Are Love and Forgiveness Always the Same Thing?
At least in this country, we live in a unique time. I like to preface these kinds of generalizations with “in this country” because our tendency is to see things through a Western perspective, especially the Reformation which was primarily a European thing. That’s why I have begun studying (in preparation for a third book I am writing) the church history of other regions like Africa and China.
But back to the present day in this country; with spiritual despotism being rampant, the subject of forgiveness is heavy in the air. Thinking Christians find themselves in a quandary: how do we hold people accountable with a pure heart void of revenge? Or should we hold people accountable at all? Should we “forgive and forget”? After all, we should forgive the way we were forgiven, right?
Indeed, this is tricky territory, but may I start from a practical standpoint? There seems to be this thing called unresolved conflict that makes “forgiving and moving on with our lives” a lot easier said than done. In fact, I wonder if people who have been wronged with no resolution who say they have “moved on with their lives” have really done so. You can move on, but what is going with you?
Then there is the following question: is it likely that what has been done to you will also be done to others by the same person/people? Now things get really tricky. I don’t think the Bible covers prevention specifically, but it may be a matter of God-given common sense. Not wanting to hold individuals accountable for what they did to you for prevention purposes because it is uncomfortable or not your personality may be deemed selfish. Moreover, it could be argued that you are partially responsible for unhindered future acts.
As one who has had to struggle with this question, let me give you the best answer I have to date: we need to hold people accountable in a biblical way, and there is also some liberty involved. The apostle Peter said that “love covers a multitude of sin,” and I do think we have the liberty to cover offences with love (barring complicity or putting others in danger). But if we find ourselves without the grace to not continually bring up the offence to ourselves, to the offender, and to others, that’s a huge problem. That’s unresolved conflict bouncing around in our minds and refusing to go away.
In such cases, the Bible prescribes a process for resolution; we all know what it is, Matthew 18:15-20. Though only six verses, it covers every conceivable situation. Considering the source, that shouldn’t surprise us. Let me just mention a few. In the first step, we may find out that the offence was just a simple misunderstanding. In the second step, and with the help of the two witnesses, we may find out that we are being petty and making a mountain out of a molehill. However, if that’s not the case and it goes further, there is no guarantee that the church as a whole will see it the same way. I think that is why Jesus refers back to the second step in verse 20. Think about it: the third step involves the whole church, but he refers back to the second step.
Nevertheless, the whole church confronting an individual is very powerful, and will probably yield results, and excludes anything in the process from being behind closed doors. If the results are not favorable, the wronged person receives the support of the whole church. The church states that they will not fellowship with said person or persons until they reconcile with you. Not only that, the person/persons are prevented from doing the same thing to others in the same church, and theoretically, any other church when they disallow membership because of former unresolved issues with another church. Prevention. No?
Now, it is true, the apostle Paul said that we are to forgive as we have been forgiven. That’s the gospel, right? Well, partly. I wouldn’t be dogmatic about this, but if you want to bring the gospel into this, the following is at least a fair question: Did God forgive us without our repentance? Furthermore, Christ said that “IF” the offender “listens to you,” you have gained a brother. In Luke 17 concerning the same subject, Christ said to forgive your brother seven times seventy “IF” he repents. If he repents, you “must forgive him.” In the parable of the unmerciful servant, we find that we are to also forgive if there is repentance, but restitution is not possible. That’s the gospel; we repented, but certainly, the only restitution we have to offer is in Christ. But also, on the horizontal level, we must remember the example of Zacharias when restitution is possible.
So, if we are sinned against, and the offending party refuses to repent, are we obligated to forgive them? I’m not sure about that (while leaning toward, “no”), but I am sure about the following: we are obligated before God to love our enemies. Note that it is interesting that the Lord states that we will have enemies. What is a biblical “enemy”? May I suggest that it is someone that we are not reconciled to? This would seem apparent. In regard to our enemies, we are not to take revenge on them. The apostle Paul is very specific about this in Romans 12. If our enemies have a need that we are aware of, we are to fulfill that need. The Old Testament law stated that if we happened across our enemy’s oxen that had gotten loose, we were obligated to return it to him/her. Paul wrote that if our enemy is hungry, we are to feed him/her. I would imagine that such opportunities are divine appointments that lend great opportunity for reconciliation (as an aside to the aforementioned point concerning the gospel, the gospel is also referred to in the Bible as being “reconciled to God”).
But is holding someone accountable also an act of love? Proverbs states: “The kisses of an enemy are deceitful, but the wounds of a friend are faithful.” And, “Be angry but sin not.” Let me suggest that we may be angry with someone, and not obligated to forgive them without repentance, but obligated to love them. Does not God love many enemies daily by giving them breathe and a litany of other innumerable resources? Being angry at those whom we are un-reconciled with is not revenge. It is interesting to note that in Romans, Paul immediately speaks of being subject to government authorities after instructing Christians to not avenge themselves. I think these thoughts are related. In regard to revenge that is not against civil law: “….bless, and do not curse them.” We are to bless our enemies and conduct ourselves “honorably” (Romans 12) before all in regard to them, but remember, that does not exclude holding them accountable.
