Any Christian listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 last Thursday would have been intrigued to hear an extended interview with a lady called Maureen Greaves. Maureen's husband Alan was brutally battered to death by two young thugs while he was on his way to a Christmas Eve church service in Sheffield in 2012. Maureen is a committed Christian, as was Alan. This came over clearly in the interview as she spoke about her forgiving the men that had taken the life of the man she loved.
It was a sensitive interview and teased out something of the relationship between forgiveness and justice. The topic was followed up in another helpful interview with two others reflecting on Maureen's testimony and the topic of forgiveness. It has also reached other aspects of the UK media.
As I was about to teach on the subject of sexual abuse and the pastoral care of victims at a meeting for officers in the Central London Division of the Salvation Army I thought I should incorporate a recording of the interview and use it as a discussion starter. So I produced a video to incorporate the audio recording and included various slides with pictures of Alan and Maureen and some quotes taken from a UK newspaper interview.Also among the slides are some pertinent questions on the difficult issue of forgiveness.
It is a difficult and complex issue and after seeing the video we had an excellent discussion at the meeting in London on Monday 6th January. I'm happy to make the video available to others who might wish to use it. You can contact me at barry@ruralmissions.org.uk. (Please put 'Videos' in the subject line)
While I have no hesitation in stating that God loves everyone all the time and unconditionally, I cannot say that God forgives everyone unconditionally. To do so would be a denial of his character of being just. I also believe that it is absolutely wrong for Christians to rush headlong into a process of forgiveness without at least some understanding of what they are doing. Sadly, this runs counter to what we hear a lot from pulpits and sometimes from poorly informed counsellors.
In the interview Maureen repeatedly stated that she had forgiven the men who killed her husband. But what had she forgiven them for. She could certainly forgive them for taking her husband from her, but she certainly could NOT forgive them for the act of murder. That is not her prerogative. By contrast, Jesus could forgive those who drove nails through his hands and feet and who gambled below the cross for the last piece of property he owned. Similarly, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, could forgive those who threw the stones that killed him. But you or I could never grant third-party forgiveness - nor could even Mary.
I also asked the group to reflect on what Maureen thought she was affecting by her act of forgiveness. We know that being able and willing to forgive anyone for a hurt we have suffered can bring peace and healing as we let go of malice, bitterness and resentment. Maureen was a secondary victim of the brutal act the men committed and in offering her forgiveness for that hurt she might affect the hearts and minds of the villains - if it increased a feeling of guilt and remorse. Others hearing her loving words might also be affected and moved to be more loving and forgiving themselves on personal matters.
A third discussion centred around 'feelings' and punishment. Maureen stated that she had not felt rage - just bewilderment that anyone should do something so dreadful to the man she loved. Later she did say that she had some negative feelings and has found herself needing to repeat the act of forgiving them. I think that unless a person feels some kind of anger or rage over what has been done to them the act of forgiving is less significant. If we hurt and feel the pain then forgiving has deep meaning. If it is costless then it could be worthless (not that I am suggesting that Maureen's act was worthless; far from it).
She was asked if she was 'happy' with regard to the prison sentences given to the two young men. One has to serve a life sentence with a minimum tariff of 25 years before he can even be considered for parole. The other man was found guilty of manslaughter and was given a nine year sentence. Maureen stated that she was happy with the life sentence but thought that nine years was too lenient. She and her family have contented themselves on the lesser sentence on the grounds that when that man is released his face will be well known and they felt his punishment would be more intense after release. "From the start", she said "I wanted justice for Alan".
It is at this point that the interview exposed a hole.Maureen had repeatedly stated that her act was based on the extraordinary forgiveness she had received from God for her sins. She spoke of God 'forgiving and forgetting'. Was she, perhaps, acting like the man in the parable Jesus told as recorded in Matthew 18: 23 -35? The discussion digressed slightly to reflect on John 20:22. Let's come back to that as it is difficult.
Maureen went on to make a good point. People that do wrong need to receive due punishment. It is good for them and for society in general that this is so. So, unlike the forgiveness we receive from God ,which comes with justification and so no punishment, accepting the rightness of their punishment (and even feeling that one sentence was too short) is right - but perhaps using the word 'happy' was unfortunate. On the other hand, closure is needed so I don't want to minimise the psychological and emotional benefit derived from the sentences being served.
