Forgive and Forget? No!

Isn’t this a debate that is at the heart of tragedies like the silencing of sexual assault victims documented in the Grace Report for BJU? Yes, there are things I can “let slide”, and quite frankly some things that I have to—I cannot object to workplace gossip without getting in trouble with HR, because policy is “talk to your manager first.” But for serious, significant wrongs, there is a Biblical pattern that ought to be followed, and real repentance ought to be insisted on.

(one caveat; I would argue that if someone is assaulted, especially sexually, the confrontation does NOT need to be done 1 on 1 since that confrontation has already occurred during the crime)

[TylerR]

Aaron, you wrote:

We can only forgive when a debt is owed. When a debt is owed, we can always choose to either collect or let it go. Always.

Let me ask a few questions along this line. Pretend a person in your church is gossiping about you, saying you’re a terrible worker with the K-6 kids at your church, and the pastor should remove you. This comes to your attention via several other church members:

I’ll insert anwers with the questions…

Will you ask for the man’s repentance?

• I would have a biblical obligation to have a conversation with him. The first thing I’d want to do is find out if this is true and if so why he thinks so. Maybe he’s right. So much would depend on that conversation. If his only error is “talking to the wrong person” but he’s otherwise got good intentions, the conversation might well end with “Let’s have a meeting the pastor and see if we can sort this out or if maybe someone else should be in the role I’m in.” If it’s nothing more than that, I might or might not ask for repentance. I might well simply let it go. Impossible to answer with certainty without more info.
• In any case, I would be very intrested in finding a way to avoid making the conflict bigger than it truly is.

What will you do if he refuses to admit his wrong, and refuses to repent? Do you “let it go” at that point?

• For this one, I’ll assume worst case scenario. Let’s say he knows I’m the right person for the job—or at least adequate—and is intentionally lying because he hates my guts… and that in our first conversation he’s honest enough to say so. I tell him he’s got problems that are bigger than me and he needs to spend some time in prayer and deal with the Lord about it.
• Supposing he insists he’s done nothing wrong, my next question is, are you going to keep doing this?
• Supposing he says yes, I kind of have to escalate per Matt 18 and because he’s going to eventually do some actual damage. (As far as I can tell, he actually hasn’t done any yet.)
• So, I’d want to have a sit down with maybe a deacon or the SS Super. or someone who is closely vested in the issue. Might be the pastor.

If you decide to “let it go,” what does that mean? Has he been “forgiven?” Is the matter over? Is “forgiveness” contingent on anything this man does?

• I have alot of options here for how letting go plays out in the particulars, because there are so many ways the story could go. He could, after I tell him he’s got a hate problem (which he’s admitted to) maybe he says I’m right and apologizes. I let it go. End of story. He may need to talk to some people as damage control, but otherwise, it’s over.
• If I have to escalate, it’s out of my hands at that point in the Matt. 18 scenario. He may have had a debt to the congregation before, but if he didn’t before, he does now. I can let go of his debt to me (move on an forget about it/act as though it never happened), but only the congregation can forgive him of his debt to them.
• Supposing it goes all the way… The man stubbornly refuses to repent and eventually removed from the church. In that scenario, I let it go in the sense that I get on with life and ministry and if I meet him somewhere, he’s effectively an unbeliever and so I’m friendly and look for opportunities to evangelize. The church lets go in the same way.

How is “let it go” different than “forgive and forget?”

• I’m not persuaded that there is generally any difference… as far as debt-of-offense goes. But disqualification and “other necessary consequences” are in a different category.

How does the “let it go” approach (in the case of deliberate, unrepentant sin) help anything?

• If we’re going to look at it biblically we have to do some weighing here. THere is much that people do in the category of “offenses” that may or may not be sin … and we really don’t know. The difference between a sin and an honest mistake is murky at the margins. In extreme cases of major sin, we don’t “let go” until we’ve carried out the biblical obligation to get the congregation involved. But there’s no clear line in Scripture between what’s “big enough” to take through the Matt 18 escalation process and what isn’t. What we do have are a couple of examples in the NT and they are both very damaging kinds of sin… in cases where the facts are not in doubt.
• So when it’s not one of those kinds of issues, how does it help to just let it go? So many many ways. It avoids a fight/quarrel where there does not need to be one. It obeys the biblical calls to peace, unity, and gentleness (as well as judging others by the standard we would wish to be judged by.. .the point of Matthew 7:1ff). It avoids the disgrace that comes on the name of Christ when believers just “can’t get along.” So, what I’m getting at is that there battles worth fighting and there are matters that should just be let go… and there are matters that we let go because repentance has occurred… and matters we let go of because we no longer have any power to do anythig about them.

