All posts tagged Forgiveness

Emotions and Forgiveness

by brad on February 22, 2013 in Event Promotion with No comments

So what does forgiveness mean you are committing to do with your hurt, fears, other emotions and imagination? The last section covered the interpersonal commitments of forgiveness and explains how forgiveness was designed to restore relationships after moral offenses. But what about the personal well-being and peace of mind of the forgiver, doesn’t forgiveness have benefits for the forgiver as well?

Yes, it does. No, it’s not necessarily selfish to ask. However, if we demand the benefits of forgiveness before we take the risk of forgiveness, we become trapped at the crucial point. In effect, we would be demanding to see the fireworks before we light the fuse. All of that to say, if you want this section to “convince you” to forgive, you will most likely be disappointed. But if you want to understand how forgiveness positively impacts your emotions (even in difficult cases), then you should find encouragement in this section.

In the section below we will trace the seven phase journey of forgiveness that is traveled by the one forgiving.

1. The context of forgiveness is always hurt. Forgiveness never begins as a pleasant experience. The emotions of pre-forgiveness are always raw. We never think this is a “good time” for us to need to forgive. The person we need to forgive is always the person who just sinned against us. We should never minimize the painful context in which forgiveness is granted.

2. Hurt is an experience that does not remove itself. Time does not heal moral offenses. If time heals an offense, then it was likely not one that merited forgiveness. We begin to feel trapped in the emotional bind; either we will forgive (which is “not fair”) or we will continually carry the weight of bitterness and mistrust. It feels like life is taking the side of our offender.

“Bad things tend to happen when you give offenses time to marinate in your heart (p. 158).” Paul Tripp in What Did You Expect?

3. Justice does not erase history (or emotion). Neither consequences nor punishment provide the relief that we hope they would. Our offender loses the benefit of his/her offense and may learn valuable lessons, but these do not provide restitution to us. Even if we are rightfully given something as compensation for the offense, its value either seems to trifle the offense or come across as penance. Justice doesn’t satisfy.

4. Repentance does not erase history (some emotion). Repentance is much better than justice at resolving the emotional pain of an offense. It now feels like apples are being traded for apples; prideful, self-centered response of sin for humbled, other-minded response of confession. But there is no sense of guarantee or control that would provide assurance that future pain could be avoided, so some emotional turmoil remains.

5. Forgiveness means something must die. We begin to realize exactly how devastating sin really is. Nothing short of death will stop it. Without being overly dramatic, we clearly see that something will die—love, trust, hope, a dream, dignity, respect… or Christ in their/our place. The only way to escape this maze of moral offense without losing someone or something we love is with a substitute.

6. We chose who/what to send to the cross. We begin to realize that the words “I forgive you” can be translated, “I apply Christ to your account. His death satisfies what your offense deserves in a way nothing else can… even my anger or revenge. I see in our relationship a picture of my attempt to be reconciled to God. My actions created a hopeless situation until Christ took my place so in our relationship I will allow Him to take your place.”

7. We are reminded of peace greater than our pain. In this memory, we find that forgiveness is not an action or a choice, but a dramatization or re-enactment of the gospel. As we experience the gospel in the emotional freshness (bad and good) of this experience, we are reminded of our journey from death to life (Eph. 2:1-10). We get another taste of hopelessness turned to victory and we remember (because life had distracted us) that our ultimate security and emotional safety is in Christ, not circumstances. This fresh realization places the offense back in its appropriate perspective; without minimizing the offense, it is swallowed up in the greatness of the gospel.

At this point in the chapter it should become clear that forgiveness does not add to anything that wisdom would not already advise if such an offer of grace from God were real. Our hesitancy to forgive (when we rightly understand what forgiveness means) is not a resistance to dangerous folly, but a doubt in or minimizing of God’s abundant grace to us.

Bitterness is a form of meditation, but on hurt instead of the gospel. When we allow the hurts of our spouse to walk us through the journey of processing the emotions associated with forgiveness, then “the meditations of our hearts” (Psalm 19:14) center on the gospel and point us to hope instead of doubt or dissatisfaction.

This resource was taken from the “Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Communication” seminar.