The final discussion was on what was effected (achieved) by her act of forgiveness. For her it seems to have brought some peace. We don't know that it has had effect on the men (that is stimulating remorse and real repentance). I think it is important to state that it will not have had an effect on God regarding his relationship - or lack of it - with these men. In God's eyes They remain sinners and his forgiveness requires genuine repentance, and genuine repentance means more than saying sorry.
So let's go back to that tricky verse in John 20:22. I don't think that this gives to anyone the ability to act in a priestly way to absolve someone from their sins where there is no real repentance. I certainly do not think that anyone (including ordained priests) have authority to forgive sins that have not been committed against them (i.e. acting as a third person). I do believe that where we have been sinned against and where we have grace to forgive them, and where they wish to acknowledge culpability and receive forgiveness, then in such a situation where we give forgiveness they are also forgiven in heaven. But true repentance will always be expressed in a willingness to accept any earthly consequences that follow the sin (e.g. a prison sentence).
I am happy to point people to the words of 1John 1:9. Where there is acceptance of culpability, true remorse to the extent of openly acknowledging guilt than I am happy to give assurance that in such situations God justly forgives so that "there is now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus..." (Romans 8:1).
Forgiveness is something precious and we should not cheapen it by passing the words around like sweets from a bag. In every situation there are always more than one person involved. Being willing to forgive and offering that is not actually effecting forgiveness if there is no true repentance. So we need to be careful how we use the term. We need to consider the issue not just from our side (if it is we who want to forgive); we need to consider the impact on the perpetrator, and also of its impact on society, and in the eyes of God. Let's be careful that we do not short change someone of a process of grace, or worse still pass them a dodgy note that has forgiven printed on it but is frankly worthless.
From the diary
Sunday 5th - Yelvertoft Congregational Church
Monday 6th - London Central Division of the Salvation Army
Monday evening - video conference for trustees of Mission for Christ
Tuesday 7th - Gartree Prison
Thursday 9th - Bible Discussion Meeting, Yelvertoft
Sunday 12th - Yelvertoft Congregational Church
Monday 13th - Research into Rural Evangelism
Monday 13th - - a telephone conference for the Mission and Society Committee of the Congregational Federation.
Tuesday 14th - Gartree Prison.
I pray that you will be greatly blessed in 2014, which you will be as you seek to walk well with God.
Thank you for your fellowship.
Barry
It was a sensitive interview and teased out something of the relationship between forgiveness and justice. The topic was followed up in another helpful interview with two others reflecting on Maureen's testimony and the topic of forgiveness. It has also reached other aspects of the UK media.
As I was about to teach on the subject of sexual abuse and the pastoral care of victims at a meeting for officers in the Central London Division of the Salvation Army I thought I should incorporate a recording of the interview and use it as a discussion starter. So I produced a video to incorporate the audio recording and included various slides with pictures of Alan and Maureen and some quotes taken from a UK newspaper interview.Also among the slides are some pertinent questions on the difficult issue of forgiveness.
It is a difficult and complex issue and after seeing the video we had an excellent discussion at the meeting in London on Monday 6th January. I'm happy to make the video available to others who might wish to use it. You can contact me at barry@ruralmissions.org.uk. (Please put 'Videos' in the subject line)
While I have no hesitation in stating that God loves everyone all the time and unconditionally, I cannot say that God forgives everyone unconditionally. To do so would be a denial of his character of being just. I also believe that it is absolutely wrong for Christians to rush headlong into a process of forgiveness without at least some understanding of what they are doing. Sadly, this runs counter to what we hear a lot from pulpits and sometimes from poorly informed counsellors.
In the interview Maureen repeatedly stated that she had forgiven the men who killed her husband. But what had she forgiven them for. She could certainly forgive them for taking her husband from her, but she certainly could NOT forgive them for the act of murder. That is not her prerogative. By contrast, Jesus could forgive those who drove nails through his hands and feet and who gambled below the cross for the last piece of property he owned. Similarly, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, could forgive those who threw the stones that killed him. But you or I could never grant third-party forgiveness - nor could even Mary.
I also asked the group to reflect on what Maureen thought she was affecting by her act of forgiveness. We know that being able and willing to forgive anyone for a hurt we have suffered can bring peace and healing as we let go of malice, bitterness and resentment. Maureen was a secondary victim of the brutal act the men committed and in offering her forgiveness for that hurt she might affect the hearts and minds of the villains - if it increased a feeling of guilt and remorse. Others hearing her loving words might also be affected and moved to be more loving and forgiving themselves on personal matters.
