The Opposite of Love is Indifference

The opposite of love is indifference, not hate. Indifference is love that has grown cold. The modern pop psychology concept advocating "cutting off" people who have hurt us teaches the advisability of indifference. It is unscriptural if understood to dehumanize or dematerialize the person cut off, making them non-entities beyond hope of repentance.

It is often thought–and even said–that the opposite of love is hate. But this is not correct.

It is possible for one person to both love and hate another person simultaneously, but in different senses or with reference to different parts of the-both-loved-and-hated person. The best example of this is found in the common saying “God hates the sin but loves the sinner.” However, the sin is a part of the sinner–that is why God will judge the sinner unless the sinner has received forgiveness in Jesus.

And, as emotions, hate and love are both quite fickle. Love can change to hate in an instant. And, though it is less common, hate can also turn into love.

No, the opposite of love, and the logical contrary of hate, is indifference: “I just don’t care. I am now permanently ignoring you and your needs. You no longer exist to me.” Indifference is love that has become cold, such as Jesus warned us about. Matthew 24:12. You cannot love a nonentity. You also cannot hate a nonentity.

I note that many voices even in the church advocate this as a better alternative to hate for people I don’t get along with, or who have hurt me (or hurt me “once too often,” which is very hard to define). Just “cut them off.” “Cut them out of your life” completely. Ignore them. Treat them as if they don’t exist. Be indifferent.

One who is completely ignored is neither loved nor hated but is instead treated as nonexistent. If I kill someone I hate, it is murder. If something that I do results in the death of someone to whom I am completely indifferent, but I do it without even noticing them, I have committed no culpable act, as long as the law accepts my judgment that they do not exist. (This is, in fact, the most common argument made justifying citizen participation in official genocide). I did not intend to do anything to them. I cannot intend to do something to an object or person that does not exist! And I cannot intentionally commit a crime against the person of an object that is not a person!

This would be true except that God doesn’t see it that way. I am accountable to God for what I do to, and fail to do for, people I have chosen to ignore. They, in fact, still exist and God isn’t ignoring them!

This is certainly true when I “close up my heart” toward the physical needs of someone I have chosen to ignore: ” We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers and sisters. But whoever has worldly goods and sees his brother or sister in need, and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God remain in him? Little children, let’s not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.” 1 John 3:16-18. And giving money or worldly goods is usually considered the most difficult test of the genuineness of love. A preacher can preach about almost anything else and not be in trouble–but has to be very careful how he preaches about money or he will have all sorts of trouble!

So is simply recognizing a person to still exist and to be a brother or sister worthy of love and attention something more difficult than providing money for their physical needs? Is it somehow now not covered by 1 John 3 because our culture and the “pop” branches of our helping professions have chosen to teach that “cutting people off”–permanently and beyond hope of repentance, because nonexistent people by definition can’t repent or seek reconciliation–is a better alternative to hate?

Of course, nonexistent people can’t be “neighbors” either, so the second greatest commandment, Matthew 22:39, wouldn’t apply. What?? I’m supposed to love a ghost as I love myself?? No way!!!

The same would obviously be true of James 2:8-10: “ If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well.  But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the Law as violators.  For whoever keeps the whole Law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all.” I would be guilty of breaking the whole law if I showed partiality toward real people who never hurt me by loving them but then refusing to love real people who have hurt me. But the text doesn’t on its face prohibit showing partiality toward real people as opposed to mannequins. Arguably, I’m free to not love things that aren’t “real” people to me because I have chosen to treat them as nonexistent or nonhuman.

This would all be a wonderful, successful evasion in favor of a modern pop psychology concept were it not for James 2:12-13.: “So speak, and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of freedom. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”

If God actually sees the thing I see as no better than a mannequin or a ghost instead as a real person, and I show that thing no mercy, I will in turn be shown no mercy. Whether a person is real is not my judgment to make.

Didn’t Jesus tell us how to handle offenses between believers?