CREATING A GOSPEL-CENTERED MARRIAGE: COMMUNICATION
Part One: Saturday February 16, 2012
Part Two: Saturday February 23, 2012
Time: 4:00 to 5:30 pm or 6:00 to 7:30 pm
Location: The Summit Church, Brier Creek South Venue
Address: 2415-107 Presidential Drive; Durham, NC 27703
Cost: Free
RSVP: Part One // Part Two

What You Don’t Need to Forgive

by brad on February 20, 2013 in Event Promotion with 2 Comments

Not everything that bothers or annoys us needs to be forgiven. Forgiveness is only for moral offenses. When we try to use forgiveness as the method to resolve relational irritants that are not moral in nature several bad things happen.

  • We establish our preferences as the moral standard for our spouse – pride.
  • We begin to feel as if we forgive more than we are forgiven – self-righteousness.
  • We gain an increasingly negative view of our spouse – judgmental.
  • Our marriage begins to be built around an elaborate number of rules – performance-based acceptance.
  • We begin to feel as if God were asking too much of us – God-fatigue.

“What else is there?” we might ask. In What Did You Expect? Paul Tripp offers three categories of relational strain which do not call for a response of forgiveness (p. 94; bold text only). After describing what goes in each category, we will look at what kind of grace-based, constructive response is called for in each situation.

1. Human Weakness

Being clumsy, having struggles with a particular subject / aptitude, experiencing the limitation of a physical illness / injury, succumbing to the degenerative influence of aging, and similar experiences can negatively impact a marriage. These things can be annoying, fear-provoking, or upsetting, but they are not moral and, therefore, do not need to be forgiven.

The appropriate response to human weakness is compassion, patience, and assistance. A couple should be able to discuss the impact that each other’s weaknesses has on the other. Taking these conversations out of the “moral sphere” decreases the sense of shame commonly associated with our weaknesses. One of the most bonding aspects of marriage is creating a safe environment to acknowledge our weakness and be loved anyway.

A couple should also be able to discuss how they can support each other’s weaknesses. This is a big part of learning God’s design for marriage and will be expressed uniquely in each home. But not all weaknesses will be complemented by a spouse’s strength. In these cases we show our commitment to the marriage by allowing our affection for our spouse to trump our annoyance with their weaknesses.

2. Differences in Personality or Perspective

Being extroverted vs. introverted, optimistic vs. pessimistic, cautious vs. adventurous, concrete vs. abstract, and organized vs. fluid are all examples of difference in personality or perspective. These differences impact marriages in many ways, but they are not moral, and, therefore, do not need to be forgiven.

The appropriate response to differences in personality or perspective is appreciation, learning, and cooperation. Well-managed and humbly-discussed differences will be what provides a lifetime of enjoyment to your marriage. Pridefully condemning or demanding conformity will leave the two of you feeling defeated and rejected.

Because these are enduring qualities in your spouse which are likely different from your own, these differences are common sources of bitterness. Too often couples get caught trying to make each other “speak their language” rather than appreciating their differences. When this happens dating-attraction becomes marital-division.

3. Attempting to Do Something and Failing

As a couple gets to know each other’s weaknesses, personality, and perspectives, they will (or, at least, should) begin to attempt ways of “doing life together” that challenge and stretch both of them.  Frequently these love-motivated efforts will fail (or, at least, not achieve the desired result). These moments may elicit a sense of disappointment or shame, but they are not moral, and, therefore, do not need to be forgiven.

The appropriate response to differences in these instances is affirmation and encouragement. Attempting to do a good thing and failing should still be viewed as a good thing. It is at least two steps ahead of attempting to do a bad thing and failing, and one step ahead of being passive.

Responding to these moments with an appreciation that borders on celebration is an essential part of creating a marital culture where both spouses feel free to take healthy relational risks (i.e., flirting in new ways, repenting, willingness to try things your spouse enjoys, etc…). When we allow these moments to get caught up in the moral language of forgiveness we stifle the relational freedom we should be fanning into flames.