There is another point that I am certain of, and unlike the daring assertion that Christians are not obligated to forgive without reconciliation. Christians are not called to a mental/emotional decision to forgive from the heart—it simply won’t work. A true forgiveness from the heart must be solidified by action. Forgiveness and love in the Bible are ALWAYS related to some kind of action. We don’t love our enemies from the mind only. Neither do we forgive them from the mind only. The apostle Paul NEVER stated that we are to, “Forgive and forget, or “forgive and move on with our lives.” We are to not do this (curse), and to do that (bless) instead. We don’t ignore their needs, but rather feed them instead.
But all in all, the vast majority of unresolved conflict in the church today is the non-application of the Matthew 18 process by leaders and for leaders. Hordes of today’s leaders will fellowship with each other, and give each other credibility despite the long list of unreconciled conflict that they have with other Christians. This puts the laity in tricky waters.
But that’s not on us. That’s on them. And I hope these thoughts lend some worthwhile ideas to the chosen direction. However, non-action is not an option, and forgiveness does not always walk with love.
paul
Former Abused Missionary Children Are Loving ABWE God’s Way
“Sometimes, confronting rather than forgiving is the most loving thing you can do.”
If you haven’t been vacationing on another planet, you have probably heard about the group that published a website in order to publicly confront ABWE for covering up the following: http://bangladeshmksspeak.com/
This bold move conjures up all kinds of opinions, but let me begin with the opinions that instigated this post (my second on the subject). My missionary son-in-law posted a 20/20 expose on his FB page about children who were sexually abused in IFB churches: http://www.hulu.com/watch/231215/abc-2020-fri-apr-8-2011?c
I watched the clip, and was struck by how one of the abused children who sought help was counseled by a pastor: “Real Christians forgive and forget, and move on with their lives.” Then, the other day, I visited the aforementioned site and observed this comment on another posted link regarding the Bangladesh children: “Donn Ketcham DID confess his sins a long time ago. Christ has forgiven him, so it’s time the rest of you did likewise!…Mark 11:25-26 states that if we do not forgive then neither will our Heavenly Father forgive US. There is an echo in my mind…’Get over it!’”
Is this true? Are Christians, even those who have been sexually abused, biblically obligated to “forgive and forget”? Before I make my case, let me answer the question and qualify it. The answer is NO; but, that doesn’t mean revenge is in order either. Not forgiving doesn’t equal: revenge is ok. See Romans chapter 12 on that. We are to love those whom we are un-reconciled to (i.e., enemies), and we are to do good to them and bless them. And by the way, speaking from personal experience—that’s really easy to do if you don’t have to forgive them. I can’t explain that, but it’s probably due to the fact that God knows what He’s talking about. Hence, the Bangladesh children (now grown-up) do well: they are not partaking in unbiblcal forgiveness and they are loving those who have wronged them. Huh? That’s right. Sometimes, confronting rather than forgiving is the most loving thing you can do.
Now I’d better make my case. Let’s look at Matthew 18:15-17
“If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Does ABWE qualify as “brother”? What about Ketcham? Of course they do. And by the way, Jesus doesn’t say “your brother in the local assembly.” A case for a strictly local application cannot be made here. Also note that Jesus says IF he listens to you (repents: see Luke 17:3), “you have won your brother over.” That’s “IF” he repents. If he doesn’t repent, other people are to be involved. If he still doesn’t repent, the church at large is to be told. If he still doesn’t listen: “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Jesus didn’t say, “forgive him anyway.” And, “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” doesn’t sound like forgiveness to me.
Furthermore, Jesus had another opportunity to discuss no-fault forgiveness when His teaching prompted this question by the disciples: “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?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.’” This is further elaborated on in Luke 17:3,4; “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” In the parable that immediately follows in Matthew’s account, a warning to those who refuse to forgive those who have asked for forgiveness is the issue. In fact, Bible verses that fall under this category (where a seeking to be forgiven is assumed) are usually the ones people cite to make a case for “forgive and forget” whether reconciliation has been sought or not. Notice how Christ emphasizes the necessity of repentance: “If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” It would seem that this would be a better opportunity for Christ to teach no-fault forgiveness even if somebody sins against you seven times in one day. To the contrary, He seems to use the seven times to illustrate the need for reconciliation / repentance instead, and the obligation to forgive accordingly.
