Unbelief as Sin versus Justification by Agape:

A Dialogical Response to Professors Ogletree and Stackhouse

Liu Qing-ping

Abstract: Due to the top priority of the command to love

God over the command to love the neighbor, these two

commands will fall into a profound paradox “to violate

generally accepted morality for the sake of Christian

faith.” The orthodox doctrine of “justification by faith”

expresses this paradox in a most definite way, because it

regards unbelief in God as the most unacceptable, hateful,

and punishable sin against God. Only by giving up this

1

priority can the two love commands truly move beyond the

moral paradox and realize their essential and holy unity in

the framework of a new “theology of agape” or a new doctrine

of “justification by agape.”

Key words: Christianity, love of God, love of neighbor,

paradox, justification by faith, justification by agape,

theology of agape

2

Dr. LIU Qingping

Research Fellow, Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in

Social Sciences

Professor, Fudan University

Specialties: comparative philosophy, Chinese philosophy,

moral philosophy

Address for correspondence:

Prof. LIU Qingping

Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences

Room 2807, East Main Building, Guang Hua Tower

Fudan University, No. 220, Handan Road, Yang Pu District

Shanghai 200433, P. R. China.

E-mail: liu_qp@yahoo.com.cn qp_liu@hotmail.com

3

Tel: +86-21-61424023 Fax: +86-21-55665552

Unbelief as Sin versus Justification by Agape:

A Dialogical Response to Professors Ogletree and Stackhouse

1. Introduction

I am grateful to Professors Thomas W. Ogletree and

Max L. Stackhouse for their thoughtful responses to my

article “On a Paradox of Christian Love” (Liu 2007a, pp.

4

681-694). I do hold that their insights can deepen both our

critical reflection on the moral paradox of Christian love

and our constructive understanding of the true spirit of

Christian love. Also for this academically set goal, I am

pleased to respond to the two distinguished theologians from

the perspective of “Critical Humanism.” 1

Both Professors Ogletree and Stackhouse have offered

strong arguments for their central viewpoint: the top

priority that Jesus assigns to the command to love God over

the command to love the neighbor does not legitimize, but

rather opposes, the intolerant and oppressive polices

1 As to some fundamental ideas of Critical Humanism, see Liu

2007b, 2008. 5

against unbelievers. By providing a detailed interpretation

of some key biblical texts that are concerned with the

Christian attitudes towards those who do not love God,

Professor Ogletree stresses that the two great commands of

love in such an order of priority are not paradoxically

related, but essentially united (2007, pp. 696-698).

Professor Stackhouse also argues that, if interpreted in a

proper philosophical-theological framework, the priority of

love for God over love for the neighbor, of orthodoxy over

orthopraxy, or of belief over ethics, can strengthen love

for non-Christians, because, without God, an ethic of love

becomes simply the orthopraxy of reciprocal mutuality

6

(2007, p.706). On their conception, those tragic events

resulted from the religious hatred against heretics and

unbelievers in real life should be attributed primarily to

the sectarian or imperial tendencies of some Christian

communities, not to the order of priority of the two love

commands or their alleged “paradox.”

Inspired by the two Professors’ insightful arguments for

the essential unity of the double love command, I will try

in this article first to explain how the absolute priority

of the first and greatest command over the second

command, which is typically expressed in the doctrine of

“justification by faith,” can inevitably move beyond their

7

essential unity and lead to a paradox “to violate generally

accepted morality for the sake of Christian faith”—or put

another way, “to cancel love for non-Christian neighbor for

the sake of love for God.” Then, I will try to put forward a

constructive solution to this paradox by introducing some

basic ideas of a new “theology of agape” or of a new

doctrine of “justification by agape” within the Christian

framework.

2. A Criticism of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith

It may be safely argued that the Christian doctrine

of justification by faith embodies the absolute priority of

love for God over love for the neighbor or of belief over

8

ethics in a most definite way. Paul makes it clear:

“a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed

by the law…. For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham

believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’”

(Romans 3:28, 4:3). We also read in Galatians 3:9-11: “those

who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed…. Now it

is evident that no one is justified before God by the law.”

According to this doctrine, an act is righteous and

praiseworthy if and only if it is done by virtue of faith in

God, no matter whether or not it conforms to any moral law.

