As I mentioned in yesterday's post I often struggle with the issue of forgiveness - what it is, what it isn't, what it means, how you do it, etc. Yesterday I argued that it is possible to be forgiving while still withholding some privileges from the one who has offended you.
The trouble with that kind of advice is that if you say what I just said, most people want to camp out there and not discuss anything else. When a conflict happens most folks are willing to give lip-service to the idea of forgiveness, but what they really want is justification for withholding relational privileges from the one who offended them.
Though withholding of relational privileges is allowable in some instances, it is not allowable in all instances, nor is it mandated that we must always withhold relational privileges. When we are offended, we tend to default to a withholding mode, but the gospel tells us that we must default to a giving mode.
There is a real sense in which, when we are offended, we ought to view the offense as a gift from God. I'm not saying that we are obligated to do the dance for joy when we are offended, but I am saying that God's hand is in every offense we receive.
God's hand is not only in every offense we receive, but He gives some directions as to how the offended can bless the offender. And so, while we may have justification for withholding some relational privileges from an offender at times, the real issue is that the offended is called to bless the offender.
Forgiveness is not a passive thing, it is an aggressive thing which actively seeks to bless the offender. Hence, I contend that at the heart of forgiveness is the aggressive and gracious pursuit of the offender by the one who has been offended. Such pursuit does not always have to result in the full restoration of relationship, but it must result in blessing to the offender.
This occurred to me recently as I was reading Matthew 18:21-22:
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
By the way, I prefer those translations which translate this as "seventy times seven," contra the NIV.
What occurred to me is that, in volunteering to forgive his brother seven times, Peter was being more generous and forgiving than almost all of us. There is an old saying that goes "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." Although this saying isn't speaking of forgiveness it does say that we are fools if we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of more than once.
Most folks I know are willing to give offenders a second chance, and some particularly gracious folks are willing to forgive folks even a third time. I've met very few who will forgive the same offense seven times. Thus, Peter ought not to be seen as an example of unforgiveness, rather as an example of magnanimity.
But he also is an example of the fact that human magnanimity doesn't begin to compare to divine magnanimity.
When Jesus tells Peter to forgive 490 times He is not setting a numerical value on forgiveness, as if to simply extend the limits. He is saying that forgiveness is to be unlimited. The number itself is not important here, it is just illustrative.
But let's pretend that the number is significant here and consider the implications. Let's say that this brother who has offended Peter has now done it for the third or fourth time. Peter is starting to get his hackles up and there are only three or four more times he can go before he pulls the plug.
Jesus says to Peter that he must forgive this person with the full knowledge that the person may commit the same offense against him another 485 or so times.
Put yourself in Peter's shoes. If you were to know that someone who just offended you is most likely going to do it another 485 times, would you offer that person forgiveness this time? Most folks wouldn't. They would argue that forgiveness is not the issue we need to be concerned with here. The issue is not my forgiveness, the issue is the offender's incorrigibility. Most folks would argue that continued expressions of forgiveness would encourage such incorrigibility.
And while it is true that the incorrigibility is the dominant issue in the life of the offender, this is not the dominant issue in the life of the one who is offended. The dominant issue for the one who has been offended is the cultivation of a forgiving heart.
This is crucial to see. Notice that, with Peter, Jesus doesn't even address the offender. He doesn't talk about him. For most of those who are offended, the deeds of the offender are all they want to talk about. But Jesus doesn't do this, He talks to Peter about his own heart.
But just as faith without works is dead, so forgiveness without expression is dead. You have not forgiven if you have not expressed forgiveness. That is where I get back to the idea that forgiveness is aggressive, and that forgiveness involves the gracious pursuit of the offender.
And this is where most folks balk. Many folks will forgive as long as they don't have to deal with the offender any more.
A good example of what I am saying is in Matthew 5:38-42
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids
Just in case there are any scholars out there who don't think this applies to the matter of personal offenses, I want to point out that verses 39-40 are the antithetical application of verse 38. Verse 38 deals with retribution in case of an offense. Instead of returning offenses in like manner, we are to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile.
I do understand this passage may prove more than I want to prove here, because it seems to say that we can never withhold privileges from someone who has offended us. Some may see this as advocating a kind of timex watch theology where we take the licking and keep on taking lickings while we keep on ticking.
At the risk of sounding like I am copping out here, I think we can apply to the principle of the analogy of faith, that Scripture interprets Scripture. As I mentioned in my prior post, Jesus allows for divorce in the case of adultery in Matthew 19, Paul allows for it in the case of desertion in I Corinthians 7. The whole subject of church discipline in Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 5 shows us that consequences for sin are to be given.
