Conflict? Ask Ken? Issues Relating to Forgiveness
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, March 24, 2005
- Viewed 58
- (8) comments so far
Bob, given the assumption that you “have, in fact, done nothing wrong or offensive,‿ for what would you be apologizing? To do so would not only be dishonest, but would pervert the process. It would become a demonstration of forced subservience instead of a true reconnection of relations. Such a symbolic act not based on truth will likely make more permanent the existing alienation. The fact that you feel that the apology would be used “against‿ you, speaks to me not only of a highly charged environment, but of larger, unresolved matters. If this assumption is correct, the question becomes, have you attempted to address the real problem behind the “presenting‿ problem? I would recommend that you call upon the services of a mediator/peacemaker to uncover the real issues that need to be faced for a true reconciliation. Such matters left unaddressed will likely lead to a further deterioration of relations.
Forgiveness: In Concept
At this juncture, let's establish a working definition of forgiveness. At its core, forgiveness is a relational act between the wrongdoer and the one who is wronged. It is the way for people to restore a relationship which has been strained or broken because of one person's offense against the other.
When forgiveness has been bestowed, it means that we will not call to mind the other person's sins to use them against that person. In this, we can look to God's pattern with people. The Bible teaches that when God forgives, He remembers people's sins no more (Isaiah 43:25, Jeremiah 31:34). He removes their transgressions from them as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:10-12). He buries people's sins in the deepest seas (Micah 7:18-19). This figurative language clearly communicates that after forgiveness has been bestowed, there is no more condemnation. With this understanding, we are better able to tackle the next issue relating to forgiveness.
Forgiveness by an Unauthorized Proxy?
[Those of you who are new to this discussion, you may want to read the Wiesenthal story and his response to a dying Nazi soldier, and then last's week's follow-up discussion]. Since all sin against others is also sin against God (Gen. 39:6-9, Lev. 6:1-3, Psalm 51:4, Luke 15:17-19, Acts 5:1-4), I fully understand how Jesus could forgive someone who didn't directly sin against Him. We read, in Mark 2, Jesus said to a paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.‿ When the religious leaders heard this they were astounded and said, “why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?‿ Jesus did not deny that assertion. Rather, He went on to demonstrate that He had such authority by enabling the man to walk, and hence evidence of His divinity and ability to forgive.
I can also see how a minister, speaking as God's representative, could assure a person that God forgives those who come to Him in repentance.
However, these are a far cry from saying that someone other than the offended has the authority and standing to forgive the offender. If, for example, Bob viciously insults Sue, can Mary forgive Bob a week later for his outburst against Sue? Hypothetically speaking, if Bob could truly be forgiven by Mary, then the matter is closed, and Sue is left out in the cold with the insult but no means by which to rectify her relationship with Bob.
Jesus said in Mat. 5:23-24, “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.‿
In light of Jesus' words, Mary's bestowing of forgiveness is meaningless because she was not offended. Nor did anyone appoint her as the representative of all women that she could stand in Sue's place.
“Apology‿ and “forgiveness‿ are relational terms between two very specific people who are connected by an offense. To introduce unauthorized “strangers‿ into the mix, is to devalue the meaning and transformational power of forgiveness.
Should the Bestowal of Forgiveness be Conditional, Based on the Repentance of the Offender?
Lord willing, this will be the focus on next week's posting. Until then, feel free to get an early jump on sharing your perspective regarding this most critical question.
--
© 2005 Kenneth C. Newberger Ken Newberger, an experienced church conflict resolution specialist, earned his Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, has ten years senior pastoral experience, and is in the dissertation phase for his Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, one of only two accredited doctoral programs of its kind in the United States. If your church needs help resolving conflict, if you need individual coaching, or if you would like to introduce a proactive conflict management system into your church, please visit Ken's website at http://www.ResolveChurchConflict.com or call 301-253-8877.
Forgiveness plays an instrumental role in the rehabilitation of interpersonal relations. Consequently, it is important to view forgiveness from many different perspectives to best appreciate it for what it is and is not. In this posting, let's consider three. Bob's Question: First, Bob wrote [Conflict? Ask Ken: March 14, 2005 02:10 pm], “Our church is dealing with issues involving reconciliation and forgiveness. This impacts me personally because there is a difference of opinion on whether I have committed an offense. Some contend I have, and that I should ask forgiveness for that offense, but I contend otherwise. I believe that I have done something they disagree with, but which is not offensive.
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
phill on Thu, March 24, 2005
I cut my teeth in a clergy killer church. I am no longer there, and serving in an awesome church.
But during those years at the other place it was awful…I was the associate pastor at the time…and the senior pastor fired a very long term member from being the secretary in order to hire a much needed worship director. Keep in mind that this secretary should have been fired. But it was a small church of three hundred…so things don’t always work like we want them to.
To shorten the story, the pastor was hit while greeting people leaving after a sermon he preached, a man walked up and hit him. Others said nasty stuff to him while people were coming into the church.
It has been a few years and we have not talked much. But recently I reached out to him to see how he was doing. He is out of ministry but has a terrific job.
I said; “I want to ask for forgiveness for anything I might have done to you” He said; “how can you ask for forgiveness if you do not know what to ask for.”
That was very recent, and has not left me. I learned a very valuable lesson in forgiveness from this man. We are scheduling a date to call each other to set everything straight between us.
What a healthy thing to do.