Meanwhile, it may also be safely argued that this doctrine

has been shared by almost all Christian traditions or

9

communities throughout history, no matter whether or not

their leaders have spoken of heretics and non-believers in

harsh ways and even sanctioned coercive and violent actions

to suppress and kill persons whom they have viewed as

enemies of God.

By highlighting such overriding priority of belief over

ethics, yet, this orthodox doctrine contains a profound

paradox in itself, since it holds that a Christian may

violate generally acknowledged morality for the sake of

Christian faith if they clash with each other. The famous

story of Abraham’s sacrifice can serve as a classical

exemplification of this paradox, as this knight of faith

10

tried to kill his innocent son Isaac in order to obey God’s

command (see Genesis 22). While aborted at the critical

moment, this act is still directly against the widely

recognized moral norm “you should not murder the innocent,”

which is not only recorded in the Old Testament as the

fifth commandment (see Exodus 20:13), but is also repeated

by Jesus in the New Testament (see Matthew 5:21). Because it

was motivated by Abraham’s faith in God, nevertheless, this

evil deed has often been commended as God-pleasing and

therefore righteous by almost all Christian traditions and

communities. In fact, we read in Hebrews 11:17: “By faith

Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac.” While

11

stressing that “faith apart from works is barren,” James

also claims in a similar tone, “Was not out ancestor Abraham

justified by works where he offered his son Isaac on the

altar?” (James 2:20-21) More ironically, when Kierkegaard

passionately justifies Abraham’s sacrifice in Fear and

Trembling, he even asks, “If Abraham actually had sacrificed

Isaac, would he therefore have been less justified?”

(1983, p. 63) He does not reply to this question, for the

answer may be self-evident to him. In my view, both the

story and the arguments for it can show in a demonstrative

way how the top priority of faith over morality will

destruct their essential unity and bring about such

12

an intrinsic paradox in cases of conflict: a Christian ought

to give up her love of the neighbor, including of her own

son, for the sake of her love of God.

This paradox will become more evident when the

neighbor is the non-Christian. Just as any act grounded in

faith must be regarded as righteous according to the

doctrine of justification by faith, unbelief in God must be

regarded as a grave, unforgivable sin against God according

to the same doctrine. Jesus says, “The one who believes and

is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe

will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). On another occasion he also

declares, “you will die in your sins unless you believe that

13

I am he” (John 8:24). The result is a fatal dichotomy

between Christians and non-Christians established by virtue

of the Christian faith.

It is true that any person, including the Christian, may

sin due to violating God’s commands. Among various sins

against God, yet, only the refusal to believe in God is

condemned as the greatest and cannot be forgiven by God’s

mercy, because it transgresses the first and greatest

command to love God or the “first table” of the Ten

Commandments. By contrast, the sins against the second

command to love the neighbor or the “second table” of the

Ten Commandments are relatively minor evils and can be

14

forgiven by God’s mercy, especially if the sinner converts

to Christianity and repents sincerely. For Christianity,

then, only unbelief in God is the absolutely unacceptable

evil, whereas any other evils, including such serious crimes

against fellow humans as murder, theft, rape, etc., are

forgivable and acceptable, especially if they are done out

of pious faith in God. Or put an ironic way, non-Christians

will die in their sins even if they act on generally

acknowledged morality and never do substantive harm to

fellow humans, whereas Christians will be saved even if they

commit serious crimes against fellow humans (given that they

repent before God).

15

Obviously, this evaluation based on the priority of

belief over ethics can significantly affect the attitudes of

Christians towards non-Christians. In the final analysis, if

the denial of the reality of God is the greatest evil that

even God himself does not forgive, and if God’s wrath and

judgment will inevitably be on those who are unwilling to

embrace his gracious offer of life, certainly Christians as

the faithful followers of God must also in principle “hate”

those who stubbornly refuse to walk in his way, even if, as

Professor Ogletree points out (see 2007, p. 700), they are

in practice incapable of assessing the consciences or unfolding

pilgrimages of their fellow human beings. According to the

16

Christian orthodoxy, anyway, faithful Christians should not

at all take this incapacity as an excuse for refusing to

hate unbelief in God or being “indifferent” to it or even

forgiving such an unforgivable sin against God.

Professor Ogletree argues, when Paul does insist

that the faithful must “hate” what is evil, such hate refers

merely to evil acts and evil practices, not to persons who

are implicated in evil (see 2007, p. 697). That is a

reasonable and incisive explanation. Nonetheless, here

arises a more crucial question: is unbelief in God, which

goes against the first and greatest command to love God, an

unacceptable, hateful, and punishable evil act in itself,

17

even graver than such morally evil acts as murder, theft,

rape, etc., which substantively harm fellow humans and thus

go against the second command to love the neighbor?