Read Ephesians 4:1-3: In a gospel-centered marriage a primary motivation for each spouse is to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called [referring to salvation] (p. 1).” Paul tells us how we do this, “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, being with one another in love (v. 2).” These actions and attitudes capture the essence of our response to marital annoyances and disappointments which do not warrant forgiveness. Paul tells us what the fruit of such actions will be – unity and peace (v. 3).

This resource was taken from the “Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Communication” seminar.

CREATING A GOSPEL-CENTERED MARRIAGE: COMMUNICATION
Part One: Saturday February 16, 2012
Part Two: Saturday February 23, 2012
Time: 4:00 to 5:30 pm or 6:00 to 7:30 pm
Location: The Summit Church, Brier Creek South Venue
Address: 2415-107 Presidential Drive; Durham, NC 27703
Cost: Free
RSVP: Part One // Part Two

Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Communication (Videos)

by brad on February 14, 2013 in Church Resource with 14 Comments

The videos below were taken from the live presentation of the “Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Communication” seminar. For the various counseling options available from this material visit www.summitrdu.com/counseling.

This seminar is part of a series of “Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage” seminars that also includes:

  • Foundations
  • Communication — see below
  • Finances
  • Decision-Making (coming soon; date TBA)
  • Intimacy (coming soon; date TBA)

NOTE: Many people have asked how they can get a copy of the seminar notebook referenced in this verbal presentation. Summit members can pick up a copy of the notebook in the church office. For those outside the Summit family, you can request a copy from Amy LaBarr (alabarr@summitrdu.com), office administrator over counseling.

NOTE 2: The videos for this presentation will be added to this page soon after the original presentations on February 16 and 23. We thank you for your patience as our media team prepares these materials for posting.

Chapter 1
What We Have Here Is a Failure to Communicate:
The Obvious and Not-So-Obvious Things That Disrupt Communication

GCM Communication Part 1 from Equip on Vimeo.

Chapter 2
Listening:
The Neglected Key to a Marital Communication

GCM Communication Part 2 from Equip on Vimeo.

Evaluation One: GCMevaluation_Listening

Chapter 3
Day-to-Day Communication:
The Oil in the Machine of Marriage

GCM Communication Part 3 from Equip on Vimeo.

Evaluation Two: GCMevaluation_Day-to-Day_Communication

Chapter 4
Conflict Resolution:
Navigating Differences without Dividing

GCM Communication Part 4 from Equip on Vimeo.

Evaluation Three: GCMevaluation_Conflict Resolution

Resource: Conversation Log

Chapter 5
Repenting with Excellence:
Changing the Momentum of Your Marriage

GCM Communication Part 5 from Equip on Vimeo.

Chapter 6
Uncomfortable Forgiveness:
Absorbing the Cost of Their Sin for His Glory and Our Good

GCM Communication Part 6 from Equip on Vimeo.

Evaluation: Conflict Resolution in Marriage

by brad on February 7, 2013 in Event Promotion with No comments

The best outcome for marital conflict is neither avoidance nor victory, but honor and unity. We must realize how much the mindset we take into conflict determines the outcome of our disagreements. Many of us feel like conflict is inherently wrong and, therefore, whenever it occurs, feel defeated. Others of us are competitive and when conflict arises have an instinctual “game on” response that generates a “refuse to lose” mindset.

Conflict done well can be the best friend of your marriage. This is not a nicer recasting of the mantra “fight hard; make up hard.” It is a reality rooted in the “two sides of the same coin” relationship between love and anger.

“Anger is the fluid that love bleeds when you cut it (p. 97).” C.S. Lewis in Letters to Malcom

When we get angry or experience love we are saying that something matters a lot. When we get sinfully angry we are saying that this “something” matters more than our spouse (at least in that moment). When we express self-control we are saying that our spouse matters more than this “something.” This is why conflict done well is romantic – it affirms the value of the marriage over life’s circumstances or people’s failures and creates an atmosphere of safety.

The following evaluation is designed to help you assess (1) foundations of healthy conflict, (2) how well you honor differences in marriage, (3) the presence of healthy practices in conflict, (4) red flags in conflict, (5) how well you repent after conflict, and (6) how completely you forgive.