This is not to denude Matthew 5:38-42 of its meaning. It simply means that we must interpret the Matthew passage in light of the rest of Scripture. But the positive import of Matthew 5 is that we must actively seek to bless those who offend and torment us. While we don't always have to restore privlige we are obligated to give gifts of kindness and blessing to those who offend us.
That's the whole point of the follow-on passage in Matthew 5:43-48:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Here, we are specifically commanded to pray for and bless those who offend us. You can see something similar in Proverbs 25:21-22 (quoted in Romans 12:20).
21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the Lord will reward you.
There is a good deal of debate as to what the heaping of the coals is. Is this a way of shaming our enemy, a backhanded way of retribution, or an act of kindness. I take it to be the latter. In the Word commentary, J.D.G. Dunn says it this way:
Without being able to specify the meaning precisely therefore we probably have sufficient reason to conclude that Paul would have intended the Proverbs citation to bear a positive meaning: that is, as explicating and underlining the importance of meeting an enemy with hospitality and kindness.
And I suggest that, even at times when we are withholding some privileges, these things can happen.
At the risk of sounding like I'm drifting into pious platitudes, I think that part of our problem is that we don't seem to be producing very many heroic Christians these days. By heroic Christians, I mean those who joyfully obey the difficult passages of Scripture and those who remain faithful in the midst of difficulty.
In Philippians 1:29 Paul says:
If we can't see suffering for Christ as a gift then there is no way we can actively and graciously pursue an offender.For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him,
Philippians 3:8 says:
If we can't consider everything a loss in view of the surpassing greatness of knowing Jesus Christ then we won't be able to actively and graciously pursue those who cause us loss.What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things.
Hebrews 10:32-34 says:
If we can't see insult and persecution as causes for joy and reminders that we have better and lasting possessions we won't be able to actively and graciously pursue an offender.32 Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. 33 Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. 34 You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.
There is a way of pursuing Christ which will produce a Corrie Ten Boom who can forgive those who imprisoned her and killed her family. And there is a way of pursuing Christ which will produce husbands and wives and neighbors and bosses and church members who easily forgive and pursue one another with love and grace.
Somehow, we need to refashion our faith along those lines. I don't have the answers. I think one step toward an answer is to confront the fact that Francis Schaeffer was probably correct when he said that the dominant worldview today is that personal peace and affluence are the highest goods in life. We've got to replace that with a faith that really and tangibly values Christ as the highest good.
We also need to read and live the rest of Matthew 18 and the parable of the unmerciful steward. Here it is that we find that someone else's sins against us do not compare to our sins against God and thus there is no justification for a sense of moral superiority which is in reality a cloak for bitterness.
And, having said that, we need to realize that it is our faith that is more precious than gold. Thus, if we could see offenses as part of the refining process then forgiveness would more easily be seen as a part of the process.
That's the kind of stuff that doesn't play well in our day. I am guessing that those who read those last few paragraphs will agree with them pretty much, there's nothing new in them. But when a particular issue comes up it is difficult for people to apply these.
We may acknowledge that Christ is the highest good, but that's not the issue, the issue is not the glory of Christ, it's what that guy just did to me. My sins against God may be greater than this person's sins against me but we think that's not the issue - the issue is what they did to me. My fait may be more precious than gold, but how is that going to help me get my money back?
That's how we tend to think and that's what I mean when I say that a kind of "heroic" faith is the antidote to such thinking. A heroic faith rises above our fallen human ways of thinking and thinks Christ's thoughts after Him. And thinking Christ's thoughts after Him leads us to aggressively and graciously pursue those who offend us.
Interesting and difficult stuff. Will meditate on it.
Thanks,
PGE
Posted by: pgepps | July 20, 2005 at 07:13 PM
I'm turning over the idea of "a blessing to the offender." When God forgives me, when I'm the offender, the main blessing is the forgiveness itself -- having back peace with God. Possibly (if I get a clue) I might also pick up some determination not to fall into the same temptation and sin again. That's the real repentance there, where I learn to despise the sin, turn my back on it and towards God. Otherwise, there's a risk that sin just erodes the relationship and "forgiveness" without repentance ... is it really forgiveness? And I think the extent to which I grow depends on the extent to which I realize that I was truly wrong.
Risky, very risky, for such fallible, egotistical creatures are ourselves to put ourselves into "making sure the other person realizes how wrong they were". Tricky, very tricky to be true to justice there. A tendency to brow-beat the other person, the temptation to use "forgiveness" and an opportunity to exact revenge on the other person; the opposite temptation to sweep it under the rug. Either one will weaken and corrode the relationship.
Forgiveness is a minefield of its own. I've been wrestling with it a lot lately. Thank you for your thoughts on it.
Posted by: WeekendFisher | July 22, 2005 at 12:54 AM