In my opinion, this is the crux of the whole matter.

As stated above, the answer will be affirmative if

according to the particularistic position of the Christian

doctrine of justification by faith, because it places love

for God above love for the neighbor absolutely—or in

Professor Stackhouse’s words, because “Christianity as an

orthodoxy-oriented religion is only secondarily orthopraxy-

oriented” and “Its ethics must be interpreted in terms of

its overarching doctrine” (2007, p. 704). As a result, even

18

if Christians should not hate non-Christians as persons,

they as the faithful followers of God must still hate the

unbelief in God of non-Christians as the most unacceptable,

hateful, and punishable evil. In my view, yet, the answer

will be negative if according to the universalistic position

of Critical Humanism, because it assigns the absolute

priority first and foremost to an age-old and widely

accepted moral precept “harm no one and benefit human

beings.” In the ethical dimension, this precept may be

regarded as equivalent to the Christian command “love your

neighbor as yourself,” for “to love a person” just means

“not to do harm to but to benefit this person in an

19

affectionate way,” as Paul says, “Love does no wrong to a

neighbor” (Romans 13:10). Evaluated by this greatest

principle of moral rightness, then, an act is righteous and

praiseworthy if and only if it loves human beings—that is

to say, if and only if it harms no one and benefits fellow

humans in an affectionate way. By contrast, only doing

substantive harm to the neighbor is the unacceptable,

hateful, and punishable evil, since it goes directly against

the inviolable command “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Furthermore, we can also reformulate this universalistic

position in the modern language of “rights”: any act is

morally right and acceptable so long as it does not violate,

20

but respects, the deserved rights and interests of human

beings. The reason for this reformulation is: violating the

deserved rights and interests of a person generally means

doing serious harm to this person, and doing serious harm to

a person also often involves violating the deserved rights

and interests of this person. In comparison with this

absolute, cardinal evil, any other “evils” identified by

anyone, including failing to pursue someone’s best

interests, failing to prevent someone’s kinship love from

injury, failing to convert an unbeliever to the specific

faith someone has, or failing to maximize the general

welfare, are merely relative at the most and should be

21

viewed as the tolerable or forgivable imperfection of human

life. Certainly this world is not a perfect world, and yet

it should not be an evil world.

Taking this universalistic position, we will come to the

conclusion that faithful Christians should not regard

unbelief in God as the most unacceptable, hateful, and

punishable evil. The reason is simple: unlike such crimes as

murder, theft, rape, etc., unbelief itself as a free choice

of non-Christians in the spiritual life does not violate

anyone’s, including any Christians’, deserved rights and

interests, just as Christians’ belief in God or their

unbelief in the theory of evolution as their free choice

22

does not infringe anyone’s deserved rights and interests,

either. Motivated by the conviction that their unbelief in

God can override morality, indeed, some non-Christians have

suppressed and killed Christians merely because they have

Christian faith. In such circumstances, however, what is

really evil and thus is unacceptable, hateful, and

punishable is not unbelief itself, but the evil deeds that

deprive Christians of their deserved right to believe in God

by virtue of the particularistic conviction that unbelief

can trump morality absolutely. Put differently, we should

carefully differentiate unbelief in God from the evil action

of violating Christians’ deserved rights motivated by some

23

flawed conviction. This differentiation can also apply to

the circumstances in which some Christians have suppressed

and killed non-Christians merely because of their denial of

the reality of God, as what is really evil and thus is

unacceptable, hateful, and punishable here is not the

Christian faith itself, either, but the evil deeds that

deprive non-Christians of their deserved rights in the

spiritual life by virtue of some flawed, particularistic

conviction that Christian faith can trump morality

absolutely.