A third discussion centred around 'feelings' and punishment. Maureen stated that she had not felt rage - just bewilderment that anyone should do something so dreadful to the man she loved. Later she did say that she had some negative feelings and has found herself needing to repeat the act of forgiving them. I think that unless a person feels some kind of anger or rage over what has been done to them the act of forgiving is less significant. If we hurt and feel the pain then forgiving has deep meaning. If it is costless then it could be worthless (not that I am suggesting that Maureen's act was worthless; far from it).
She was asked if she was 'happy' with regard to the prison sentences given to the two young men. One has to serve a life sentence with a minimum tariff of 25 years before he can even be considered for parole. The other man was found guilty of manslaughter and was given a nine year sentence. Maureen stated that she was happy with the life sentence but thought that nine years was too lenient. She and her family have contented themselves on the lesser sentence on the grounds that when that man is released his face will be well known and they felt his punishment would be more intense after release. "From the start", she said "I wanted justice for Alan".
It is at this point that the interview exposed a hole.Maureen had repeatedly stated that her act was based on the extraordinary forgiveness she had received from God for her sins. She spoke of God 'forgiving and forgetting'. Was she, perhaps, acting like the man in the parable Jesus told as recorded in Matthew 18: 23 -35? The discussion digressed slightly to reflect on John 20:22. Let's come back to that as it is difficult.
Maureen went on to make a good point. People that do wrong need to receive due punishment. It is good for them and for society in general that this is so. So, unlike the forgiveness we receive from God ,which comes with justification and so no punishment, accepting the rightness of their punishment (and even feeling that one sentence was too short) is right - but perhaps using the word 'happy' was unfortunate. On the other hand, closure is needed so I don't want to minimise the psychological and emotional benefit derived from the sentences being served.
The final discussion was on what was effected (achieved) by her act of forgiveness. For her it seems to have brought some peace. We don't know that it has had effect on the men (that is stimulating remorse and real repentance). I think it is important to state that it will not have had an effect on God regarding his relationship - or lack of it - with these men. In God's eyes They remain sinners and his forgiveness requires genuine repentance, and genuine repentance means more than saying sorry.
So let's go back to that tricky verse in John 20:22. I don't think that this gives to anyone the ability to act in a priestly way to absolve someone from their sins where there is no real repentance. I certainly do not think that anyone (including ordained priests) have authority to forgive sins that have not been committed against them (i.e. acting as a third person). I do believe that where we have been sinned against and where we have grace to forgive them, and where they wish to acknowledge culpability and receive forgiveness, then in such a situation where we give forgiveness they are also forgiven in heaven. But true repentance will always be expressed in a willingness to accept any earthly consequences that follow the sin (e.g. a prison sentence).
I am happy to point people to the words of 1John 1:9. Where there is acceptance of culpability, true remorse to the extent of openly acknowledging guilt than I am happy to give assurance that in such situations God justly forgives so that "there is now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus..." (Romans 8:1).
Forgiveness is something precious and we should not cheapen it by passing the words around like sweets from a bag. In every situation there are always more than one person involved. Being willing to forgive and offering that is not actually effecting forgiveness if there is no true repentance. So we need to be careful how we use the term. We need to consider the issue not just from our side (if it is we who want to forgive); we need to consider the impact on the perpetrator, and also of its impact on society, and in the eyes of God. Let's be careful that we do not short change someone of a process of grace, or worse still pass them a dodgy note that has forgiven printed on it but is frankly worthless.
From the diary
Sunday 5th - Yelvertoft Congregational Church
Monday 6th - London Central Division of the Salvation Army
Monday evening - video conference for trustees of Mission for Christ
Tuesday 7th - Gartree Prison
Thursday 9th - Bible Discussion Meeting, Yelvertoft
Sunday 12th - Yelvertoft Congregational Church
Monday 13th - Research into Rural Evangelism
Monday 13th - - a telephone conference for the Mission and Society Committee of the Congregational Federation.
Tuesday 14th - Gartree Prison.
I pray that you will be greatly blessed in 2014, which you will be as you seek to walk well with God.
Thank you for your fellowship.
Barry
No comments:
Post a Comment