God’s Forgiveness, Like His Love, is “Better Than Unconditional”

Conditional love, conditional forgiveness–these hardly sound like magnanimous divine traits. In fact, they make God sound rather crusty and petty.

Leave it to David Powlison and Chris Brauns to explain why we should actually be quite delighted and honored that God’s love and forgiveness are, in fact, conditional–conditional on us asking, that is, not earning. As in 1 John 1:9‘s “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 

Powlison’s God’s Love: Better Than Unconditional and Brauns’ Unpacking Forgiveness both explain why divine unconditionality–whether in love or forgiveness–not only makes for bad theology; it promotes bad behavior, bitterness, and not a whole lot of personal growth.

Brauns’ points are nicely distilled in a trio of blog posts that are well worth your time: 5 Problems with Unconditional ForgivenessConditional Forgiveness Is Taught by Many Christian Authors and Theologians, and Must Christians Always Forgive? by A.B. Caneday. For the click-reluctant, let me distill the distillation even further and share the key features of Brauns’ argument. Actually, Brauns lets Caneday carry the systematic freight:

Caneday unfolds the biblical logic for conditional forgiveness. Caneday reasons:

1. Forgiveness always concerns sin.
2. God forgives confessed sin.
3. God’s forgiveness correlates to our forgiveness.
4. Our forgiving must be like God’s forgiving of our sins.
5. God’s forgiveness of sin is for the repentant and so is ours.
6. Not to grant forgiveness of sins to the unrepentant is not the same as being unforgiving

He hastens to add this helpful clarification from Caneday, lest anyone think that the conditionality of forgiveness means that we get to choose whatever conditions we want to set when it comes to others seeking forgiveness from us:

One of the more helpful distinction Caneday makes is his point that, “Not to grant forgiveness of sins to the unrepentant is not the same as being unforgiving.” Hence, Caneday stresses, “We must always be ready to forgive, eager to forgive, praying that the Lord would grant repentance to the unrepentant person in order that both he and we may grant forgiveness of sins.” (p. 16)

The phraseology of Adams is helpful here, whom Brauns quotes at length in another post:

You are not obligated to forgive an unrepentant sinner, but you are obligated to try to bring him to repentance.  All the while you must entertain a genuine hope and willingness to forgive the other and a desire to be reconciled to him or her.  Because this biblical teaching runs counter to much teaching in the modern church, it is important to understand it.  Such forgiveness is modeled after God’s forgiveness which is unmistakably conditioned on repentance and faith.

So why is it good news that God seeks us out in order to extend forgiveness to us but waits to grant it until we ask for it?

Because it shows once again the amazing amount of respect and honor God accords to us dishonored (and dishonorable) creatures. He doesn’t wait for us to seek him out, arms crossed. He doesn’t make us beg. He doesn’t lay out hoops through which we must jump. But he does respect our freedom. If we persist in sinful behavior and refuse to repent from it because we’re perfectly content in our rebellion, he does not forgive us when we don’t see ourselves as in the wrong. What a gracious maker. Far from being crusty, his conditional love is actually far more freedom-affirming than the vapid theological saw of him swatting out of our hands that which we cling to so tenaciously in our rebellion against him.

And what good sense that we would obey him in forgiving others that same way. We too are to diligently, frequently, lovingly seek out those who have wronged us. We too are to call them tenderly to repentance. We too are to intercede for them with the father. And we too are to let them know that we are ready to forgive them because of the lavish goodness and healing that God has already extended to us.

But forgive them for what they stubbornly insist is not wrong? How does that affirm their agency, convey respect to them and to God, and set the stage for true healing of broken relationship?

It turns out that, truth be told, restoration of relationship isn’t really what many of us want in forgiveness. We simply want the messiness, brokenness, and guilt to be swept away like broken glass off the kitchen floor–a point Brauns makes well when he notes that Unconditional forgiveness removes the urgency of being reconciled with the offending party:

If forgiveness is a private affair, then there is no need to ever interact directly with the one who has caused the injury. It is not uncommon to hear someone say, “I have forgiven her, but I will never talk to her again.” Such an approach does not embody the forgiveness granted by the Lord who welcomes sinners into His loving arms.

In the end, that’s the crusty, petty thing about supposedly unconditional forgiveness: It produces fairyland faux relationships, not gritty, deep, hold-on-tight-and-we’ll-go-the-distance-together authentic reconciliations. In Powlison’s words, God does “better than unconditional.” That’s because Scriptural forgiveness is always about enduring relationships centered on the Cross. We are forgiven into such relationships, not out of them.

Posted in Forgiving and Reconciling | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Take The Forgiveness Quiz

No, no–this is no Facebook-type “Which Apostle Does Your Forgiveness Style Most Resemble?” quiz (wait–that’s actually not a bad idea for a future post). Chris Brauns, author of Unpacking Forgiveness, poses eight questions on forgiveness that are disarmingly simple and yet surprisingly challenging to answer.