If, for the sake of argument, you acknowledge there is now a breach of relationship that must be healed (even with the “let it go” approach), then is just partial forgiveness? Is the process complete if the man never repents or acknowledges his guilt?

• We can only forgive what is owed to us. If the man is unrepentant of sin, my letting go doesn’t erase his debt to God or whomever else he has wronged. So, in that sense, my forgiveness can never be anything but partial.

If there are personal and eclesiastical consequences for the man’s deliberate, unrepentant sin - how is this “forgiveness” complete?

• Consequences are a different category. For example, if I get mad and my neighbor and shoot his dog, he has forgiven me if he we manage to be friends again after that. But he is not being unforgiving if he insists that I stay away from his dog. Disqualification is just a different category from personal moral debt. It can be a fine line in some situations, though, to be sure… For example, if the neighbor insists I can’t go near his new dog, he might be full of resentment toward me and doing it for that reason. In this case, he has not forgiven. So motive is huge in this.

What Biblical basis do you have for “letting it go?” What about Lk 17:3-4? What about the principle of repentance as a precondition of forgiveness throughout Scripture?

• See passages I quoted earlier about forbearance. Nobody wants to be near a person who insists on repentance for every single wrong he thinks has been done against him! So golden rule (Matthew 7 also I think, if memory serves) comes into play here as well. We do not want others to make a big deal out of our every misstep. We shoud return the favor.

Is there a Biblical basis for the distinction between complete forgiveness (e.g. repentance and restoration) and the concept of “I’ve just forgiven him in my heart, instead?”

• Forbearance. Golden rule. Christian love. Add in the passages that tell us to follow after the things which make for peace and which edify one another, etc. But I would remind at this point that when a human forgives a human, and sin is involved, the forgivness is always partial. It’s only complete when the person has taken care of the God part of it. But we can always choose not to hold an error against someone so far as it concerns only that person and ourselves.

I confess, most of these questions are difficult to process because I think 90+% of the time, the problems and offenses that happen between people are not in the “definitely sin” category. Usually the intentions and motives and information the person was working with are quite uncertain even to themselves let alone the offended party. So usually it’s a “maybe he sinned” thing, not a “he needs to repent” thing.

I want to elaborate a litte bit more on this one:

What Biblical basis do you have for “letting it go?” What about Lk 17:3-4? What about the principle of repentance as a precondition of forgiveness throughout Scripture?

People often slip into a reasoning error here. When we say “if A happens, we should do B” that doesn’t mean “only if A happens we should do be.” That’s a leap.

Here’s the logic. Supposed it’s raining hard and you say:

* If you go shopping, you’ll get wet.

It doesn’t follow that

* If you mow the lawn you won’t get wet.

Similarly, “if someone repents, forgive him” does not declare “if someone doesn’t repent, don’t forgive.”

But I want to go back to something Aaron said much earlier in the thread, because it’s something I’ve thought for a while. Aaron wrote:

First, forgiveness that does not include a commitment to treat a person as though the offense had never happened is meaningless, completely pointless. The usual word for forgive in the NT means to release, to let go, to leave (behind). It’s frequently used in reference to debt, and after the forgiveness occurs, there is no longer any debt. The relationship is no longer a “you owe me” relationtionship, but a “we are even” relationship.

Second, not letting go is a path to bitterness and self destruction. It is called, quite simply, bearing a grudge.

What do you do in an instance where, for example, one believer (A) tells you that another has slandered him, and the other person (B) tells you that they did no such thing and therefore sees no need to ‘repent’, leading to a counter-accusation that A is maliciously accusing them? It’s essentially he-said, he-said, and only God knows the truth. Ideally A accepts that B did not gossip and B assures A that they meant no harm, but neither side believes the other.

In that case, I think that it is best for both parties to admit that this is a legitimate difference of opinion, not necessarily a sin issue, and they should each ‘release’ the other from the perceived offense and move forward. Or, of course, you could church discipline both of them for not letting it go.

I think that’s where Tyler’s position breaks down, because both sides are still hanging on to the fact that the other ‘offended’ them instead of choosing to let the offense go in Christian love (1 Peter 4:8). I’d be curious for others’ input, though.

