Listen to the podcast
You may want to read:
Marty, once a pastor, has been deeply offended and believes he has been stabbed in the back by someone he once cared for and mentored. He believes Biff gossiped, slandered, and convinced others to side with him, to oust Marty from leadership in the church. Marty thinks Biff has lied to the church and others. He says Biff is a snake.
Biff has legitimately sinned against Marty, and although he has confessed these offenses and agrees there were many things he did wrong, Marty will not meet with him or forgive him until he agrees in writing and publicly owns all the sins committed, according to Marty’s perspective of what those sins were. Marty also believes his viewpoint is 100% accurate.
Marty’s sin list regarding Biff also includes his motives. Biff is willing to meet and work towards reconciliation and agrees with some of the wrongs that Marty charged him with, but he does not agree with all of them, especially the motives that Biff assigned to his actions.
Meanwhile, Marty is bitter, though he denies it. He has even cut off all interaction with certain people–including family members who have either continued to attend the church or those he ousted or who have not taken a stance against Biff.
He sees Biff as his enemy and anyone else who sides with him. He has told family members–who have appealed to him–that he is justified for not forgiving Biff (or them) until he fully repents according to his stipulations.
I look forward to hearing your perspectives on this scenario and my questions. If I have not been clear or provided enough information, please let me know. I have been intentionally vague on some of the details so that you can feel free to use this scenario in any way that would be helpful to your readers.
Pre-forgiveness is a term I coined as I reflected on the story of Joseph from Genesis 37-50, mainly as I observed his interaction with his brothers in the final chapter of the book.
It is clear that Joseph’s attitude toward his brothers was representative of what we would call Christlike in the New Testament. He did not show any bitterness, unkindness, or unforgiveness toward his brothers–even though they were not repentant or requesting his forgiveness at that time.
He had a heart of forgiveness toward his brothers before he ever had an opportunity to forgive his brothers. The implication here is that Joseph had spent time with the Lord and in personal reflection, working through the acute tragedies and disappointments that came at the hands of his brothers (Acts 2:23; Luke 23:34).
By the time the opportunity presented itself for Joseph to grant forgiveness to his brothers, God had prepared his heart for the exchange, which is pre-forgiveness. I do not know how long his soul was free enough or out from under the control of his perpetrators because the Bible does not tell us. What is clear is that Joseph was a free man even while in bondage Egypt–the place his sinful brothers sent him.
Though they were not free from their crimes, Joseph was free from them in his heart. The question is whether or not a person should come to the place of pre-forgiveness like Joseph, which would be evidenced by an attitude that is prepared to forgive the offender perchance the offender requested it. The answer is an absolute yes for three reasons:
The Anger Spectrum
Being willing to forgive is not forgiving. A desire to forgive does not release the offender from his sin. For the offender to be free from his sin, he must ask to be released. Otherwise, you could forgive anyone you wanted to forgive, whether they knew it or not, or asked for it or not.
The idea of pre-forgiveness has very little to do with the offender. It is about the offended. It is an opportunity for the victim to keep from drowning in the morass of bitterness. Have you met that kind of person?
The person who has been legitimately hurt by someone, and the offender has not asked for forgiveness is a common occurrence. All of us have been sinned against by people who have never asked forgiveness. Offended people come in two kinds:
This second group is characterized by humility, self-awareness, maturity, and contentment because they have learned how to find peace in a fallen world. Jesus was the most impressive at doing this, and He is our example as we walk in His steps (1 Peter 2:18-25).
For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. – Peter
Because all sin committed will never be satisfactorily resolved, it is imperative for Christians to have a clear-headed practical understanding and application of the gospel in their lives. If they do not, they will be susceptible to all kinds of pitfalls like the “first kind” above.
You ask if Marty should prescribe the depth and extent of Biff’s forgiveness. That is an interesting question because that is what the Lord did for us. He specified how we are to repent and the conditions for our repentance, but with a gospel-ironic twist: He set the standard for repentance, a standard so high that none of us could meet it.
He did this on purpose so we would not be tempted to rely on ourselves for rescue (legalism) but rely on His works as the only means for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, you could say there is a precedent for your question, but an example does not mandate a pattern.