It is easily seen that this position of Critical Humanism

accords with the ideas of authentic religious freedom, which

24

have also been endorsed by most leaders of major Christian

churches (see Ogletree 2007, pp. 699-700). In terms of these

ideas, we should regard both belief in and unbelief in some

“Ultimate Reality” as the free, allowable choices of people

in the spiritual life, not as the unacceptable, hateful, and

punishable evil. If truly endorsing these ideas, then,

Christians should not hate unbelief in God as a wicked sin,

but tolerate it as something disagreeable and yet allowable,

just as non-Christians should not hate Christian faith as a

wicked sin, but tolerate it as something disagreeable and

yet allowable, either. We may argue in this sense that the

long-standing precept “harm no one and benefit human

25

beings,” or its Christian expression “love your neighbor as

yourself,” or its modern reformulation “respect everyone’s

deserved rights and interests,” is not only the ultimate

principle of moral rightness, but also the minimum standard

of tolerance: you may and should tolerate anything, such as

refusing to accept modern science, having an alien belief,

disliking classical arts, failing to maximize your self-

interest or the overall utility, etc., all of which are at

the most some deficiencies or imperfections, but doing

substantive harm to any human being, which alone is the

unacceptable, radical evil in human life.

Viewed from this perspective, then, it is still

26

unjustifiable even if Christians’ hate refers to the

unbelief in God of non-Christians, not to them as persons,

because such hate wrongfully takes some deserved rights of

non-Christian neighbor as a wicked sin and thereby disclaims

the ideas of authentic religious freedom, which accept any

free choices of any person in the spiritual life so long as

these choices do not infringe any person’s deserved rights

and interests. Consequently, such hate also transgresses in

a substantive way the Christian command to love the

neighbor, since this command insists that Christians should

love their non-Christian neighbor by respecting and

protecting their deserved rights and interests, including

27

their right to make free choices in the spiritual life. It

is in this sense that the absolute priority of the command

to love God over the command to love the neighbor will lead

to the paradox “to violate morality for the sake of

Christian faith,” because it demands that Christians hate

the free spiritual choices of their non-Christian neighbor

for the sake of their love of God.

Viewed from this perspective, then, it is also inadequate

to ascribe the religious hatred and persecution against non-

Christians, who have been viewed as enemies of God merely

due to their unbelief, primarily to the sectarian or

imperial tendencies of some Christian communities. Rather,

28

they should be ascribed ultimately to the paradox of the

twofold love command as well as to the doctrine of

justification by faith, both of which are grounded in the

absolute priority of the first and greatest command over the

second command. By the same token, the religious hatred and

persecution against Christians in real life should not be

attributed merely to the sectarian or imperial tendencies of

some non-Christian communities, but also ultimately to the

particularistic position of those non-Christian doctrines

that wrongfully take Christian faith itself as an

unacceptable, hateful, and punishable wicked sin in terms of

the absolute priority of belief over ethics.

29

Indeed, we can notice a strange phenomenon in the

religious sphere: on the one hand, most influential

religious traditions definitely acknowledge the moral

principle “harm no one and benefit human beings” on the

basis of their faiths in some “Ultimate Reality,” forbidding

their followers to do any evil against that principle and

enjoining them to love fellow humans. On the other hand,

their faithful followers still often do substantive harm to

each other in religious hatred, persecution, conflicts, and

wars, which have frequently taken place in history and

nowadays. In my view, a key reason for this ironical

phenomenon is: these traditions do not give supreme weight

30

to that moral principle, but only give it to the “Ultimate

Reality” that is seen by themselves as the ultimate source

of all that is true, right, good, and just. As a result,

they often regard the denial of this “Reality” made by alien

traditions as the source of all that is false, wrong,

evil, and unjust and therefore as an attack on the ultimate

source of all that is true, right, good, and just. For this

reason, these traditions encourage their followers to hate

and punish the followers of alien traditions, who are

thought to commit an unforgivable sin because of their

denial of this “Reality,” in order to witness their own holy

faiths in this “Reality” and to ultimately overcome all that

31

is false, wrong, evil, and unjust. On their conception, it

is permissible and even praiseworthy for their followers to

do substantive harm to the “sinful” followers of alien

traditions and even to help the latter be left to their own

proximate or ultimate demise, because holy faith should

always trump secular morality in cases of conflict. In fact,

those extremely aggressive and bellicose views that advocate

the “holy war,” “jihad,” or similar violent actions for purely

religious purposes yield not only to some sectarian or

militant heterodox temptations, but ultimately to such

intrinsic, orthodox temptation of many religious traditions:

putting their own faiths above generally acknowledged

32

morality absolutely and thereby justifying the coercive and

violent actions to suppress and kill the “evil” followers of

alien traditions for the sake of their own faiths. In my

view, a crucial reason why, as Pascal puts it (1973, p.