GCMevaluation_Conflict Resolution

This resource was taken from the “Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Communication” seminar. Several of the plumblines from this section of the seminar are:

  • Conflict done well can be the best friend of your marriage.
  • The best outcome for marital conflict is neither avoidance nor victory, but honor and unity.
  • The biggest battle in every conflict is with yourself not your spouse.
  • The surest evidence of idolatry is an over-reaction; be sure not to misname it a need.

CREATING A GOSPEL-CENTERED MARRIAGE: COMMUNICATION
Part One: Saturday February 16, 2012
Part Two: Saturday February 23, 2012
Presentation By: Brad Hambrick
Time: 4:00 to 5:30 pm or 6:00 to 7:30 pm
Location: The Summit Church, Brier Creek South Venue
Address: 2415-107 Presidential Drive; Durham, NC 27703
Cost: Free
RSVP: Part One // Part Two

Gospel-Centered Communication Tweets

by brad on January 30, 2013 in Event Promotion with No comments

If James 3:2, “For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body,” means anything, it means learning about gospel-centered communication could radically change your life.

That is why we are doing the “Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Communication” seminar February 16 and 23.

With that in mind we have one request, send out the following tweets over the next few weeks. The link provided goes to the free RSVP page with more information about the event and how to reserve childcare. All you need to do is copy, paste, and tweet.

These tweet were taken from the “Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Communication” seminar.

CREATING A GOSPEL-CENTERED MARRIAGE: COMMUNICATION
Part One: Saturday February 16, 2012
Part Two: Saturday February 23, 2012
Time: 4:00 to 5:30 pm or 6:00 to 7:30 pm
Location: The Summit Church, Brier Creek South Venue
Address: 2415-107 Presidential Drive; Durham, NC 27703
Cost: Free
RSVP: Part One // Part Two

The Forgiveness Trap

by brad on September 21, 2012 in Event Promotion with No comments

Anger is usually prompted by some offense (real or perceived). If we are going to do anger well, then we must learn to forgive well. This post is “Appendix A” from the upcoming Overcoming Anger seminar (information below) and looks at how anger often hijacks forgiveness.

Forgiveness is never simple or straight-forward because it always involves both sin and sinners. Worse yet, it always involves a sinner who has sinned against another sinner.

Usually in the post-sin, pre-confession stage of the process there is some clear role definition. One person is the offender. The other person is the offended. I acknowledge that we are all sinners, but for repentance and forgiveness to occur, these roles must be defined even if they are alternated.

During this post-sin, pre-confession there is usually some delay of time when the offending party(s) is trying to decide if they are going to repent. They replay the events looking for a way to justify their actions. Maybe they weigh out whether their actions were “wrong enough” to warrant an apology. But in order to enter “the forgiveness trap” the offending party must come to the person they offended in repentance.

Eventually they come to the person they offended and say, “I was wrong for doing what I did. Will you forgive me?” The trap has been set. But wait a minute. You’re thinking, “What is wrong with that?” Nothing. That is exactly what should happen. I am not saying that the trap is manipulative or intentional.

So what is the trap? The trap is an immediate role reversal in which if the offended person does not promptly reply with absolute forgiveness, the sinner versus saint roles are reversed. The white hat and the black hat switch heads. Oftentimes a hesitancy in forgiveness is perceived (or even declared) to be a greater sin than the original offense and the offended person is not even given the same period of time to forgive that the offending person took to repent.

I am not saying this is what should happen, but it’s often what does happen. Sometimes, it is an innocent misapplication of biblical teaching on forgiveness. Other times, it is manipulative form of repentant-revenge.

I am not saying that forgiveness is optional. Even if the offending person does not repent, forgiveness is commanded as an authentic expression of our appreciation for Christ’s forgiveness of us (Eph. 4:32). To fail to do so angers God greatly (Matt 18:15-35).

But too often, “the trap” assumes this must be done immediately and that full trust must be restored upon forgiveness. We must remember that while God can command forgiveness, the offending person cannot. The offending person requests forgiveness, recognizing forgiveness is an act of grace. To demand forgiveness and use Scripture to pressure forgiveness is a sign that the “repenting” person does not understand what he/she is asking.

