"I know that I have been forgiven by God. I stand before you today to ask you for your forgiveness."

Good case for thinking about the dynamic of forgiveness…

In Scripture, “forgive” almost always means to release from some kind of obligation. So, to grant forgiveness to someone he must (a) have an actual obligation and (b) owe it to you. If he has done nothing wrong, I can’t forgive him. If he has not wronged *me* I can’t forgive him either.
Interesting case here: http://sharperiron.org/filings/2-24-12/21851
A pastor robbed his church.
In that act he incurred a debt to at least three parties:

• Sinned against God
  
• Sinned against society by breaking the law
  
• Sinned against the local church (as victim but also by harming reputation, injuring it’s health etc.)
  

So who can forgive what?
Only God can forgive his offense against God. Only society can forgive his offense against law (and society is really not supposed to do that, generally—Rom.13). Only the church, acting as a body, can forgive the offenses against the church. Based on the NT, they may only do so if he is repentant (Matt.18, 1Cor.5, 2Cor.2 etc.)

What may individuals forgive in this case? Nothing, really. There may be some individuals he harmed in a special way (his wife, for example), but other than that, he has no obligation to individuals and they have nothing to release (“forgive”).
But the three parties I mentioned above are really not free to forgive unilaterally. There must be repentance.

Even in the case of believers’ relationship to God—which is unique—our sins are not forgiven unilaterally. Though they are all (past, present, future) “legally” forgiven at once, they are forgiven in response to repentance when we trust Christ. As the relationship works out in daily life, forgiveness must also be applied to our relationship w/God to clear things up, restore fellowship. This application of forgiveness also happens in response to repentance. This is the point of 1 John 1:9.

Aaron said, “What may individuals forgive in this case? Nothing, really. There may be some individuals he harmed in a special way (his wife, for example), but other than that, he has no obligation to individuals and they have nothing to release (“forgive”).”

Weren’t all of the individuals harmed in a special way? Aaron, why don’t you think individuals have something to release “forgive” when it was their offering to God that was stolen? Are you suggesting that the forgiveness
of the church body as whole represents each individual?

Guy sins, is caught; resists full disclosure (a necessity in true confession/repentance); is dealt with by the church in loving, but firm discipline; being civil, proper authorities are involved; does his time, pays his debt to society; submits to church authority/accountability; apparently truly repents with “fruit meet for repentance” being in evidence; elders of the body utilize a goodly amount of time to confirm his testimony; recommend to church his re-inclusion into the body based on his testimony, his accountability, and his observable fruit; body accepts recommendation and accepts him into fellowship/membership pending his upcoming baptism.

Church discipline is for the above described purposes, and it apparently is “successful” in this particular endeavor. Praise God for His mercy and grace to overcome monstrous and very public sin.

Thank you for posting the link. Reading the story helped me to worship God better this morning. He LOVES reconciliation. What a testimony. What makes the difference between a dirty old scandal and a great testimony? Repentance and reconciliation, the gospel in action. The hero in this story is the God of Shelby Mills Baptist Church, the Savior of Charles Lohn.

[adam_b] Aaron said, “What may individuals forgive in this case? Nothing, really. There may be some individuals he harmed in a special way (his wife, for example), but other than that, he has no obligation to individuals and they have nothing to release (“forgive”).”

Weren’t all of the individuals harmed in a special way? Aaron, why don’t you think individuals have something to release “forgive” when it was their offering to God that was stolen? Are you suggesting that the forgiveness
of the church body as whole represents each individual?

Good questions. Offenses can definitely have overlapping “victims” and, therefore, overlapping obligations. And there isn’t really any reason I can think of why the overlap can’t be 100% in some cases. That is, we could argue that he committed an offense against the church as a whole but also an offense against each individual. But the counterargument would be that the offering is the Lord’s and comes from “the church,” and that the offense is still not really an individual thing.

I’m not sure a distinction between “whole” and “100% of the parts” really matters.

It’s definitely possible to over think these things, but it always bugs me when individuals talk as though they have the power to forgive offenses committed against third parties or against groups of which they’re only a part. My point is that only the party sinned against has the opportunity to forgive.
(In the case in the OP, it looks like it was all handled very well)

Thanks for the reply Aaron. The illustration of the counterargument concerning the offering was one issue I was contemplating in my own mind
. Very helpful thoughts.

I didn’t read anything in the article that stated he repaid the church the money he stole. Did I miss something?

If it were, we’d all be in big trouble. :) Repentance, not repayment, is the precondition to forgiveness.

Repayment, where possible, is one of the “fruits meet for repentance.” But one should not withhold forgiveness and restoration where it is not possible and there is other sufficient evidence of true repentance.

In this case, since the church helped to support his wife while he was in prison, and since his job obviously was lost, it is virtually certain from what we know that he has no resources with which to repay the money. True repentance would seek to do that as circumstances allow — but he has to provide for his family, too. And the church has every right to release him from that responsibility out of concern for his family, which they may or may not have done.

Restoration does not necessarily mean you return to the same position of trust. That is rarely possible, when a trust has been broken. Repayment would be a valuable step in the rebuilding of some measure of trust.

Does a desire and intention to repay help us know when repentance is genuine?

I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at here. I think I answered that already: “True repentance would seek to do that as circumstances allow.”