Granted, petty offences should be covered with love (1Peter 4:8). And in the Matthew 18 process, if the offended party is being petty—the two witnesses should tell him—that’s the beauty of how the Holy Spirit designed the process (it’s doubtful that He didn’t see some kind of circumstance that isn’t covered). However, forgiving and forgetting serious offences, and thereby leaving the offender in a bad situation with God—is not how we love people. Matthew 5:23,24 states the following: “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” Proverbs 28:13 says, “He who conceals his sins does not prosper,
but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” I realize there are many verses like Mark 11:25 that seem to call for blanket forgiveness, but I think these verses assume reconciliation has been sought, and there is also a sense in which we can not allow ourselves to dwell on offences that are un-reconciled (Philippians 4:8,9) which could lead to bitterness. But in all of this, the specific and clear language of Matthew 18 and Luke 17 must be considered.
The Gospel
Though I hesitate to use the gospel for a prism to interpret, one might consider that Ephesians 4:32 says to forgive others the way God has forgiven us, but we must remember that God doesn’t forgive us unless we repent (Acts 2:38). We must be “reconciled” to God (2Corinthians 5:18-21). Let me put this in some real-life context. I have an unsaved relative who has offended me on many occasions, but I have chosen to cover the incidents in love. However, he recently went too far. Though I have had the opportunity to help him after the fact and have done so, I am also making it clear to him that until he acknowledges his sin and commits to not repeating it—our relationship is hindered. “And by the way, God will not forgive you until you reconcile with him as well.” The incident offers more opportunity to present the gospel to him than in past memory. It begs the question: should we forgive in anyway unlike God forgives? Should we forgive in a way that God wouldn’t? Even in regard to Christians, if we do not ask for forgiveness, we are open to be chastised by God (1John 1:9).
What is Forgiveness?
Like the motivation for forgiveness, love, forgiveness is not a feeling. Forgiveness is first a declaration (Isaiah 43:25, Jeremiah 31:34). If forgiveness was just a feeling experienced by the forgiver—we wouldn’t know that we were forgiven. Forgiveness is also active. Jay Adams wrote the following in regard to Isa. 43:25 and Jer. 31:34;
“Obviously, the omniscient God who created and sustains the universe does not forget, but He can not remember. You see, forgetting is passive and is something that we human beings, not being omniscient, do. Not remembering is active; it is a promise whereby one person (in this case, God) determines not to remember the sins of another against him. To not remember is simply a graphic way of saying, I will not bring up these matters to you or others in the future. I will bury them and not exhume the bones to beat you over the head with them. I will never use these sins against you.”
Even if you don’t agree with anything written here, Adams’ clarification above will aid you greatly, for if you believe in no-fault, blanket forgiveness, and you tell the offender accordingly, a vow is still a vow which God takes seriously (Psalm 15:4). It’s safe to assume that many Christians say they forgive others and then hope the right feeling of forgiveness will just happen somehow. Truly “forgetting” will certainly never happen if you talk about it. But let me inject another example at this point. Recently, I saw an interview with a missionary whose husband had been brutally murdered in another country. However, the missionaries belonged to what was a cult by anybody’s standard. I watched as she calmly spoke of how she had completely forgiven her husband’s murderers. Something made me very uneasy about the testimony and I truly doubt the world was impressed by it. Her forgiveness for the murderers may have been her own, but it certainly wasn’t God’s.
Should sexually abused children really “forgive and forget,” and thereby pave the way for (among many, many, other issues) a Christian organization to cover-up criminal activity?
Not only do I doubt that, I would contend that their confrontation is the most formable act of love perpetrated on ABWE and Donn Ketcham in the past thirty years.
paul
Divorce: The Ultimate “I won’t Forgive You”
It’s hard to deny and difficult to understand, but God binds relationships through agreements. This was true at the very beginning. The following is an excerpt from another post:
“God created man for the purpose of being blessed by God and bearing his image. He was to have dominion over God’s creation. He was also created for the purpose of being fruitful and multiplying. But God also put something between himself and man, a standard:
‘Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die'” (Genesis 2:15-17).
From the very beginning, the foundation of relationship between God and man was God setting the standard or structure and man following in obedience, or being faithful to God’s structure. When man did not hold to his part of the relationship, no words could adequately describe the disaster that followed. God is truly one who utilizes covenants in his relationships, and places a very high premium on them. When man failed, the foundation of the relationship was destroyed, and God chose to take action to restore the relationship. As one theologian said: “He bankrupted Heaven to do it.”