It strikes me that the question hinges on whether people see what was said as the same. If they both agreed “Bob called Jim such and such”, it will be either true or false, or one will be keying on the question of whether it actually defames another person. I can see a bunch of cases where the church elders ought to be able to determine whether it’s defamatory, whether it ought to have been handled differently (tell Jim alone instead of in front of the whole gang), or whether other testimony simply contradicts that person.

Which is a long way of saying that while there may be cases where it’s not a cause for discipline, my gut feeling is that generally it will be—the question is of who.

I believe Tyler understands the situation correctly. It is possible to be eager and willing to forgive, to seek reconciliation, and to pray for its achievement, but be unable because the other person refuses to cooperate. They may refuse to meet for discussion. They may refuse to listen to any perspective that differs from their own. They may refuse to accept evidence or testimony that contradicts their opinion. In short, they refuse to acknowledge their offense, and thereby refuse to be reconciled. Their perspective may be, “I’m right, and you’re wrong no matter what evidence you present, and I’m not going to change my opinion.”

In such situations, forgiveness is impossible, if we mean forgiveness that accomplishes reconciliation with the offender. We can, and must, have a forgiving and contrite spirit before the Lord. No bitterness allowed. But no forgiveness without a willingness for reconciliation on the part of the offender. The matter continues to be a barrier to God honoring relationships, and remains so until appropriately addressed.

You’re a Sunday School teacher, who teaches the teens every week. Mrs. Finkelmeyer is gossiping to at least four different ladies (and one man) about what a terrible teacher you are. She criticizes your teaching style. She criticizes the teens. She criticizes your alleged lack of qualifications. You’ve been approached by three people, who admit she’s been slandering you to them. You and Mrs. Finkelmeyer aren’t the best of friends. Truth be told, you know she doesn’t like you, but you have no idea why. You generally try to keep your distance from the woman. But, with criticism mounting, you feel something must be done.

I’ll summarize my position:

If you have a serious, legitimate issue with a fellow Christian (like Mrs. Finkelmeyer),
and she refuses to repent or acknowledge guilt after you speak to him about it (like Mrs. Finkelmeyer),
and you decide to “let it go” and “forgive him in your heart,”
and if, by this terminology, you mean you consider the matter closed, or you’ve released her from his debt due to you for her offense,
but you still acknowledge the relationship is ruined and will continue to be ruined until he acknowledges and confesses her guilt
then I don’t believe “forgiveness” has happened at all, because there hasn’t been a reconciliation based on genuine repentance

Before you go to Finkelmeyer, you need to consider what her sin is, if any.

Is it sinful for her to have an opinion that you are a poor teacher? No. (It might be true, and regardless, it’s a matter of opinion.)

Her sin is gossip. In my view, it would be fine for her to go to you and express her opinion about your teaching. It would be fine for her to go to the church elders/pastors and express her opinion about your teaching. To tell others is gossip.

Part of the difficulty here is that it HURTS to hear that you’re a poor teacher. And it’s easy to think “you-hurt-me” = “you-sinned.” But that isn’t necessarily the case. So in your relationship with the Finkelmeyer, you have to start with humility and be willing to admit that she might be right or at least have a legitimate opinion about your teaching. Until you do that, you are going to mix the hurt of her message with the sin of her gossip. Once you separate them, you’ll see that the sin of her gossip is not that big a deal and actually pretty easy to let go of whether she repents or not.

Nevertheless, the Matt 18 model is:

1. Go to her and tell her that while you welcome her criticism, her gossip is sin and she should repent (realize it is sin and quit).

2. Take a friend who knows what she has done and mutually appeal for her repentance.

3. Talk to the church. (The leaders should be involved first, so they can lead the church in asking her to repent, etc. That will no doubt involve their expression to her of their view that it’s gossip. They should make it clear that they welcome her opinion that your teaching is poor. She might repent at that point.)

The other thing is, other people should be asked about your teaching. Maybe others find it very interesting and profitable. So she should be able to rejoice in the growth of others, even while she finds it meh.

TylerR: To be sure, this raises a thorny issue - if I refuse to “forgive” (understand that I believe forgiveness is a promise to not hold a man’s sin against him anymore, based on sincere repentance), then am I therefore holding a grudge? I don’t believe so. I think a Christian must be honestly willing to forgive, and not be consumed by bitterness. I’m willing to completely forgive and reconcile, if the other guy repents for his sin. I’m effectively advocating what is commonly called “forgive him in my heart,” but I don’t call that “forgiveness,” because I don’t believe it is.

