« Multi-Site Churches Re-Visited | Main | Baseball Goes the Way of the Church: No More Organ! »
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Conflict? Ask Ken: Does Forgiving Unrepentant Sinners Promote Sin?
Briefly summarizing a portion of last week’s posting, a third alternative to unconditional forgiveness and bitterness toward an unrepentant sinner was proposed. That alternative is being “willing to forgive." In being "willing to forgive," the person who is wronged strives to be long-suffering and is prepared to do good even to those who have hurt us, not seeking revenge. Consider these two passages.
Romans 12:17-21
17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
2 Timothy 4:14
14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.
The Problem with Unilateral Forgiveness of the Unrepentant
Forgiveness means that we promise not to call another’s wrong to mind and hold it against them. If we truly “unilaterally” forgive someone, how can we ever bring the offender into account for his or her offense? We can’t otherwise it is not forgiveness. So the deeper question becomes, is a wrongdoer helped if he or she is no longer accountable for wrongs not confessed? In this vein, consider Hebrews 12:4-8
4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. 6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” 7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
The lesson to be learned from this passage is that those who are not held accountable for their actions are not really valued as sons of God. Likewise, for us to turn a blind eye when a person hurts others with impunity, to remain silent when someone is doing wrong, to not confront and challenge that person to change their mindset (repent) and seek a higher path, is not love.
In response to last week’s posting (April 7, 2005, 12:06 pm), Gene well wrote:
“We need to have the attitude of being willing to forgive, but I do think it needs to be conditional on a truly repentant attitude. We are doing the offender a disservice if they are not held responsible for their actions. It is only thru being held responsible that they are able to see the mistake(s) they are making and therefore a reason to change/grow. By not holding them responsible you are in effect enabling them to continue in a sinful lifestyle. I do not believe we are called to be enablers for sin.”
We live in a world where moral order exists. To identify moral wrongs brings a sense of right and wrong into balance. Being upset over injustice is a moral response. If we forgive someone without conversation about the wrong we are forgiving, how can that broken relationship ever become fully reconciled? How can there be relational wholeness when injustice goes unacknowledged?
Only when there is agreement between the offender and offended regarding a hurtful action that the basis for true reconciliation exists. And isn’t that how we make peace with God? It was for human injustice and sin that God sent His Son to die on the cross. For our part, we must acknowledge by faith what Jesus did for us on the cross, and “confess” our sins. In Greek, “confess” means to “say the same thing.” Hence, it is only when we come to that point when we “say the same thing” about our sins as God does, that we are forgiven.
Lest we forget, giving and receiving forgiveness is a relational activity. Just as an apology is not effective by talking to oneself, neither is forgiveness in the New Testament viewed as something unilaterally engaged in apart from any connection to the offending party.
The idea that we, in isolation, forgive others because it heals us is not Biblically derived. It is a concept that originates from our highly self-centered and individualistic Western culture. Biblically, forgiveness represents a transaction between two people. God does not unilaterally enter into a relationship with us. We connect with God only when we confess our sins and trespasses. Until that time, He remains willing to enter into a reconciled relationship. He remains willing to forgive. I am hard-pressed to imagine that we will be off the mark if we adopt the same mindset.
Discussion
This brings to a conclusion this series on forgiveness. Thanks to all who have participated with their comments. Please take the time to share your final thoughts or experiences.
--
© 2005 Kenneth C. Newberger
Ken Newberger, an experienced church conflict resolution specialist, earned his Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, has ten years senior pastoral experience, and is in the dissertation phase for his Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, one of only two accredited doctoral programs of its kind in the United States. If your church needs help resolving conflict, if you need individual coaching, or if you would like to introduce a proactive conflict management system into your church, please visit Ken's website at www.ResolveChurchConflict.com or call 301-253-8877.
Add Your Comments and Ideas now...
Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts
April 14, 2005 in Church Conflict | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d83475d86569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Conflict? Ask Ken: Does Forgiving Unrepentant Sinners Promote Sin?:
Comments
This article helped to clarify what you were saying in the last two parts of this series. Thank you for broadening my perspective on forgiveness, repentance and restoration. I believe this is a healthy approach when dealing with any type of sin, whether our own or someone else's. God bless you and "amen" to that!
Posted by: LD | Apr 14, 2005 11:20:28 AM
This article helped to clarify what you were saying in the last two parts of this series. Thank you for broadening my perspective on forgiveness, repentance and restoration. I believe this is a healthy approach when dealing with any type of sin, whether our own or someone else's. God bless you and "amen" to that!
Posted by: LD | Apr 14, 2005 11:23:08 AM
I would agree that our forgiveness from Christ is based on our repentance, but what about the passages that do not include repentance. The Lords prayer would be one example where we are to forgive those who tresspass against us. No mention is made of their repentance. It would also seem to be a problem of who determines if the one seeking forgiveness is really repentant. I have seen instances where forgiveness was not granted because one party did not believe the other was sincere. When Jesus tells Peter to forgive his brother 70 times 7 He does not qualify it with repentance. I do believe that we must hold people accountable for their actions, and bring them to an understanding of what their actions have done. But I do not believe that it is my place to determine if they are repentant enough, I need to forgive when asked to. They must be repentant and accountalbe for their sins.
Posted by: Bart | Apr 14, 2005 3:47:57 PM
Bart wrote: "When Jesus tells Peter to forgive his brother 70 times 7 He does not qualify it with repentance."
Matthew 18:22 does not specifically use the word "repent" in THAT particular sentence. Reading the entire passage we see how it's dangerous to excise that verse from it's spoken context, and thus risk excising the supporting meanings of the terms used therein.
Verses prior to Matthew 8:22 contain the oft-cited steps to church discipline. There are three steps to offer the wayward believer a chance. A chance do do what? Repent.
In the verses after Matthew 8:22, Jesus says, "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to..." and he gives a parable explaining debt (sin) and forgiveness. The sin-debt metaphor is obvious, as is the request (v.26) for mercy and then forgiveness granted (v.27) is equally obvious. There is no assumption on the part of either debtor in that story that the one owed is obligated to forgive. Rather, both debtors rightly acknowledge their debt (analogous to the wrongs we commit against God and others) and acknowledge their obligation to make it right. The story is ultimately about requests for mercy and our obligation as forgiven debtors to in turn have mercy upon others -- when asked. Requests for mercy and forgiveness are a far cry from hard-hearted unrepentence. It's absurd to suggest that God asks us to respond identically to both dispositions among our brethren.
Posted by: Phil in CA | Apr 15, 2005 12:26:14 PM
I agree with you Phil, but I still have a problem with determining what constitutes repentance. When someone refuses to forgive because he doesn't believe the one seeking forgiveness is not repentant enough, we have a problem. How am I supposed to know if someone is truely repentant? Do I have some sort of test, or am I supposed to forgive and let God handle the rest?
Posted by: Bart | Apr 15, 2005 3:43:01 PM
"When someone refuses to forgive because he doesn't believe the one seeking forgiveness is not repentant enough, we have a problem. How am I supposed to know if someone is truely repentant?"
Love hopes all things. If a person "repents", we should accept that - the depth of repentance is between that person and God. If the offense happens over and over and over...well, that is a different thing than if it is the first time.
Posted by: Ellen | Apr 16, 2005 2:07:41 PM
When someone refuses to forgive because he doesn't believe the one seeking forgiveness is not repentant enough, we have a problem. How am I supposed to know if someone is truely repentant?
Yes, I believe we can in fact test the validity of one’s repentance, even directly from Scripture. First, the word “repent” is “metanoeo,” from “meta” (change) and “noeo” (mind, thought or understanding). Therefore, a person must demonstrate that they have a changed mind that now understands their action was sinful. By “sin” I mean (as I believe the Bible means) specific violations of Scripture. Notice also that Scripture says “metanoeo” not “metakardia” (change of heart), so feelings -- such as attraction to the sin and resultant temptation to repeat it -- may not change, but their mind will. Therefore, in repentance, the repentant person must have “the mind of Christ” [2 Cor. 2:16] about the matter and thus consciously espouse God’s view of their behavior.