231), “Men never do evil so unrestrainedly and so cheerfully

as when they do it from religious conviction” is this: these

people do believe that their holy faiths can make such moral

evil as the Inquisition, the Crusades, or cruel acts of

terrorism righteous and even sacred, just as Kierkegaard and

many other Christian theologians do believe that Abraham’s

holy faith in God can make such moral evil as murdering his

innocent son righteous and even sacred. We may argue in this

33

sense that, while various religious beliefs are themselves

the rightful and even holy choices of their followers in the

spiritual life, they will inevitably lead to religious

hatred, persecution, conflicts, and wars if they are placed

above the ultimate principle of moral rightness by the

“orthodoxies” of these beliefs. Therefore, the top priority

of faith over morality should be responsible for those

religious hatred, persecution, conflicts, and wars in large

measure, since it can effectively legitimize the actions to

violate universal morality for particular faith.

In order to avoid such religious hatred, persecution,

conflicts, and wars, thus, the major religious traditions of

34

the world, no matter whether they are theonomic or ontonomic

faiths, must give up their particularistic positions on the

priority of faith over morality and no longer regard any

alien faiths or unbelief as a hateful and punishable wicked

sin. Also for this good goal, Critical Humanism affirms the

rightfulness and holiness of various religious faiths per se

as the free choices of people in the spiritual life on the

one hand, and denies their particularistic positions on the

priority of belief over ethics on the other hand. In its

view, we should assign supremacy and inviolability first of

all to the moral precept “harm no one and benefit human

beings,” or its Christian expression “love your neighbor as

35

yourself,” or its modern reformulation “respect everyone’s

deserved rights and interests,” in order to prevent any

evils that infringe the deserved rights and interests of any

human being for any purpose, be it a holy one of religious

faith or a secular one of the general welfare or of the

Communist ideal.

3. A Construction of the Theology of Righteousness through

Agape

In my view, however, the above-stated paradox of

Christian love could not totally negate the essential unity

of the two love commands, by virtue of which, as the two

Professors point out, the Christian tradition enjoins its

36

followers both to love God and to love the neighbor under

the divine authority of Jesus Christ and thereby makes so

great contributions to humanity. As I argued in my article,

“just as we have no reason to omit or forget certain tragic

events in their history, we have no reason to omit or forget

those great charitable contributions made by many Christians

towards the whole world—including towards the non-Christian

world” (2007a, p. 692). For Christianity, the crux of the

issue is how to reunite the two love commands in a new way

by which they can really move beyond their moral paradox.

Out of this consideration, I would like to put forward a new

theology of agape according to the true spirit of Christian

37

love presented chiefly in the text of the New Testament,

although I am not a Christian (I am not a Confucian or a

Buddhist, either). Here are some main points of its new

interpretation of the relationship between the two love

commandments:

I. The two love commandments attributed to Jesus

Christ clearly show the basic feature of Christianity as a

“religion of love.” In following his teaching in Matthew

22:40, thus, the theology of agape holds that on them hang

all the law, the prophets, and the doctrines of

Christianity. Also in following his teaching that “There is

no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:31),

38

furthermore, the theology of agape assigns them as a whole

the top priority over any other Christian commands, so that

both of them are the greatest and inviolable in the

Christian framework. As faithful Christians, then, our love

for God and for the neighbor is even greater than our faith

in God or our hope for the eternal life. It is in this sense

that St. Paul declares: “And now faith, hope, and love

abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love” (1

Corinthians 13:13).

This conviction of the theology of agape is grounded on

the essence of God. It is written, “God is love” (1 John

4:8). To be sure, this text may be seen as an analogy.

39

However, it is an analogy with ontological implication,

since it is by “to be” that God and love is linked together.