GNBarkman: …In short, they refuse to acknowledge their offense, and thereby refuse to be reconciled. Their perspective may be, “I’m right, and you’re wrong no matter what evidence you present, and I’m not going to change my opinion.”

In such situations, forgiveness is impossible, if we mean forgiveness that accomplishes reconciliation with the offender…

Forgiveness does not necessarily mean restoration. If a husband beats his wife, she should forgive him, but still call the police. And not necessarily just move right back in.

If Mrs. Finkelmeyer says she’s sorry for gossip, you forgive her, but when she starts meeting with you to berate you every week, you should eventually say, “No, I don’t want to meet any more.”

–—

Or, when you do “step 1” and confront her, maybe she says, “Well, I did talk to others. I told them what I thought. They didn’t agree. So I dropped it. Doesn’t change my opinion.” Then what do you say?

Does God forgive without reconciliation? Doesn’t forgiveness mean the barrier that caused the breach is removed so that reconciliation takes place? I think we confuse a willingness to forgive with the act of forgiveness. I can’t forgive you unless you ask me to, in which case I’m obligated to forgive. Until then, I express my willingness to forgive to God and ask Him to enable forgiveness and reconciliation to occur. I may even express my willingness to you, so that you know my desire. But I can’t forgive you until you acknowledge the trespass and seek forgiveness.

Is God’s forgiveness conditioned upon my asking (“forgive us our debts”), but my forgiveness is unconditional (“as we forgive our debtors”)? When I pray the Lord’s prayer, I express to God my desire and willingness to forgive others, and I ask Him to bring circumstances to pass to enable this to occur. I also acknowledge that this may never happen, and I express my willingness to move on without brooding about the offense. But reconciliation with the offender requires an acknowledgement of wrong and a promise to forgive. That doesn’t mean that I ought to shun the offender, necessarily. (That depends upon the gravity of the offense.) But if I have communicated the offense, and the offender refuses to deal with it, there will always be an unresolved problem between us until it is Biblically addressed.

I believe there may be a distinction between my forgiving the offender to God, which clears my conscience, and my forgiving the offender himself. How can I forgive someone who does not want to be forgiven? To whom do I pronounce forgiveness? “I forgive you.” “But I didn’t ask you to forgive me, and I don’t want you to forgive me.” Now what?

There’s a lot in there, GN. God forgives when we confess. Yes. But our confession is never complete. Neither our awareness of our sin nor our willingness to confess what we do know are ever complete. So complete confession isn’t required. Yet God forgives us - He grants to us a perfect identity. And that identity in Christ includes a lot of things we didn’t even know need repentance (yet).

I think one thing that we get confused in this process (comes out in your last paragraph) is the notion that making someone confess is punishment. I want to see you feel bad. That can be a thing (contrition), but it can also become a sense in which we want them to feel bad to pay for their sin.

There’s a lot of aspects of this process that are utterly confusing, even contradictory (Aaron is going to chide me for using that word). Our sin is shameful, and in a sense, we should feel that shame. But Jesus bore the shame, and so in another sense, as we are forgiven, we should not feel ashamed.

We should want Mrs. Finkelmeyer to feel ashamed of what she’s done, and so we might not want forgiveness to seem easy. But, as Christians (forgiven and forgiving servants) we should so love the idea of forgiveness because it has been done to us that we should be eager to forgive others.

Aaron’s example is exactly what I was thinking of earlier in the thread. If person A turns around and extends their arms and says they want to fix it and B refuses to do so, there really isn’t much A can do other than say ‘I am going to let go of your offense and move on’.

In that case, I think there is such a thing as ‘unilateral forgiveness’, and that holding on to the offense is spiritually dangerous, breeding bitterness or hatred. Better to say I have done all I can for now and let go.

It strikes me that if someone says I’m a poor teacher, I’m perfectly in line putting them on the spot to ask them how I’m a poor teacher. If they cannot define it beyond “I just have this feeling” or some such thing, I think one is perfectly in line saying “if you can’t draw a bead on how I’m teaching poorly, I’m going to infer that you really don’t know what you’re talking about, and as such, you might do well to learn what you’re talking about before spouting off to others.”

OK, one might soften it a little bit, but if you’re going to criticize, be specific about the matter. Feedback of this kind should, if done right, enable someone to improve.