The foundation for this is found in 1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins…” We see several things here about the kind of confession God accepts. The text says, “confess our sins” not just our “sinfulness” (which we all admit). We’re talking specifics here. Also, the word “confess” is “homologeo,” from “homo” (same) and “logos” (word or speech). Taken literally, to “confess” simply means to speak and believe the “same as [God’s] word” about something -- in this case, our sin. I like the outline provided by J.I. Packer in his book “Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God.” Packer writes that conviction:
1) brings “an awareness of a wrong relationship with God: not just with one’s own neighbor or one’s own conscience and ideals for one’s self, but with one’s maker.”;
2) “includes conviction of sins: a sense guilt for particular wrongs done in the sight of God.”;
3) “includes conviction of sinfulness: a sense of one’s complete corruption and perversity in God’s sight and one’s consequent need of what Ezekiel called a “new heart.”
This is an excellent summery, I believe. Repentant persons must confess that they are not in a right relationship with God, due to specific actions (which they should be able to articulate) and that it’s due to their own sinful nature. James 1:4 requires them to take complete responsibility for their sin, even if it was in response to being sinned against. The “blame game” was the first attempt (by Adam) to escape real confession of violating God’s commands and repenting.
The test is, I believe, asking the following:
Does the person acknowledge that their sin was first and foremost against God?
Does the person confess their specific sin, echoing God’s Word on the subject?
Does the person demonstrate a desire to be restored to a right relationship with God, and in turn, with brothers and sisters in Christ?
If necessary, has the person demonstrated sincerity by taking steps to pay restitution or otherwise see that justice is done?
While they may struggle with both temptation and with understanding the depth of their sin, if the answers to the above questions are “yes” then I believe you are obligated to stand with God and be “faithful and just to forgive” their sins.
The degree to which you hold someone to this can also be mitigated by the severity of situation. After all, love covers a multitude of sins [1 Peter 4:8].
Phi
Posted by: Phil in CA | Apr 17, 2005 8:07:49 AM
Not to belabor the point, but just so I'm not misunderstood about "not being in a right relationship with God": I am not trying to say that a person loses their salvation and then gains it back, over and over, as we sin and repent each day. Rather, I believe the persistent resistance to repentance simply draws in to question the validity of their conversion.
Phil
Posted by: Phil in CA | Apr 17, 2005 8:15:58 AM
The lesson to be learned from this passage is that those who are not held accountable for their actions are not really valued as sons of God. Likewise, for us to turn a blind eye when a person hurts others with impunity, to remain silent when someone is doing wrong, to not confront and challenge that person to change their mindset (repent) and seek a higher path, is not love.
AMEN! When the Bible states something is a sin and a man or group of men (or women) say that something is NOT a sin, then they are not even acknowledging the thing as a sin.
How can a person repent if they don't acknowledge it as a sin?
So the question is, is it a sin?
God says it is (The Word of God clearly says it is a sin).
and
They (man, woman, group, etc) say it is not a sin.
Who is right?
It doesn't matter what "evidence" man brings to the table, this evidence will NOT (ever) justify the person(s) before God.
They are wrong and God is Right! (Let God be True and EVERY man a liar)
History, culture, science, philosophy, etc. these things will not save a person from their sin (no matter how convincing the evidence is that it is "natural"), only The True and Living God can save a person from their sin.
So, a person must first acknowledge (be enlightened to their sin - this is the work of the Holy Spirit and our willingness to talk about sin - because we're all in it) it, confess it IS a sin and they are guilty of committing it, ask for forgiveness and commit to repent (turn away or "resist") from the sin.
Posted by: BeHim | Jul 15, 2005 2:22:01 PM
