Thursday, April 15, 2010

Forgiving and letting go

Over Easter I cooked for some people at Katoomba Easter Convention. To me this is perhaps the single most iconic Sydney evangelical event, so I enjoyed seeing its mystery unveiled. I had pictured a ginormous, plush convention centre, so there was something oddly pleasing about the fact that it looked like the inside of a big (not ginormous) shearing shed, set amidst bushland. There's something good about humble Christian buildings I think.

As I've said before I'm not a particular fan of conferences, so it was great to be able to cook for the teachers-of-the-kids-of-the-grownups who are. It was also great to sit in on a couple of talks and rejoice that all these people have come to hear really solid, heartfelt Bible talks.

In one of the talks I half-listened to, John Lennox spoke about forgiveness. He said that in the Bible the Greek word has a wider range of meaning than its English translation, "forgive". In Greek, the word can refer to 'letting go' as well as to actually forgiving in a formal sense (acknowledging that the wrong done against you no longer incurs a debt). Lennox said that, while Christians are commanded to forgive in the first sense - not to dwell on wrongs and to let go of them - that it is only if and when the wrongdoer repents that the second sense of forgiveness comes into play.

I feel a bit uncomfortable about this, but then I didn't follow his arguments closely and I haven't had a careful look through the New Testament. Nevertheless I feel like this distinction sets up an expectation that each time a person sins against another person, that they must receive forgiveness from both God and that person. I think this is generally appropriate and should be done (Luke 11:4), but I also think that even if the wrongdoer were to seek forgiveness from God alone, then that would be sufficient (Psalm 51:4). Even if Lennox is right and unless the person repents you don't have to forgive in the second, formal sense, I can see another option. I wonder if, at the very least, you can chose to hand it all over to God, to leave all judgement and forgiveness in his hands because it is able to do it all (1 Peter 2:23).

What do you think?


Postscript: thanks to Laura's input I've sured up my thinking about this. Have a read of the comments to see where I'm at now.

4 comments:

Laura said...

Yeah, I've read similar opinions elsewhere and I don't buy it.

I know God doesn't put conditions (or, at least not conditions that exist in ME) on his forgiveness of my sin. I was given a new heart and forgiveness and eternal life were secured FOR me. God chose to save folks like me who not only didn't seek his forgiveness, they actively ran from it.

Do we therefore conclude that our behavior should be the opposite -- that we're supposed to extend forgiveness only to those who seek it from us? Don't think so.

fional said...

I'm not sure about your reasoning here Laura. Lennox was saying that actually God only forgives us *when we repent* (although of course even the ability to repent is a gift from God). I think this is a fair enough point. He was then making the case that this applies to forgiveness between people too.

My problem isn't so much that God doesn't act this way, but rather that I'm not sure that it's always appropriate for us to echo his role on this issue.

Laura said...

I would disagree with his first premise. Obviously repentance is the first part of our process of becoming Christians but I don't think God is now disposed toward me in unforgiveness until I repent of every sin I've committed since becoming a Christian.

fional said...

Ah, good point! I hadn't thought of that - duh. I wonder how Lennox would respond . . .