As a general guide line, I advise a repenting person to wait at least as long as it took them to repent before they mention the offended person’s obligation to forgive. In cases of traumatic offenses or painful betrayals it may be wise to wait longer. If not, it falls into the “now I’m the good guy and you’re the bad guy… God’s on my team” trap.

It should also be noted that the restoration of trust and forgiveness are two distinct but related things. One can “cancel a debt” without being eager to “give more credit.” Attacking someone with their fault is a sign of unforgiveness, but a hesitancy to potentially place one’s self in harms-way again is not. If these two things are treated as the same thing, they create another “forgiveness trap.”

OVERCOMING ANGER
Dates: September 29 and October 6, 2012
Times: 4:00 to 5:30 pm and 6:00 to 7:30 pm
Location: The Summit Church, Brier Creek South Venue
Address: 2415 Presidential Drive; Durham, NC 27703
Cost: Free
RSVP: Click Here (Only 500 seats per presentation)

Forsaking Their Hope of Steadfast Love

by brad on January 13, 2012 in Application Supplement with No comments

This post is meant to offer guidance to common “What now?” questions that could emerge from Pastor J.D.’s sermon on Jonah 2 preached at The Summit Church Saturday/Sunday January 14-15, 2012.

What a sad description of people; even sadder because it is true. “Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love (Jonah 2:8).” From the belly of a great fish Jonah is reflecting on what led to his demise. It was “vain idols” that caused him to drift from trust in God’s love.

The scary part is that Jonah was a prophet who was still used by God as this drift occurred. It is doubtful that the disdain for Nineveh that caused him to put country and personal offense ahead of God started the moment “the word of the Lord came to Jonah (1:1).” How Jonah was responding to atrocities of Nineveh was likely source of the “vain” (empty, useless, without comparative worth) idol that caused him to forsake God’s steadfast love – “to Tarshish, away from the presence of the Lord (1:3).”

Jonah’s “great sin” of active rebellion fleeing in the opposite direction of God’s call began with a bad response to suffering (Nineveh’s violently oppressive actions against Israel and surrounding nations). Seeing depravity at it most vile made Jonah forget his own desperate need for God’s grace. When God wanted to extend the same grace Jonah received to Nineveh, Jonah balked and forsook the hope of God’s steadfast love.

Whether we can relate to Jonah’s overt, opposite-direction rebellion against God that resulted in “bottoming out” in a living submarine in the depth of sea, we can definitely relate to Jonah’s subtle, shocked-at-evil step into idolatry. We all know who “the really bad” people are and we’re not them. We hear about them on the news. We’re not rapists, terrorists, or pedophiles.

If we thought being a recipient of God’s grace put us in that category and called us to share the gospel with someone who raped our child or blew up our brother, we (at least I) would be very tempted to “forsake my hope of God’s steadfast love.” Bringing Jonah’s assignment into my world makes me want to look for the ship to Tarshish. I am Jonah! I might take a suicidal leap from a ship in the middle of the ocean before I would carry my Bible into that maximum security prison.

I would resent sharing the same grace. I would resent “sharing” in terms of being washed in the same Savior’s blood much less “sharing” in the form of being God’s ambassador of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:20). As this resentment built, I could see how forsaking the hope of God’s steadfast love and looking for something else to base my life on (“vain idols”) would be so tempting. I am Jonah! Guilty as charged!

Yet even from the belly of the great fish Jonah came to his senses and said, “Yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God (2:6).” Jonah was humbled. He realized he could not escape the evil he was trying to avoid traveling away from the presence of the Lord (1:3). Jonah brought the evil of allowing people to die based on his preferences with him, in his own heart, as he fled taking God’s message to Nineveh.

Jonah realized he must share (verbally communicated) God’s grace with Nineveh because he realized he shared (drank from the same fountain of life) God’s grace with Nineveh. By the end of the book it appears that while Jonah accepted this reality he had a hard time with it (4:11). Jonah could preach it as true, but he couldn’t sing it as joy.

I believe this impairs my ability to embrace and willingness to proclaim the gospel. The point is not whether I could muster the love to share the gospel with my brother’s murderer who posted a celebratory video on the internet before going “hunting.” The question can be as simple as, “Do I love my neighbor as myself?”  Am I willing to share my hope because I see myself as sharing their predicament? Am I as desperate for them as I am grateful that God was desperate for me?