As to your question, is it possible for a person to set forth a sin list regarding how the person sinned, as well as how the offender should repent? I suspect many of us parents have done this with our children. They sinned, and we told them–in essence–to repent.
Then they begrudgingly grunted out an, “I’m sorry” under duress. It was precisely according to my prescription, but what did I accomplish? Mandated repentance is not necessarily repentance.
True repentance is when the offender is convinced by the Spirit of God of the sins committed. He then tells the offended person the reason that he is seeking forgiveness. We call this confession–to agree with God (and others) about what you did.
In our home, we regularly ask each other about our offenses so we can “agree” with each other about what happened. That is typical Christian behavior that we learn from God. It requires humility from the offender and the victim to agree with the sins committed.
Any Christian offender should have enough self-suspicion to ask the offended for help in seeing the offense. Why not? That is what you’d ask your doctor. If you were sick, you’d want his input so you could be completely free.
Asking the offended for his perspective does not automatically mean full agreement with their assessment. It is an act of humility born out of a sober self-awareness that we can be self-deceived. After collecting all the data, the Spirit of God convinces the offender of the offenses, which is the Spirit’s work, not hurt-centered, man-centered manipulations.
Marty is not justified to hold on to a heart of unforgiveness. To be justified is to be declared not guilty. Justification is a courtroom term where the judge declares the person guilty or not guilty. If He slams the gavel down and says, “Not guilty,” then the person is justified. Only God determines guilt, and only God can declare a person not guilty.
You ask if Marty is not guilty? Is he justified? The best answer is yes and no. He is partially right, and he is somewhat wrong. Biff has admitted (confessed) that he has sinned against Marty while owning his need for forgiveness. There is no question about this; they both agree.
Marty is right (justified) in that forgiveness needs to be granted. However, it appears Marty has not stewarded his forgiveness problem biblically. From what you have written, he does not have the attitude of Christ regarding those who have sinned against him.
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. – Luke 23:34
He is hurt, which is normal, so you don’t want to judge him uncharitably. But his hurt has not been submitted to the power of Christ. As Peter instructed us earlier about walking in the steps of Jesus, he continued by saying, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.”
Though it would be nice if all offenders sought to make amends with all offended people, it is not realistic to hold to such a narrow expectation. To do so is to be tempted to anger or despair. We must deal with this reality in our fallen world, which is one of the more amazing things about the gospel.
Christ loved me while I was sinning (Romans 5:8). And He would never let me off the hook–not until I humbled myself before Him and asked for His mercy. Stunningly, even though He held my sins against me, He loved me to death. If that kind of gospel expectation (and privilege) does not change and control our hearts, then we’ll always be held down by the power of our offenders.
Let’s suppose Marty and Biff could legitimately experience forgiveness by the power of the gospel. God neutralizes all the sins committed between them. The question then centers on whether their future relationship could function as a trusting one as though there was no sin committed between them.
In most situations like this, it is possible. For example, my wife and I sin against each other somewhat consistently, and we trust, love, and adore each other. Then there are other relationships where it’s not possible to have that level of access and intimacy. Let me take a worst-case scenario: sexual abuse.
If someone sexually abused one of my daughters and if by some extraordinary act of the grace of God there was forgiveness requested and granted, I would do all I could to keep the forgiven abuser from my daughters.
Forgiveness of sin does not necessarily mean the removal of future wrongdoing. The doctrine of progressive sanctification informs us that we will never experience sinless perfection in the here and now. Though a person receives forgiveness, it does not mean they will never commit that sin again. In some situations, it would be cruel to suggest the offender and the offended pursue an ongoing relationship.
Lack of ongoing relationship is a sad consequence of our fallenness. I am not saying this should be the case between Marty and Biff, but it must be in some situations.
It appears Marty is not interested in reconciliation at this time. It seems the best hope for reconciliation would be third-party intervention as a way to help Marty come around to a more reasonable attitude and response.
Sin hurts deeply. We know this. I am sure Marty is hurting deeply, and though forgiveness is the right response, it may take him a long time to come to that place in his heart. I would ask the Spirit of God to bring restorative care to his soul, with the hope for future reconciliation.
As for your application, I would appeal to you to work through the questions I presented as a restorative way to care for your heart. We’re all like Marty, and if it’s been a while since being sinned against, then beware: We are fallen people living in a fallen world, falling all over the place.