Very early and often in Scripture, God established the institution of Marriage to represent the covenant between him and his people. God chose Abraham to found a great nation of people to execute his restoration to the world. This nation, called Israel, would oversee the preservation of God’s word and his message to the world. From this nation would come the Messiah and Savior of the world. Unfortunately, Israel would fail as Adam did. Here is what God says concerning the above reality:
‘Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem, ‘Your origin and your birth are from the land of the Canaanite, your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. As for your birth, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water for cleansing; you were not rubbed with salt or even wrapped in cloths. No eye looked with pity on you to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you. Rather you were thrown out into the open field, for you were abhorred on the day you were born. When I passed by you and saw you squirming in your blood, I said to you {while you were} in your blood, ‘Live!’ Yes, I said to you {while you were} in your blood, ‘Live!’ I made you numerous like plants of the field. Then you grew up, became tall and reached the age for fine ornaments; {your} breasts were formed and your hair had grown. Yet you were naked and bare. Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine, declares the Lord GOD. Then I bathed you with water, washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I also clothed you with embroidered cloth and put sandals of porpoise skin on your feet; and I wrapped you with fine linen and covered you with silk. I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck. I also put a ring in your nostril, earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your dress was of fine linen, silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour, honey and oil; so you were exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty'” (Ezekiel 16:3-13).
The following verses in chapter 16 describe Israel’s horrific betrayal of God’s trust. Said another way by God, he instructs the prophet Hosea to literally take a prostitute for a wife as an in your face living illustration:
When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and {have} children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD” (Hosea 1:2,3).
However, here is where we begin to see that the culmination of the covenant did not, does not, and will not, depend on the performance of Israel. Hosea is instructed to go to the local auction and buy his wife back who had left him to resume her harlotry:
Then the LORD said to me, “Go again, love a woman {who} is loved by {her} husband, yet an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the son of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.” So I bought her for myself for fifteen {shekels} of silver and a homer and a half of barley. Then I said to her, “You shall stay with me for many days. You shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man; so I will also be toward you” (Hosea 3:1-3).
It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Hosea’s love for Gomer and God’s love for Israel didn’t depend on their performance. In the Abrahamic Covenant, God put Abraham in a deep sleep and consummated the covenant himself because it did not, could not, and would not depend on anybody but God [Genesis 15].
The concept of a marriage relationship between God and his people is replete throughout the Old Testament and int0 the New. Marriage then, at least in part, symbolizes God’s forgiveness, mercy and dedication to his covenant elect.
I have often wondered why God said he hated divorce (Malachi 16:2). I wonder, because he never specifically states why he hates divorce. However, I think we have a hint in Ephesians 5:25 where Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the Church? The same way he loved Israel. God’s devotion to Israel has never depended on their performance and the church is no different. Why would it be? God only brought in the Gentiles to make Israel jealous anyway (Romans 10:19, Romans 11:11). Marriage then, is symbolic of God’s forgiveness, his mercy, his covenants, and especially the gospel. God’s covenants exemplify his mercy and forgiveness.
If you know what the Scriptures teach about forgiveness, it’s not hard to understand why God hates divorce. Those who will not forgive, do not understand how much they have been forgiven. Those who will not forgive, do not see themselves in Gomer. Those who will not forgive, do not see themselves in Ezekiel 16:15-63. Christ made it clear, “For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little” (Luke 7:47). Mark 6:14 speaks of our responsibility to forgive “men” (mankind in general) in order to be forgiven by God ourselves. Luke 6:35 speaks of being kind to the wicked in order to be “sons of the Most High.” How much more towards the one whom which you share an intimate relationship ordained by God and symbolic of his gospel covenant? In the sermon on the mount, the subject of divorce among other subjects, is nestled squarely between anger and retaliation, and Christ makes it clear that just cause for divorce is very narrow indeed.
I am amazed at the flippant attitude in our culture concerning marriage, even among Christians. It’s not a party, it’s an emblem of God’s covenant faithfulness. The execution of the marriage covenant will either reject God or uphold his Glory. Divorce not only proclaims a refusal to forgive the covenant partner, it proclaims that fact publicly, and even sues for the spoils and restitution. A single divorce can produce an impressive list of things contrary to the sermon on the mount which primarily addresses relationships at many levels.
My uneducated grandmother understood all of this. She was married to my lost grandfather for 35 years. Suffice to say, she had the liberty to divorce him by biblical standards several fold. But he never wanted to loose her, that’s for sure. Well, finally, shortly before his death, he was saved. My grandmother never remarried, but God blessed her abundantly in the several years she lived afterword. By most standards in Christianity today, she would be labeled a fool, but it was never about her. Enter Brad Pitt, he is getting divorced again. Apparently, from what I am reading, another wife did not live up to his standards. Remember the woman at the well? Five husbands did not meet her standards and she gave up on marriage all together. Statistics indicate that first time marriages only have a 50/50 chance of survival whether Christian or secular. An astounding 80% of second marriages end in divorce, and the beat goes on.
At the core is an unwillingness to forgive. We understand why unbelievers can’t forgive, they have never been forgiven. What is perplexing is the wide spread acceptance among Christians of the ultimate and public statement of unforgiveness: Divorce.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
5 comments