Indeed, God has his being neither in faith nor in hope, but

just in his love, especially in his love for every human

being as his children. So it is written: “The grace of the

Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the

Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

II. To be sure, the two love commandments differ

from each other, since one takes divine God as the object of

love, whereas the other takes the mortal neighbor. Moreover,

our love for God witnesses our religious faith in God,

whereas our love for the neighbor witnesses our moral

40

treatment of fellow humans. For this reason, our Lord

differentiates them respectively as the “first” and the

“second” in order to indicate that “We love because he first

loved us” (1 John 4:19). Meanwhile, the two love commands

are very similar in stressing the greatest importance of

love in both the relation to God and the relation to our

fellow humans, and thereby integrate into an essential and

holy unity with each other. On the one hand, we as faithful

Christians cannot truly love our neighbor except in

conjunction with our love for God, because, without proper

love for God, our love for the neighbor may become simply a

clutch of scripted duties to familial, tribal, national, or

41

cultural solidarities (see Stackhouse 2007, p. 706). On the

other hand, as St. John remarks, “if we love one another,

God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us…. those who

do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot

love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have

from him is this: those who love God must love their

brothers and sisters also” (1 John 4:12, 4:20-21). St. Paul

also says, “I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut

off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred

according to the flesh” (Romans 9:3). What he really means

here is certainly not that he wishes to be accursed and cut

off from Christ, but is that, without proper love for the

42

neighbor, our love for God will also be in vain.

In the framework of the theology of agape, then, the

two love commandments always constitute an essential and

holy unity, even though they differ from each other in some

aspects. As faithful Christians, therefore, we should never

put love for God and love for the neighbor in separation or

opposition. More precisely speaking, we should never

decrease one in order to increase the other or even deny one

for the sake of the other. On the contrary, the theology of

agape is convinced that our love for God will never

diminish, but always solidify, our love for the neighbor,

and our love for the neighbor will never weaken, but

43

always strengthen, our love for God. It is also by affirming

this essential and holy unity that the theology of agape

carefully distinguishes the Christian idea of “love for the

neighbor” from any other ideas of “love for fellow humans”—

for example, the Greek idea of philia, the Moist idea of

“universal love” (jian ai兼兼), or the Enlightenment idea of

“fraternity.”

III. God’s love for his children is always universal

and impartial (see Romans 2:11), because he has not only

created every human being by his endless love, but also sent

his only Son in order to redeem all people in his endless

love. Therefore, St. Paul says, “we have our hope set on the

44

living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of

those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10). St. John also declares,

“he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours

only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

In the spiritual dimension, then, God is not at all a

jealous god, but is the God of forgiveness, tolerance, and

mercy. Without partiality, he not only loves us Christians

but also loves our non-Christian neighbor, since all of them

are his children. In other words, God love us humans, no

matter whether or not we believe in him, or in whatever way

we believe in him. As a merciful God, consequently, he

neither speaks the harsh words of impending judgment to

45

dramatize the accountability of all human beings for their

free choices in the religious life, nor imposes his wrath on

anyone purely because she does not love him. In short, God

never punishes non-Christians merely because of their

unbelief in God, but always respects their spiritual choices

out of their free will, which is among his gracious offers

to humanity. Here does manifest the breadth and length and

height and depth of the love of Christ that surpasses

knowledge (see Ephesians 3:19).

IV. In following this universal and impartial spirit of

Christ’s love, the theology of agape fully accepts the idea

of authentic religious freedom and thus give up the old

46

dogma that whoever does not believe will be condemned. It

insists that, as faithful Christians, we should fully

respect everyone’s deserved rights and interests, among them

including non-Christians’ free choices in the religious

life. In other words, we should neither regard any non-

Christian faith or unbelief as an unacceptable, hateful, and

punishable sin against God, nor hate, persecute, and

mistreat our non-Christian neighbor for religious reasons,

because such actions in punitive way involve depriving our

non-Christian neighbor’s deserved right to religious

freedom. In the final analysis, our Christian faith and all

the non-Christian choices can be said to share the spiritual

47

space in spite of some contrasting differences, as competing

sports teams may share the same field of play with different

strategies and abilities and still honorably play the same

game. Therefore, we should not hate and punish non-

Christians merely because they deny the reality of God in

the religious life, but should love them also as children of

God, since all persons are loved by God and thus are

spiritual siblings in the extended family of humankind, and

since the most love-worthy qualities of human beings are

based on the gifts God bestows, even if the people reject

the idea of a loving God. It is well known that, by highly

commending the Good Samaritan, our Lord does summon us to

48

exemplify authentic agape toward any and all of our fellow

human beings regardless of their beliefs and commitments

(see Luke 10:29-37). Anyway, the command “love your

neighbor” will not lose its greatest power and unlimited

effect merely because our neighbor does not believe in God

or believe in God in another way.