Or have I become numb by the constant atrocities I see on the news and the hateful banter that permeates the media to a point that I see myself as “different” from real, hateful sinners as Jonah saw himself as “different “ from Nineveh? As soon as I think in “degrees of bad” instead of simply “need for grace” I fall into Jonah’s trap of forsaking the hope of God’s steadfast love.

If we use this reflection to remind ourselves to look at people as sharing our need for God’s grace, then it will become much more natural to share the message of God’s grace with those we see as being “like us.” Jonah’s vision was corrected by a crisis after overt rebellion and bottoming out. May God use Jonah to correct our vision where we are now.

C.S. Lewis Meets His Murderer

by brad on December 7, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served in the first World War, I and some young German had killed each other simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any embarrassment. I think we might have laughed over it (p. 119).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

It must be noted that this quote is based upon Lewis’ personal speculations and his own retrospective assessment of what his response would be in a purely hypothetical circumstance. So whatever we do with this quote, we should not treat it as doctrine.

But the quote does challenge us to consider the question, “How much difference will Heaven make for the greatest atrocities and offenses we face now?”  This is a question that runs a great risk of being misused.

Many would use a question like this to minimize the pain or significance of current suffering. There is no indication (nor would I suggest as a good idea) that Lewis used this type of question to belittle the dangers he faced in WWI. Neither would it have been of any benefit to manipulate himself into thinking, “the young German doesn’t really mean to take my life with the bullets he’s firing over my head.”

“Perspective” should never be used to craft an alternative reality. Perspective does not make danger less dangerous, evil less evil, or pain less painful.

So what good does perspective bring to suffering?

In a word – hope.

This perspective gained from the kind of reflection Lewis is engaging in reminds us that evil never gets the final or definitive word. God’s redemption is so complete that the darkest evil becomes like the awkward moment before the punch line in a really good joke.

In that moment of awkwardness, you legitimately do not know how to respond. It feels like the story is painfully incomplete or about to become offensive. Then with the punch line the size of the awkwardness only serves to accentuate the humor.

Again, it should be said, any use of “perspective” that seeks to minimize the painfully awkward moments in which we live on this side of God’s redemption, is a poor (possibly abusive or traumatic) use of perspective.

The point of perspective is to remind us that while evil may be “winning,” it cannot “win.” With this thought secured, then core aspects of personhood – hope, courage, meaning – are able to withstand the barrage of suffering.

The main lie of suffering – this is all we will ever know – is broken. It is as if an evil enchantment of mental and emotional slavery (we are dealing with C.S. Lewis, the author of Narnia) has been lifted from our soul. We remain a person who have been given personhood by the King’s authority which cannot be usurped by any invading tyrants (or German soldiers) or intrusions into our lives.

We are free children of the King, who must be reminded of who we are. When we remember, and even more when we enter His kingdom, the threats of this world will be like silly jokes. But again, that should give us hope, not cause us to minimize the threats of this world.

Forgiveness Made Easier: Part I

by brad on November 14, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with 2 Comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“It is going to be hard enough, anyway, but I think there are two things we can do to make it easier. When you start mathematics you do not begin with the calculus; you begin with simple addition. In the same way, if we really want (but all depends on really wanting) to learn how to forgive, perhaps we had better start with something easier than the Gestapo (p.116).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis graciously starts the difficult lesson of forgiveness with two important and sequential questions. First, do I really want to forgive? Second, only if the answer to the first question is yes, where do I begin with this arduous task?

Wanting to forgive is almost an oxy-moron. The experience of being hurt, slighted, or offended is predicated upon a sense of justice. Without a sense of justice, there would be no standard of fairness to be violated. But forgiveness is anti-fairness. So forgiveness is not just emotionally challenging, it fights against the very experience that calls for it.

Wanting to forgive comes from valuing something more than the offense. In many cases the “something” is the relationship with the offender. But when (a) there is no substantive relationship with the offender, (b) the offense is greater than the relationship, or (c) the accumulation of offenses is greater than the relationship, then the “want to” gets challenged in this mathematical/investment approach to forgiveness.

