What Forgiveness Is and Isn’t

Alcorn has it mostly right.

And yet, forgiveness is only the first level of engagement with those who have hurt us. The next level, I believe, is reconciliation. But this is often more complicated. In Joseph’s case, it happened because his brothers also engaged and were willing to embrace repentance and restitution. This is not always possible.

This is why unilateral forgiveness is both possible and sometimes necessary.

Edit to add: The post is actually by Dan Darling, with a brief intro by Randy Alcorn. I’ve edited the Filings to attribute it to Dan.

I've been thinking a lot about forgiveness over the last several years.

I don't think of this in the same way he does, but I like the article. His use of three terms helps people grasp that they can forgive, but still keep a person at arms-length (or ten-foot pole length).

I've considered writing an article on this topic (but busy). In the end, I define forgiveness as the personal assessment of the one who wronged us as in a sense innocent, even while we know that they are guilty, anchored in a hope that God forgives them and calls them perfect.

If Ephesians 4:32 is to be taken as a serious command for Christian living, what does it mean? Can you imagine God viewing us in these three categories? “You know,” God says, “I forgive you, I really do. But I am not able to have a reconcile with you. Maybe, if after you have a number of years of earning trust, we can reopen some lines of communication.”

Forgiveness is hard and complex in a human world, but I wonder if we too often buy into worldly notions that undermine the radical nature of the call to Christianity.

I can’t speak for Dan Darling on this point, but my own view:

Lines of communication don’t belong in the trust category, or even the reconciliation category. They’re in the forgiveness category. If we’re not willing to at least talk, we have not forgiven.

Larry wrote: If Ephesians 4:32 is to be taken as a serious command for Christian living, what does it mean? Can you imagine God viewing us in these three categories? “You know,” God says, “I forgive you, I really do. But I am not able to have a reconcile with you. Maybe, if after you have a number of years of earning trust, we can reopen some lines of communication.”

Forgiveness is hard and complex in a human world, but I wonder if we too often buy into worldly notions that undermine the radical nature of the call

There is a level of reconciliation that God gives to every believer. But also, service is a form of fellowship with God. And God does not want every forgiven sinner to receive full reconciliation in those terms. There are sins that disqualify a man from service as elder. And if restoration is possible, then yes, it would take years of earning trust.

Similar for a man who abuses his children. Yes, his family should forgive him. But he won't be serving in the nursery.

Dan,

As I say, it is complex in a human world.

The point I was making is that this article on forgiveness does not even mention the central passage on forgiveness (Eph 4:32) and it bases its argument almost entirely on the narrative of Joseph and never even seems to consider seriously whether Joseph was right or wrong to do what he did. There is a case to be made that Joseph was wrong in his actions toward his brothers. That story is not there to teach about forgiveness. So it should not be used to teach about forgiveness.

Any teaching on forgiveness has to start with what God did for us and build off of that. If we are to forgive “just as” he forgave us, that sets a standard. It cannot be glossed over or ignored.