THOUGHTFULLY DRIVING THE PORCELAIN BUS

A Column by John S Schroeder

June 29, 2002

There is an equation running around the church right now that is a real falsity and the conclusions of which can be (probably has been) devastating to basic Christian thought. I am going to put the equation in quotes just to make SURE you know I don’t buy into it:

"LOVE = FORGIVENESS = ACCEPTANCE"

Let's talk about the "Love = Forgiveness" part of the equation. When people talk about this they talk about the fact that on the cross Jesus forgave everybody. There is some truth to that statement. The Cross is the work of forgiveness. In going to the Cross, Jesus made it possible for us to be forgiven -- He extended the offer of forgiveness. God is ready and willing to forgive us, but for forgiveness to really happen, we have to take Him up on the offer.

That is a terribly important distinction that this modern strain of thought on forgiveness seems to overlook. Forgiveness is about the restoration of a relationship. If the other party does not reach out (that is what repentance is all about) then only half the relationship can be restored, which isn’t really a restoration at all. If I do not repent in response to God's work of forgiveness, then my relationship with Him is not restored. The analogy of the pathetic loser that will do anything to hang around with someone (from the column on acceptance) really applies here. If God forgives us completely without a repentant response on our part, there is no condemnation, and then God is reduced to doing anything just to hang out with us. God has more pride than that.

There is a really important distinction that needs to be made between forgiveness and the "work of," or "offer of" forgiveness. I think our language really let's us down here. Let's bring this into human terms. If you wrong me, am I required to forgive you? Well, as I read scripture I am required to love you. That love demands that I be ready to restore my relationship with you, which means I have to be prepared to forgive you -- I have to offer you forgiveness, but it takes two to complete the transaction. If you don’t hold up your end of the bargain, I can still love you and I can still be prepared to forgive you, but I am not going to and do not have to let you continue to hurt me over and over again.

Some respond by saying "We are sinners and we hurt God every time we sin, and He always forgives us." I would respond by saying I am not at all sure of that. If we are repentant, yes I believe He forgives us. But if we just do the same *&^% over and over and do not even admit to God that we know it is wrong and ask Him to help us stop doing it, then I think He might just turn His back on us. (Never forget there is a reference in Hebrews to an unforgivable sin.)

Look at it this way, if I give you a gift and you refuse it, gift giving has not been accomplished. Gift buying has been accomplished. Gift-wrapping has been accomplished. But gift giving has not been accomplished. Now, if I love you, I will keep that gift in its nice wrapped box on the shelf and it will be yours for the asking. But there are some things you can bet on. I am not going to buy you anymore gifts until you take the original one. You and I are not going to share the fruits of that gift. Chances are you and I will not be friends. We may be acquaintances or colleagues, but not friends. If at some point you accept that gift, then whole new worlds are opened up to us.

There is another thing worth mentioning. When this topic comes up, many people respond that "It is unhealthy to bear a grudge." Yes it is, but letting go of a grudge is not the same as forgiveness. Letting go of a grudge is the willingness to forgive, but again, it takes two to restore a relationship, and thus it takes two to accomplish forgiveness.

Consider the "Love = Forgiveness" equation again. Suppose that some parents raised their children based on that equation. Then, every time the child did something wrong, they would just forgive the child. They would not punish the child, they would not require the child to learn that what was done was wrong, they would just forgive the child. Can you imagine what that child would grow up like. I bet you can, because a lot of kids are being raised in pretty much that fashion. The result is a self-centered, spoiled little brat that no one can bear to be in the room with.

Do parents that punish their children not love them? Of course not - the punishment is an act of love, it is designed to help the child grow up into a decent adult. As a child grows, that shaping takes on a more subtle tone than time-outs and spankings. It involves a removal of privileges, and the restoration of privileges is generally accomplished when the child is capable of explaining their transgression and asking their parents for a restoration of privileges. Sounds remarkably like the child being repentant to me. Does such a parent not love their child? Nay, they love the child so much; they want them to learn right from wrong.

God loves us, but He does not automatically forgive us. He is willing, He stands ready, but for us to have our privilege of relationship with Him restored, we must be broken. We must be driven to our knees.

One has to read all of scripture. Yes, Jesus did say, "turn the other cheek" in the Sermon on the Mount, but that same Jesus called the Pharisees "hypocrites and viper's brood." Those later words do not reek of ready "unconditional" forgiveness to me. How do we reconcile these differences? There are some that contend the phrase "turn the other cheek" indicates a form of defiance, not submission, but I leave that argument to Greek scholars since its root is in the use of that language.

I have another possible answer. A very young child cannot be expected to allocute his or her transgressions -- they may not have sufficiently developed their cognitive abilities yet. So, a parent always forgives the infant that pukes on them. If however, that same child at 5 or 6 years of age does not have the courtesy to at least turn its head and puke on the ground, a punishment of some sort might be in order. At 16, they better be able to find a toilet to puke in.

We grow as Christians. So Jesus demands little of us at first. The Pharisees; however, represented the pinnacle of religious and spiritual development, of them He demanded much. The more mature we are as Christians, the more that is expected of us by God, and others, and so deeper needs to be the repentance when we do transgress - we should have known better.

