On Animosity, Hate and the Kenneth Kranendonk Post

Yesterday I had a brief exchange with someone over these words from a recent blog post: “Today, Christians are sometimes known for their animosity toward people who identify as LGBT, or toward those who strongly advocate for them.” I said I didn’t understand such animosity.

As I understand it, animosity means hostility, resentment, or ill will. One dictionary defines it as "a strong feeling of dislike or hatred : ill will or resentment tending toward active hostility : an antagonistic attitude." At first, I thought the questions I was asked had to do with my stance on homosexuality. In fact, I was asked: “Is there a reason you took down your blog posts responding to Kenneth Kranendonk’s false teaching?” I affirmed - as I did in the original post - that I hold to a biblical ethic, and that my convictions on homosexuality have not changed. Why would they?  

But during the exchange I realized the real issue - at least from this man’s perspective - wasn’t whether I believe homosexuality is sinful. It wasn’t whether I believe they need to hear the gospel, believe on Jesus, and be saved. It wasn’t whether I believe Jesus can deliver them from sin. The issue was animosity.

This is precisely what I had expressed concern about. Yet instead of feeling embarrassed by animosity and recognizing it as sin, I suspect some treat it as a litmus test of orthodoxy. I didn’t get far enough in that particular email exchange to know whether this person felt that way, but it reminded me that, from the perspective of some conservative Christians, it is not enough simply to affirm what Scripture plainly teaches about homosexuality. Something more is demanded: not just belief, but hostility, resentment, scorn, malice, and even a kind of ill will that passes for zeal. 

This person mentioned what he called the "righteous genocide of the Canaanites." Personally, I wouldn’t use the term genocide in that context, but I was perplexed by its mention. God did punish the Canaanites, I believe, as a foreshadowing of coming judgment. Yet He sent His Son into the world to live among sinners, to preach glad tidings to them, and ultimately to die for them. Instead of sending us out like the Israelites to harm people, He sends us out as fishers of men (Matthew 4:19). Jesus Himself rebuked the disciples who wanted to call down fire on others, saying they knew not what manner of spirit they were of (Luke 9:55–56). He came not to condemn, but to save (John 3:17).

Should we hate evil? Yes. Of all sin, two demand our particular hatred: predatory evil and the sin within our own hearts. But does that hatred of sin mean we should hate sinners?  No. Should we express animosity toward them? Why - if we are ambassadors of Christ - would we? He didn’t. He reserved His severity for the religious leaders, the Pharisees, yet even they were not objects of His contempt.

Should there be judicial consequences for predators, for example? Of course. And then I hope Christians will find them in prison and share the good news. But I suspect that, when it comes to LGBT issues, some harbour a special malice - not just for those who engage in certain behaviors, but also for those who support them - and would almost rather find a way to reinstate Old Testament civil law, with all its penalties, than spend their time fishing for such men.  

Take, for example, the pride flags chalked onto pavement. Some Christians think it’s a good idea to deface them. Others of us believe that sends the wrong message - at least if we are constrained by the love of Christ and genuinely want to reach people with the gospel of grace. What’s concerning is that some seem suspicious of this latter response, as if we are compromised simply because we don’t hate like we should hate.

Another example: I know people - heterosexual themselves - who wear the rainbow flag during Pride month and advocate for LGBT people. They aren’t Christians, so I expect them to think and act as unregenerate people do. They don’t understand the things of God, nor do they read or follow Scripture. So why do they wear the rainbow flag and support the cause? From what I can tell, it’s motivated by compassion and kindness. And as far as they understand it, that’s all they want for LGBT people. Why then should I feel animosity toward them? If anything, I understand them. In one sense, I even want the same. The difference is this: as a Christian, I am constrained by the Spirit, the love of Christ, and the Word of God. So while also motivated by compassion, I see things from God’s perspective, and therefore desire that LGBT people - like anyone else - come to know Jesus and find freedom from sin.

This brings me back to something else I mentioned in that post: so-called “toxic empathy.” I admit I don’t know precisely what the framers of that term intended, but I suspect - on the basis of what I have seen - that for some, “toxic empathy” includes qualities that marked Jesus Himself: compassion, lovingkindness, tenderheartedness.

I used to cringe when I saw fundamentalist Baptists gloat as they preached about hell - rejoicing that some would be tormented forever. Their rhetoric was laced with hateful terms and marked not by grace and love, but by anger and hostility. I don’t recognize that as Christianity.

Sometimes I wonder if that spirit is spreading. Perhaps some in my circles* don’t publicly use slurs like fudge-p**, fa**, or tr**y, but secretly wish they could. Perhaps others, though they don’t say so on social media, would prefer to deal with the “problem” as God dealt with the Canaanites.  And still others, when they speak of LGBT people, use pejoratives, deliver harsh denunciations, and talk of damnation not with tears but with a kind of glee - because they are motivated not by love, but by something else.

This I confess I don’t understand.

Sadly, some will read these words and place themselves in the opposite camp, unable to grasp why I don’t share their disgust and anger. More troubling is that some will see my lack of animosity and hate as compromise. But what does that matter? As the apostle Paul wrote:

“To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.”

Which brings me back to the Kenneth Kranendonk post from January 2022. I did take it down, and here’s why:

First, in hindsight, I realize it wasn’t my battle to wage. Others in his denomination were already addressing the issue, and I should have left it to them.

Second, if I were to do it again I think I would first like to meet with Kenneth to listen to him and try to understand him. No doubt I would try to reason with him, but I would also want him to know that I love him.

Third, if I were to do it again, I would write with less severity. We are, after all, called to speak the truth in love, and I am not sure I did well at the latter.

* By "my circles" I am referring to conservative evangelicalism