The best part is, once you complete the quiz he offers Scriptural insights on each answer–which, in my case, made getting most of the questions wrong a lot more fun and instructive than I experienced with my Harvard online stats class for my doc study this summer.

Click here for the quiz. And then later on this week we’ll look at Brauns’ fascinating argument for the blessed conditionality of forgiveness.

(And, by the way, I forgive like James the Younger. You? Let me know in the comment box below.)

Posted in Forgiving and Reconciling | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Since It Is No Longer You Who Lives, It Is No Longer You Who Forgives

Pierce O’Farrill’s forgiveness of Aurora movie theater gunman James Holmes–within hours of Holmes shooting him–has us all thinking this month about what exactly we mean when we say that we forgive our enemies. As we shared in our previous post, Peacemaker Ministries’ Ken Sande commends four promises of forgiveness, while John Piper draws on three hundred year old wisdom to elucidate seven forgiveness principles. But we left off last time with the distinct sense that we were missing something very foundational.

The Scripture verses that come to mind are these:

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. –Paul in Galatians 2:20 (NIV)

We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.  –Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:20 (NIV)

And now a word from one of the truly remarkable contemporary voices on forgiveness, Rev. Chris Brauns, author of one of the truly remarkable contemporary books on forgiveness, Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds. In the aftermath of another of mass shooting tragedy, the Virginia Tech massacre of 2007, Rev. Brauns wrote wise words that remain at least as wise today. Let me quote at length while you simultaneously open a new browser window and order his book:

Automatic forgiveness on the part of Christians is common.  From Oklahoma City to Columbine, some rush to forgive regardless of whether or not they were victims.  And, some forgive even if the offender does not repent.

However, well intentioned, such automatic forgiveness is misguided.  Not only is it inconsiderate of the families of victims, it also undermines a proper understanding of the justice of God and the integrity of grace.

Alternatively, Romans 12:17-21 summarizes three guidelines for a proper Christian response to evil.  First, Paul admonishes his audience not to take revenge.  He repeats this point three times (Romans 12:171921).  Virginia Tech victims cannot respond with vindictive hatred towards Cho Seung-Hui, his family, or others they believe are responsible.  Revenge is not an option for Christians.

In a second guideline, Paul tells Christians to authentically love all people.  “Let love be genuine . . . If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all (Romans 12:9,18).”  Amish families exemplified genuine love when they offered financial assistance to the family of their daughters’ murderer.  Overwhelmed by such love, the widow of the shooter, Marie Roberts responded, “Your love for our family has helped to provide the healing we so desperately need.  Your compassion has reached beyond our family, beyond our community, and is changing our world.”  It would be an act of stunning beauty if Christian victims reached out lovingly to the family of Cho Seung-Hui.

But, the third guideline Paul offers is that Christians should, “Leave room for the wrath of God.”  Indeed, this is why Paul argued that Christians should refrain from revenge.  Christians can rest in the certain truth that God will accomplish perfect justice.  Such a confidence in the justice of God guards Christians from the bitterness that poisons those who believe it is their job to retaliate.

Paul later shared with Timothy how he put this truth into practice.  “Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. You too should be on your guard against him . . . (2 Timothy 4:14-15a).”  Paul does not say he forgave Alexander.  Neither is he bitter.  He trusts God for justice.

Baptist Press calls Pierce O’Farrill “a beacon of forgiveness.” No less a source than wikipedia defines a beacon as “an intentionally conspicuous device designed to attract attention to a specific location.”

If, as Paul notes in Galatians 2:20, it is no longer we who live, then have we not become intentionally conspicuous devices designed to attract attention to Christ Jesus? If, as Paul notes in 2 Corinthians 5:20, we are Christ’s ambassadors, then is not the forgiveness to which we are to attract attention the forgiveness of Christ? Which statement does that more fully, more Scripturally?

  • “I forgive the man who shot me because I believe in Christ.”
  • “I have prayed to God to forgive the man who shot me, and, as Christ commands, I stand ready to reconcile with my assailant at any time that he ask for my forgiveness.”

The fundamental principle of forgiveness, in other words–the principle preparatory to four  promises, seven principles, and every feeling of pity, empathy or lack of anger we may feel toward those who wrong us–is that the most precious forgiveness to which we are to orient the world (and to which we are to continually re-orient ourselves) is Christ’s forgiveness, not our own. We are to join Jesus, Paul, and Stephen in praying publicly to God that he may forgive our enemies, and when we do so we are ambassadors not of our own reconciliation but of Christ’s. It is his alone to offer, and ours alone to publicly request.

Posted in Forgiving and Reconciling | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments