jesus says, “Love your enemies,” the Greek word used for enemies is echthros, a word that carries all three layers found in the Hebrew tradition: the external enemy (oyev), the oppressor (tsar), and the one who harbours deep hatred (sane’). Jesus is not speaking about mild disagreement. He means those who oppose us, denigrate us, even hate us—just as we may do to others.
The soil, the historical examples, could be apartheid (Show images: South African Apartheid, and the book They Called Us the Enemy by George Takei, about Japanese incarceration during World War II), or simply a kind of contempt that is more gradually becoming part of our everyday language and emotional world.
Arthur Brooks, in Love Your Enemy (2019), offers an interesting insight.
Even in our everyday lives—where we are clearly not in violent conflict or war, and things seem peaceful, at least on the North American continent, (to be clear, this book focuses on American politics and the lives of ordinary citizens) Jesus’ call to “Love Your Enemy” shines a light of meaningful guidance. This is especially true in a society marked by a rising culture of contempt, where enmity draws lines that become more and more difficult to cross.
In my own words, an example of this “culture of contempt” would be this: In the past, whether in politics or everyday life, people with different opinions, different political party affiliations, and even fundamentally different values were still considered part of everyday social life, daily encounters, and political partnership. They would advocate for their base or fire up their community at party conventions, yes—but they also used the language of persuasion to reach undecided voters. A difference in political opinion didn’t automatically rupture relationships. There was still a basic trust in the other’s humanity, even if the “what” (the specific policies or approaches) was different, there was often shared agreement in the “why,” the underlying values like fairness and compassion.
But now, when we assume that the other side—another political party, social or religious group or person—is not motivated by compassion but by hate, or simply “ignorance”, we no longer seek meaningful engagement. We fall into contempt. We begin to believe: the other side is not even worth our attention. And once that belief sets in, it feels as if there’s an unbridgeable divide. We give up on persuasion. Instead, we retreat into mobilizing our own base from our own “basement,” assuming that the motives of the other side are hate, stupidity (or ignorance), and even evil, (Donald Trump’s favourite word) rather than assuming the other side, too, are driven by a desire for wholeness and unity.
So, believing the other side is motivated by hate leads inevitably to contempt and a breakdown of communication and engagement. While anger says, “I care about this,” contempt says, “You disgust me—you’re beneath my concern.” And this contempt is mutual, just as hatred and resentment are mutual between enemies.
Take conservatism and progressivism, for example, when it comes to issues like poverty. Conservatism believes in meritocracy; Progressivism believes in redistribution. Most ordinary people actually hold beliefs from both sides. They exist somewhere along a spectrum, and conversation, persuasion, and understanding are still possible. But politics and social media—the outrage industrial complex—make it seem like there are only two sides, and force people to stay within the confines of their own base, as if enmity were the only option.
Even as I try to explain all of this, I recognize that I myself hold certain non-negotiable values on queer and trans rights, immigration policy, the Nakba of Palestine, or the current horrific war crimes in Gaza. And yes, it takes a significant leap of faith for me to believe that people on the other side are motivated not by hate, or lack of information, or distorted truth, but by their own sense of fairness and compassion for the people they care about. I must remember that.
When people grow exhausted by polarization itself, and by the culture of contempt that feeds on that exhaustion, when we say we hate the culture of contempt, yet instead of mutual understanding we remain trapped in it, the gap of polarization keeps widening until it feels impossible to cross, and it creates fertile ground for the rise of coercive, authoritarian leadership. (As we can already see happening around us.)
Brooks continues: the real shared enemy of our time is not “them,” but the culture of contempt that lives inside every one of us. And once we come to see who truly benefits from that culture, the coercive, authoritarian leaders, we can’t help but start searching for a new direction, a remedy.
What we truly need to disrupt is not ‘them’, but the status quo of polarization. Tyrants gain power by scapegoating and vilifying others, by dividing people and laying down the cement walls of in-groups and out-groups with poisonous intent.
Dismantling polarization should not mean sacrificing or compromising anyone’s human rights and diversity. It should not mean negotiating away justice. And it certainly does not mean swallowing another’s hate and vitriol that burns like poison just to preserve a relationship, or enduring abuse and inequality under the guise of keeping the peace.
Dismantling polarization should mean: NAMING THE RIGHT ENEMY. That is the first step in learning to abide with the greatest commandment: Love your enemies.
Bridge, not break: with those we view with contempt, or those who view us with contempt.
Bridge, not break: to a radical embrace of diversity—of difference.
We must look to what we have in common before we look to what makes us different.
Connection is found when we view one another as individuals with stories and dignity, just like ourselves; solidarity can develop.
(Show the images of the following.)
Trump Supporters / Black Lives Matter
Robert (Robby) George / Cornel West
Dismantling polarization should mean: NEVER ASSUME THE MOTIVES OF ANOTHER PERSON.
Most people’s reasoning—whether limited, informed, or something in between—comes mostly from their understanding of fairness and compassion.
“The truth is that highly partisan conservatives and liberals are shockingly clueless about the other side—about their motives and everything else.” Brooks notes.
Go leaning toward those who have different views than yours.