I guess that is what really bothers me about all this talk of forgiveness without repentance, it does not call us forward to maturity. I am not satisfied with an immature relationship with other people and certainly not with God. Acquaintance or colleague just doesn’t cut it. God has called us to far more than that in our relationships with Him and with each other.

We live in a world where intimacy is an increasingly precious thing. I am not talking about sex here; I am talking about a genuine sharing of lives. With God, anything less than total intimacy is a crime, a failure. It's not like I can hide from Him anyway. Intimacy with other people is what helps me become better. Proverbs 27:7 -- "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." That's intimacy. You see, demanding repentance is really simply holding someone accountable. Holding someone accountable is an act of love -- it is a way of saying, "my love for you tells me you are better than that."

What I have written above is a genuine, heartfelt reaction to a train of thought. I believe all of it. But it is written in the vernacular and it is designed to appeal. In the debate it addresses there is a very real theological issue. Call it a logical puzzle if you will. If you are not into such things you can stop here.

There is basic tenant of Christian belief that can tie us up in knots. That tenant is that salvation is entirely the work of God and that there is nothing we can do to earn our salvation. Repentance sounds remarkably like having to "do something" to earn our salvation. Thus we have a problem; call it the "grace alone" problem.

Here's the thing, if repentance is not necessary, then everyone is saved and there simply is no judgement, no condemnation, and no hell. I personally do not find this is in line with scripture -- there is too much talk of sorting the sheep from the goats and things like that. Furthermore, Jesus' ministry indicated that there are behavioral changes expected in response to salvation. If forgiveness were simply cast upon the waters for all, then it would be difficult to expect them to change their behavior, or to motivate them to do so.

Proponents of the "Love = Forgiveness" equation usually gloss over the problems I describe in the paragraph. above They say things like "God is Love," or they really believe there is no condemnation, in which case it is time for me to carry a gun in the car and actually let go of my road rage.

I think there are two ways around the grace alone problem. The first is the one John Calvin cooked up all those years ago -- Election. In this view God decides who is saved and who is not -- it's as simple as that. Now, we never know whom He has decided to save, so we better act like it's us, but the decision was made before we were. The "Love = Forgiveness" crowd hates this way out of the problem. This is about as cold-blooded as God can get, at least as most people see it. Most people find this approach makes God arbitrary.

The older I get, and the more I read and understand the issues, the more I like the idea of election. It simply solves too many theological conundrums. Election is not quite as harsh as its opponents would have you think either. If one considers the knowledge that God has, including knowledge of the future, election is really just trusting in God's judgement, and I am OK with that. Having said that, I am still not ready to go there 100% because I like to think that I have some control over my destiny. I probably don't, but I am not willing to let go of the illusion entirely just yet.

The other way around the grace alone problem is what I described in the first section. It is a semantical argument. Repentance is not a necessary condition for forgiveness; it is the acceptance of it. Since I wrote about this so much I am not going to belabor it here. Some say this is nothing more than a word game. I don’t think so.

Now, what I find most interesting is I have yet to hear this discussed in these theological terms in a church (a seminary yes, but not a church). This whole unilateral forgiveness thing comes up in churches generally when someone has screwed up and does not want to admit it, or the powers that be don’t want to chastise them for it. Every sermon I have ever heard on the topic came after the pastor made a big boo-boo of one sort or another.

Dealing with this stuff becomes much harder when one deals with human-to-human issues. Aside from "turn the other cheek," Jesus also said "seven times seventy." What Jesus never said was "let them keep hitting you." I think this is pretty simply really, particularly if one buys into the "repentance as acceptance" argument. If you strike me, I am always willing to forgive you, provided you repentantly accept the forgiveness. If you strike me repeatedly, I can protect myself, but remain willing to forgive you once you are willing to repentantly accept that forgiveness. I will never strike at you offensively, but I will strike at you as hard as necessary to defend myself until such time as you repentantly accept my forgiveness.

So, for all you boo-booing pastors out there don’t preach to me about unilateral and unconditional forgiveness. I forgive you, but that is not license for you to continue making the same mistake.

Author's Note (one week later)

Just as a point of clarification, there is a very real way to tell the difference between someone who is willing to forgive and someone who is not. If I am not willing to forgive, if I have not let go of the grudge, then I will do more than stand quietly by and defend myself, I will demand retribution and punishment. The opposite of forgiveness is not quiet avoidance, the opposite of forgiveness is retribution. Thus I think it is fair to say that there are three stages after one has been offended in some way, the first is full anger and demand for punishment and retribution. The second is the state of willingness to forgive, based on repentance, and the third is complete forgiveness with relational restoration. The unconditional forgiveness people do not see the middle step, but in my opinion it is all there can be without repentance.

Another point of clarification that I think needs to be made is in the language of defense that I used above. People often point out that Jesus allowed himself to continue to take a beating unto death. These same people often therefore conclude Jesus was a pacifist, and the unconditional forgiveness thought is often a part of that total package. I would respond with two points. There was much, much more at stake when Jesus accepted death than just the beef between Himself and the Pharisees. We may likewise be confronted with such circumstances. I may let you hurt me if it serves a greater good, but those situations are fairly rare in the average personal relationship, save perhaps a parent with child. The other response I would make is that Jesus was no pacifist. The same Jesus that allowed His own crucifixion tore through the Temple just a week before, most definitely not the act of a pacifist.

With Love,