Regarding our faith in God as the only true conviction in

the spiritual life, frankly speaking, we do hold that

unbelief or non-Christian faiths are not suitable or perfect

answers to God’s gracious offer of blessedness and ultimate

fulfillment. Nevertheless, our response to unbelief or non-

Christian faiths is not to hate or punish them as the

49

unacceptable and intolerable sin against God, but to treat

them as a tolerable and forgivable deficiency or

imperfection of our non-Christian neighbor in the religious

life. Undoubtedly, we will help our non-Christian neighbor

remedy their deficiency or imperfection in this aspect and

turn to the most suitable and perfect way towards God, just

as we will also do our best to remedy our own deficiency or

imperfection in the spiritual life. Even if our non-

Christian neighbor are unwilling to convert to Jesus Christ,

however, we will still respect their free choices and pray

to God for them and love them sincerely as usual, neither

being indifferent to them nor cursing their free choices in

50

the religious life. It is written, “What if some were

unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the

faithfulness of God?” (Romans 3:3) We may ask in a similar

way, “What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness

nullify God’s love for them?” The answer is clear: their

faithlessness will neither nullify God’s love for them nor

nullify our love for them—that is, our affectionate respect

for their deserved rights and interests.

V. Indeed, “God is love,” and he will forgive the

unbelief or non-Christian faiths of our non-Christian

neighbor by his great mercy. Nonetheless, that does not mean

that God will also give up justice in the ethical dimension.

51

On the contrary, God establishes his justice precisely out

of his divine love for every human being, so that St. Paul

declares, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love

is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). In God’s

judgment, indeed, any act that does substantive harm to

human beings is wrong and punishable, whereas any act that

benefits human beings without substantively harming them is

right and praiseworthy (see Matthew 25:31-46). Thus St. Paul

says, “There will be anguish and distress for everyone who

does evil…, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who

does good…. For God shows no partiality” (Romans 2:9-11).

That is to say, God will execute the final judgment on both

52

Christians and non-Christians without partiality, and those

who violate and oppress the deserved rights and interests of

others, including the faithful, will themselves ultimately

have to answer for their evil deeds, no matter whether they

are Christians or non-Christians, and no matter whether

these evil deeds are done out of secular motivations or

religious ones. In the final analysis, our merciful God may

tolerate anything, including unbelief in him, but the evil

deed that does wrong to any human being. We certainly trust

that God’s righteous purposes will ultimately be realized in

such a just way.

VI. In following both God’s love and justice,

53

therefore, the theology of agape advocates a new doctrine of

justification by agape instead of the old one of

justification by faith within the Christian communities.

According to it, a Christian will become a righteous and

God-pleasing person if and only if she not only loves God in

her spiritual life but also loves her neighbor in her moral

life. In the view of the theology of agape, it is for this

reason that in Luke’s version the two love commands are

essentially presented as one command: “You shall love the

Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your

neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). As is well known, then

54

our Lord declares, “You have given the right answer; do

this, and you will live” (Luke 10:28). That is to say, love

both your God and your neighbor, and you will become

righteous.

In terms of this essential and holy unity of the double

love command, thus, any deeds that do substantive harm to

our neighbor cannot be justified even if they are done out

of the spiritual motivation of faith. They are always wrong

and evil precisely because they go ultimately against God’s

love for every human being. St. Paul makes it manifest: “And

whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for

family members, has denied the faith” (1 Timothy 5:8). We

55

may say therefore that whoever does not love her neighbor

but infringes their deserved rights and interests has

eventually denied the faith in God, since God not only loves

our neighbor but also enjoins us to love them.

According to the doctrine of righteousness through

agape, moreover, a non-Christian will also become a

righteous and God-pleasing person in the moral life so long

as she loves all fellow human beings without doing any

substantive harm to them, no matter whether she does so by

virtue of the Greek idea of philia, the Moist idea of

“universal love” (jian ai), or the Enlightenment idea of

“fraternity.” To be sure, in our view, she has not yet

56

achieved the perfection in the religious dimension due to

her unbelief or non-Christian faith. However, that will not

prevent her from being righteous in the ethical dimension.

As our Lord remarks, the Good Samaritan is a righteous and

God-pleasing person because of his authentic agape toward

any and all of fellow human beings, even though he did not

know Jesus Christ yet (see Luke 10:29-37). Giving up the old

dogma that whoever does not believe will not be righteous,

thus, the theology of agape carries out the doctrine of

righteousness through agape in such a universalistic way in

order to overcome the negative effects of the

particularistic doctrine of justification by faith.