But unless repayment has already started, it would not be appropriate for the article to discuss it. And as I said, the church may have released him from this responsibility, which may or may not be appropriate for public discussion at this point.

The principle is a good topic for discussion, but perhaps the specifics of this or any other particular case are none of our business.

Something that concerns me about common perceptions (in my experience) about forgiveness and repentance are when the offended has the option (or right) to determine the sincerity of an apology by requiring the offender to perform certain acts, like public confession, or self-imposed exile, or a probationary period. This is where I very much agree with Aaron- the only people that need to be involved in the process of restoration are those who are involved. And tests of sincerity often look to me like a form of vengeance and extortion. I have also seen these ‘requirements’ turn a church of very nice people into a bunch of cannibals.

The efforts that this church made to preserve the family are admirable and a wonderful example to other churches about how discipline and restoration CAN work.

I agree with Susan. I agree with JG. But I’m still uneasy. Susan is right. Conditions imposed by the ones offended can turn into acts of vengeance, a series of hoops to jump through before forgiveness is extended. Scripture teaches us that forgivenss is to be granted when sin is acknowledged and sought. (Luke 17:3,4)

But is restoration, in this case to church membership, one and the same as forgiveness? Should forgiveness, for example, require his restoration to the office of pastor? If not, why not? Iisn’t that making forgiveness and restoration two separate issues?

It can also be a problem when the one seeking forgiveness feels he has the right to determine the terms of restoration. “I don’t need to repay the money I stole. God has already forgiven me.” Who would find that an acceptable attitude?

It seems to me that the offender, to demonstrate the sincerity of his repentance, needs to acknowledge his responsibility to repay, and seek acceptable terms to do so. It seems to me that a wise congregation will accept the terms, and observe the repenter as he endeavors to make good on his promise. If, after a period of time, it is clear that he is sincere, and the church decides to relieve him of the obligation, well and good. An honest man may even humbly accept the gesture, but continue his repayment plan, so that there can be no question of his genuine repentance, and newly embraced integrity.

I agree Bro. Barkman. It seems to me that there is more than one kind of restoration. There is the restoration of fellowship, but that doesn’t necessitate the restoration of the pastor’s office, because the pastor’s office has Scriptural requirements that must be met that have nothing to do with the congregation requiring restitution as a test of sincerity. If the man is not guilty of greed, and wants to be considered ‘blameless’, then repayment seems a sensible course to take.

I’m not against observing behavior to perceive if repentance is genuine or manipulative- after all, we were given a list of the fruits of the Spirit for a reason, and other lists of behaviors to use as a gauge of ourselves and others. It’s the “If you are really sorry, you’ll do this” kind of stuff that is IMO just flat out blackmail. If someone says they are sorry, I need to accept that and allow God to use me to heal the person, or convict them of their lack of sincerity. I forgive as I want to be forgiven.

It’s just a theory, but I don’t believe it coincidental that ‘public confessions’ came into vogue around the same time as Oprah, Montel, and Springer et al popularized the idea with daytime talk shows. There is a voyeuristic appeal that is very unhealthy for a church that requires public confessions as a test of repentance. And there is no way to be consistent about this- church leadership will end up picking and choosing who has to publicly confess and whose sins stay hidden to protect certain people or offices.

On a side note, we should really be careful about how we assess the spiritual health and maturity of others. The only thing that keeps some Christians straight is a fear of jail time or paying alimony/child support. Staying out of trouble is not a true test of character or evidence of regeneration.

The first should be granted with minimal evidence of repentance. Greg cited Luke 17. By the sixth time in the same day, how much evidence has been given of repentance? Yet, Christ said to forgive the seventh time, too.

If you stole my cow yesterday, sold it, wasted the money, and then came back today and said you were sorry and you are going to pay me back over time, I’ll forgive you now, and our relationship is restored. But if I see you out in my field early tomorrow morning, I’m going to watch to see what you are doing there. And a year from now, if you’ve paid me back, I’ll still probably be watching if I see you in my field. You’ve lost my trust, and sometimes that can never be regained. (I don’t have any cows in my field, FWIW).

Even if the funds were repaid, this man has a long, long way to go before he would be considered blameless and to have a good report with those outside.

Greg, if he’s actually working hard, supporting his family, and changed his spending patterns to live within his means, so that the church isn’t having to help support his family anymore, perhaps that’s enough. It’s up to them. The debt owed is real, but the forgiveness of debt has Biblical precedent, and I do not think an offender should necessarily reject it if given freely and graciously. In general terms, I agree with you, but it is a matter entirely for the church to decide.

It seems to me that forgiveness predicated on repayment isn’t forgiveness, but blackmail.

* There are a couple of other verses that I thought about as I read the comments here…Paul said that it was better to be defrauded by another believer than to fight out litigation before an unsaved judge (I Cor. 6:7). Peter asked Jesus how often he should forgive, and Jesus said that everyone should be forgiven since we all need to be forgiven by God (Matt. 18:21-35).

* The Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9-15) has some interesting statements about forgiveness as well:

Pray then like this:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Another passage:

[Luke 7:36-50]
A Sinful Woman Forgiven

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.”

“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

So I think that the money is an ancillary issue here - the important thing is that this brother has repented and come home…kind of like the Prodigal Son.