Do not try to win an argument—that’s not the purpose.
Don’t try to win, but listen.
Give the right respect, not contempt. Reason? No one is ever insulted into agreement. Research shows insults only intensifies people’s opposition.
Use your values as a gift, not as a weapon.
Winning the argument is not the goal—winning friendship over contempt is.
In hard times, people tend to look for a coercive, authoritarian leader—one who will identify the enemy. But what is required for us, who believe in Jesus’ great commandments, love your enemy, yourself, your neighbour, your God, is to begin with naming our enemies right. Then comes right remembering: through seeking the truth, all the time.
Dismantling polarization should mean: THE INVITATION TO RIGHT REMEMBERING.
Charles Taylor offers three possible relationships with those who do us wrong.
1. No one is to blame (Somewhat therapeutic, but gives an excuse to the oppressor)
2. The enemy is to blame. (condoning the practice of violence)
3. Somehow, we are all to blame (This is the restoration of common ground that opens a new footing of co-responsibility of the erstwhile enemy. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission used this to deal with apartheid-era violence in South Africa.)
But, how do you understand, how do you feel, when you hear, “Somehow, we are all to blame?” What reaction rises in your chest, your body?
(Pause)
On the surface, it seems that Jesus’ command to love your enemies was preached not to the powerful, but to the powerless.
Just like saying, “You were robbed of your coat—now forgive, and offer your other coat too,” it ended up reinforcing the colonizing status quo.
They took the land—and yet the weak were quietly asked not to reclaim what was taken from them, but to give more. (Resources)
They struck your cheek—and you were told to forget that part, and to trust the oppressor’s goodness, as though offering the other cheek would somehow be safe (A false promise). Keep showing grace, stay kind, love your enemy.
Jesus’ commandment appears to be directed toward those who were slapped, whose coats were stolen, and whose land and resources were taken—requests made of them, not the perpetrators.
Then, the following question seems truly unavoidable: “Do I sincerely want to be like God (kind, merciful, compassionate)? Do I want to be kind, merciful, forgiving, even benevolent, like God (who sends sunshine and rain for all)? Should I be responsible for the work of reconciling the wrongdoer with God? To return the wrongdoer - the terrorist-enemy, the child-abuse enemy, the sexism-enemy, the racism-enemy, the colonialism-enemy – back to the light? Why me, why us?
Some scholars say we can interpret this as a call not to retaliate—but that would be only a partial understanding; this commandment equally extends to those with social power.
From another angle, I see that Jesus’ command to Love Your Enemy is deeply applicable and must be expanded to include the responsibility of the oppressor-enemy:
Did the protester slap you? Then turn the other cheek also.
Are they asking for their land back? Then maybe the other land should be returned too.
If money was ‘borrowed’, don’t just stop at “repay,” but rather, repay them double.
Love your enemy applies to all who find themselves in relationships where your neighbour has become the “enemy”. It is not separate from “love your neighbour” or “love your God.” They are one.
Why can’t we just talk about the first two - Love Your God, Love Your Neighbour - and leave “love your enemies” as an exception, a bonus track, an advanced course, an ‘optional’ choice?
As long as we say we love God, we are essentially agreeing to all three of these commandments at once.
Because God’s love extends to the whole cosmos, to all of God’s world, both the righteous and the wicked, and that leads to a love for the enemy: even the enemy we have defined, and who has defined us.
As we have seen through history and across religions and cultures, spiritual leaders have shown that the only real way to bring about truth and reconciliation—the only path that leads to peace and justice—is through unifying, personal, inspirational, spiritual leadership, entailing love your enemy.
(Show the images of world spiritual leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Korean President Kim Dae-Joong with his “Sunshine” policy towards North Korea as a way towards reconciliation.)
So perhaps loving your enemy is, in the end, the only inevitable and necessary way to bring justice, reconciliation, and peace; it is only through loving your enemy that the human race has ever moved even a single step closer to unity, racial justice, reconciliation, and peace.
Love your neighbour, your God, and your enemy: only when all three are held together has there been any real possibility for the world we want: the world in which love shapes everything, justice and peace roll like a river, the hungry are fed, the hurt ones are healed.
And the light of that leadership has come from the spiritual leadership of the oppressed, who lifted up Love your enemy as a guiding light and brought people together.
We still find our hope and vision for future global peace and justice in those leaders who embodied and influenced the commandment Love your enemy, even at the cost of their own lives.
That’s the true winning, long-lasting, inspired-by-the-right-understanding of who our enemy truly is.
Not the people, but the division.
The walls of enmity that feel impossible to cross.
Enmity itself. And those who take the greatest benefit from the “outrage/contempt industrial complex” keep profiting while our communities break into angry factions.
In the book Love Your Enemy, Brooks suggests an interesting experiment:
“There’s a special bond among human beings who stand up for one another when they disagree. If not, you’re missing out on a great source of joy. If you’re still not convinced, try the following and see how it makes you feel. Defend someone with whom you disagree, simply because they have a right to an opinion and the right to be heard. Take note that your heart will be on fire when you do it.”
Today, how will you face the world, our culture of contempt—with love for your enemy?
Comments
Post a Comment