The difficult is wanting to forgive when forgiveness is (or at least is perceived to be) a bad relational investment. This is what we mean most often when we say, “You don’t deserve to be forgiven.” No one deserves to be forgiven; “deserve” and “forgive” are mutually exclusive. What we mean is, “Forgiving you would be a bad relational investment for me.” There are times when this is a completely true and unselfish statement.

This leads us to C.S. Lewis’ second question. If we start with trying to resolve the “worst deals” we will likely be overwhelmed and give up. Even Jesus’ teaching radically redefining the investment mentality towards forgiveness (Matt. 18:21-35) may serve to discourage us.

When we engage in genuine forgiveness for “lesser offenses” we learn something about forgiveness; it is a blessing to us. There is more than one prisoner set free. The offender is set free from the moral (but not legal, if applicable) obligation of his/her offense. But we are also set free. As Nancy Leigh DeMoss says  in Choosing Forgiveness, “You see, God never intended our bodies to hold up under the weight of unresolved conflict and bitterness (p. 67).”

It is in the practice of forgiveness that we realize how the investment truly works. We are playing a game with grace-rigged scales. The investment we make in forgiveness is not directly or exclusively in the other person. The investment is primarily a faith investment in God and His kingdom. God extends the influence of the gospel in our lives as we extend the influence of the gospel in our world through forgiveness.

As we practice forgiveness in these “lesser offenses” we begin to realize that the primary “return on investment” is not from the offender to us, but from God to us and God through us. As we grow  to trust in this pattern and more wise in the practice of forgiveness, then our willingness and ability to forgive in the “greater offenses” increases.

Forgiveness: If Received, Then Required

by brad on November 7, 2011 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“’Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us.’ There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly clear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are we to do (p.116)?” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

I once heard a pastor say that if he preached every sermon on forgiveness, he still would address the subject enough. Well, if he preached with this kind of punch, he also might not have a job. It’s not that I disagree with C.S. Lewis (or have the audacity to disagree with Jesus), but it just hurts to have this truth articulated in such a straight-forward manner.

The force of Jesus’ words reminds of us a central truth to our Christian walk – when we were forgiven we were purchased and therefore no longer belong to Satan or even ourselves (I Cor. 6:19-20). Jesus does not speak as a contractor making a recommendation about repairs to the owner of the house (our lives). Jesus speaks as the Builder and Twice-Owner (by creation and redemption) of the house (our lives).

We are like the renter who has been in a house for so long that we naturally call it our own and increasingly treat as our own, even though we know we pay the “rent” and not the “mortgage.” We are so comfortable in “our life” that when the Owner speaks we get offended and try to find a way to escort Him off His property.

In effect, the command to forgive is God saying, “I let you live morally rent free (paid daily by the blood of Christ), so I expect you not to charge anyone else moral rent. If you must, charge their moral rent to the same account that pays your own.” In that sense, it is actually a very, very kind command.

Think about it. What if someone offered to pay for your housing and their requirement of you was that if someone else ever owed you money to tell them to pay that debt too? Would you take the deal? The only reason that you would hesitate is to verify that it was a legitimate offer.

So when we are offended by the command to forgive others, it is us who have to answer the hard questions, not God. We have to explain how we feel justified in accepting free moral rent while trying to retain the “right” to charge others moral rent. Our indignation is actually our shame.

But that shame is covered with the same offer as our prior debt if we will humble ourselves and receive it. God is not a Landlord who delights in evicting his tenants (don’t stretch the metaphor to encompass the assurance of salvation). But rather God will forgive the debts of unforgiven-debts if we will surrender our perceived right to collect them.

The question becomes, “Who do we think we are?” If we are the same person who prayed “the sinner’s prayer,” then we are welcome to live in God’s provision all our life (temporal and eternal). However, if we believe we have become a different caliber of person, then we will live with all the moral, emotional, and relational “luxury” that our merit can provide. That is the equivalent of being homeless.

Live in grace and allow others to be your house guest.

← Older Entries
 
UA-1304055