57

VII. As faithful Christians and in following the

glorious example of our Lord, certainly we will always love

all of our neighbor in a universalistic way. Nonetheless,

that does not mean that we will give up justice in the

ethical dimension. On the contrary, the theology of agape

claims that our love for our neighbor and our obedience to

God’s justice is one and the same, because the ultimate

principle of both this love and this justice is: “harm no

one and benefit human beings.” This principle is sacred, for

it embodies the divine righteousness of God, who will never

forgive any evil deeds that do substantive harm to any

humans. As faithful Christians, thus, we do respect and

58

tolerate any pursuits of any humans in human life but the

ones that do wrong to any humans. In other words, based on

our conviction that “the greatest is love,” our tolerance is

not unprincipled but conditional, and its universalistic

minimum standard is: “harm no one and benefit human beings.”

Correspondingly, our love for all of our neighbor

does not mean that we will also give up hate in the ethical

dimension. On the contrary, we always hate those evil deeds

that infringe the deserved rights and interests of any human

beings, not being indifferent to them at all. In following

God’s love and justice, moreover, our hate shows no

partiality: no matter whoever does evil deeds, father and

59

mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and

even ourselves, we must hate these evil deeds, otherwise we

are not qualified to be the disciples of Jesus Christ. In

the view of the theology of agape, it is in this sense that

our Lord declares: “Whoever comes to me and does not hate

father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters,

yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple” (Luke

14:26). Obviously, such hate will not diminish, but rather

strengthen, our authentic love for all of our neighbor.

No need to repeat it in detail, such hate are aimed

purely and simply at the evil deeds that do substantive harm

to any human beings, including Christians, in the moral

60

life, not at all at anyone’s unbelief or non-Christian faith

in the spiritual life. In such hate, furthermore, we will

never inhumanly mistreat those who do evil deeds, including

those who mobilize militant forces against believers and

seek to destroy them with hostility, since we should not

repay these persons with “evil for evil.” On the contrary,

we will always seek to provide a context where their

deserved rights and interests as human beings are fully

respected and protected, because these persons are still

God’s children and our neighbor. Put differently, we still

love them as our neighbor and respect their deserved rights

and interests in an affectionate way, even if we do hate

61

and punish their evil acts and evil practices at the same

time. It is in this sense that the theology of agape

understands the words of our Lord: “he makes his sun rise on

the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous

and on the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45).

I have been little disciplined in the field of

Christian theology. Thus, there must be many theoretical

defects in the above-stated outline of “theology of agape.”

However, I do hold that this theology will prevent faithful

Christians from hating, persecuting, and mistreating

their non-Christian neighbor out of purely religious

62

motivations and make its active contribution to spreading

the Christian gospel of love in this pluralistic world.

Meanwhile, I do know, partly from my personal experience,

that so many Christians both love God and love their

neighbor in real life precisely in such a way of

“righteousness through agape.” I do also believe that if the

two love commands can be united in such an essential and

holy way, they will certainly move beyond their paradox and

point, together, more to an answer than to a problem in our

increasingly globalizing world.

63

References

Kierkegaard, Søren. 1983. Fear and Trembling/Repetition. Trans. by

Howard Hong and Edna Hong. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

L i u Q i n g-p i n g兼 兼 兼 . 2 0 0 7 a . “ A P a r a d o x o f C h r i s t i a n L o v e.”

Journal of Religious Ethics 35.4: 681-694.

L i u Q i n g-p i n g. 2 0 0 7 b . “ C o n f u c i a n i s m a n d C o r r u p t i o n : A n

Analysis of Shun’s Two Actions Described by Mencius.” Dao:

A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 6.1:1-19.

Liu Qing-ping. 2008. “May We Harm Fellow Humans for the Sake

of Kinship Love?: A Response to Critics.” Dao: A Journal o f

Comparative Philosophy 7.3: 307-316.

64

Ogletree, Thomas W. 2007. “The Essential Unity of the Love

C o m m a n d s : M o v i n g B e y o n d P a r a d o x . ” J o u r n a l o f R e l i g i o u s E t h i c s

35.4: 695-700.

Pascal, Blaise. 1973. Pensées. Trans. by John Warrington.

London: Dent & Sons.

S t a c k h o u s e, M a x L . 2 0 0 0 . “ T h e C h r i s t i a n E t h i c o f L o v e : A

Dialogue Response.” Journal of Religious Ethics 35.4: 700-711.

65