Pete King on Thu, March 24, 2005
This is a very difficult subject and I was wondering how an offense is defined according to scripture. A few questions hover that might need some clarity. First off, can an offense occur even if there is no intent? Second, is an offense based on how one feels as opposed to clear violation of scripture? These two points pose a very difficult problem when regarding church issues. Has anyone wondered why Jesus commanded us to forgive 70 times 7 everyday? I believe for this very problem we are given such a large number to forgive. The focus is more about us forgiving the offense than the offense itself. Although we are given instruction on how to deal with an offense(book of Matthew) the overall theme of scripture regards the word “offense” with sin. In cases where sin is not committed and problems occur due to differences than how can we associate the problem with an “offense”? Just a thought. I have not completely formulated my opinion on this one and I am curious what some of you might think regarding this issue.
Daniel Zepeda on Thu, March 24, 2005
On the original story used by Kenneth C. Newberger that of Simon Wiesenthal’s with the Nazi soldier, Newberger used an analogy that did not fit with the Wiesenthal’s story which was evident by the many responses to the original post. In this NEW discussion Newberger having been called on his opinion on the original post now is trying to justify his original stance by developing an entirely new scenario involving offense between two people instead of a crime against a race of people or humanity as a whole. In this NEW scenario, Newberger is correct in that the most effectual manner to resolve an offense between two people is that the original two people involved in the offense come together and resolve the issue between themselves or with the use of a mediator.
The Newberger Forgiveness by an Unauthorized proxy comments is a measure taken to justify himself over his previous remarks “Wiesenthal responded to the dying Nazi with silence. The majority of respondents did not find fault with Wiesenthal, a traumatized prisoner. I stand among them and for much the same reason as many: this soldier’s sin was not against Wiesenthal. Therefore, he was not in a position to forgive him. If John hurts Joe, Susie who is a stranger to that relationship, is simply not able to stand in Joe’s place to heal that relationship.” This excerpt from the previous post explains why this post was written. As humans we always love to have the last word and when we are suppose to be the expert on a given subject and are questioned or our opinions challenged by some unknown high school dropout it really bothers us and moves us to justify ourselves even to the point of disregarding the truth of dissenting opinions. On this post I would have to agree with Mr Newberger’s comments when the offense involves two people. God Bless you all
Daniel Zepeda on Thu, March 24, 2005
Should the Bestowal of Forgiveness be Conditional, Based on the Repentance of the Offender?
The question here takes in two different areas of forgiveness. Let me explain. When a person commits an offense against a person he also commits an offense against the God of Heaven. When the offense occurs the person or persons hurt by the offense now come under spiritual attack and their emotions are engaged in a given emotional response that can cause them physical harm. With the understanding that by keeping a hurt to oneself can cause you physical harm, the persons offended should forgive the offender even if that person is unrepentant. This obedience to God’s command to forgive releases those injured from the bondage of bitterness, anger, and hate, and frees them from the spiritual attack against their emotions that if unresolved can lead to physical harm like stress, high blood pressure, anxiety, etcetera. So the answer to the question “Should the Bestowal of Forgiveness be conditional, Based on the repentance of the offender” is No for the person who is hurt. Those offended should always forgive the offender in obedience to God.
Now to address the second area of forgiveness that this question takes in, is the area of spiritual forgiveness. If the person who comments the offense against another person although forgiven by those he hurt, the perpetrator of the offense still remains unforgiven by God until he repents. So in this part of the situation the answer is yes to the question “Should the Bestowal of Forgiveness be conditional, Based on the repentance of the offender”, which is a response that only the God of Heaven can take and not those offended.
bernie dehler on Thu, March 24, 2005
Phil wrote:
“I said; “I want to ask for forgiveness for anything I might have done to you” He said; “how can you ask for forgiveness if you do not know what to ask for.””
I think this is the point—you aren’t so much asking for forgiveness on a particular issue, but want a good brotherly relationship. We all have “emotional bank accounts.” They are either empty, partially filled, or full. You are simply asking to be in a healthy right relationship with this brother. Leave it at that, and ask him if there’s anything you need to do to make amends for anything that comes to his mind. If he says he has no issues with you, then you did what you could, and I think he would appreicate you reaching out in healing.. contributing to his own healing…
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Bart on Fri, March 25, 2005
I wonder if we are confusing forgiveness with apologizing. the author says that to apologize when no “offense” has occured would pevert the process. I have seen several examples within churches where the pastor refused to apologize because he saw no offense. This gives the impression that the pastor is incapible of recognising a mistake. While i may not see an offense, obviously someone else does. My apology may not be for the decision or action that was taken, but for the hurt feelings it may have caused. As an axample, when my wife and I disagree I may apologise for hurting her feelings, even if I believe that my actions were proper. her feelings are still hurt, even if my actions were not meant to hurt her. Within the church we sometimes need to apologize for hurting someones feelings even if what we did was not an offense. We as pastors do not need to grovel for everything we do , but don’t refuse to recognise someones hurt.
Daniel Zepeda on Fri, March 25, 2005
There is a Christian website that has a 2 part message on the unoffendable Heart. It really adds to this discussion. Here is the web address. http://www.frangipane.org
Check it out it will bless you and challenge you for Christ.
Curt on Tue, April 05, 2005
I was recently asked by a third party to seek the forgiveness of another for a percieved error in judgement. A wise friend counseled me, “If I have offended you wrongly, I apologize. If I have offended you rightly, I do not.” Be prepared to support your position in context.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Post a Comment