Two Perspectives On Forgiveness

There are two main perspectives on forgiveness: the emotional and the transactional.

The emotional perspective is held by most people in our society and by many Christians.  This view equates forgiveness with a change in emotions.  Forgiveness is giving up emotions of anger, bitterness, or hatred that I hold toward another person.  I have forgiven someone when my emotions toward them change from negative to positive, or at least neutral.  If I say I cannot forgive someone it means I cannot or will not stop feeling negatively toward them.  Usually, Christians who have this understanding of forgiveness believe in unconditional forgiveness.  I should change from anger/bitterness to love/acceptance–i.e., forgive–regardless of whether or not you repent, because it is wrong to harbor anger and bitterness in my heart.

The transactional view is held by far fewer people.  It views forgiveness as a transaction in which you ask for forgiveness and I grant it.  When I grant forgiveness it means I am making a promise or commitment to not bring up your sin to anyone–myself, you, others, or God–for the purpose of seeking justice.  I have forgiven someone when I keep this promise.  If I say I cannot or will not forgive someone, it means I cannot or will not make or keep this commitment to give up my quest for justice in this case. Christians who have this understanding of forgiveness usually view the change in emotions and the making of the forgiveness promise as separate things.  The giving up of anger/bitterness/hatred should be done unconditionally.  The transaction of forgiveness, however–the promise to stop pursuing justice–is conditional on repentance.  If someone refuses to repent, forgiveness should not be granted; that is, justice should be sought.

My view is the second view, the transactional view.  Ephesians 4:31-32 says, “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.  Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”  In these verses, putting away anger, bitterness, slander, and malice is commanded unconditionally.  We are indeed commanded to love our enemies without condition and to love one another as believers.  Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:43-45).  God is our example, and he shows goodwill and love even to undeserving, unrepentant rebels.

But does God forgive undeserving, unrepentant rebels?  No!  God damns them to hell.  In Ephesians 4:32 God is again our example: we are to forgive one another in the same way he forgave us in Christ.  And how did he forgive us in Christ?  In Christ he gives us his promise that he will not “remember” our sins.  This doesn’t mean he forgets things–that’s impossible!  To remember our sins means to bring them to mind for the purpose of holding us accountable.  “Remember not the sins of my youth” (Psalm 25:7).  “Do not remember against us our former iniquities” (Psalm 79:8).  “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins” (Isaiah 43:25).  On the day of judgment, those whom God has forgiven will not get what they deserve (condemnation); they will get mercy.  God will not pursue justice against us for our sins, because Jesus has already taken the punishment we deserved.  God’s forgiveness is a promise that he will do this.  But does he do this unconditionally?  No.  Only those (but all those) who repent are promised forgiveness.

This then is the pattern God teaches us: 1) He is good and kind to all people unconditionally; 2) He only forgives those who repent; 3) He fully forgives all who repent; 4) His forgiveness is a promise to not remember our sins; that is, to not bring them to his mind for the purpose of pursuing justice.

I use the word transaction for this view of forgiveness because it involves an interchange between two people.  One must repent; the other must forgive.  It’s also an appropriate word because Jesus often spoke of forgiveness using financial terms of releasing someone from a debt.  “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:12).  “A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.  When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” (Luke 7:41-43).  Remember also the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew 18 in which the servant is forgiven a huge financial debt by his master, then refuses to forgive a small debt owed by a fellow-servant.

I’ve held to this transactional view of forgiveness for many years now, but more recently I’ve come to understand some important points.

1) Forgiveness is not just a one-time transaction in which you promise to not bring up my sin again, end of story.  Rather, it may be a continual, day-to-day mental, emotional, and spiritual struggle to keep that promise.  In that sense, you may have to forgive me every day for the rest of your life, if the offense caused deep enough pain.

2) Continuing to feel hurt or even angry at times is not necessarily a sin.  Jesus felt both sorrowful and angry at times.  If someone has committed a severe injustice, it may be appropriate to have some sense of anger about what happened.  It may also be appropriate to feel emotional pain.  If, for instance, someone molested and killed your child and later repented and asked for forgiveness, you could make a commitment to them that you will not bring up their sin to yourself, them, or others for the purpose of seeking justice, but it would be entirely appropriate to feel pain and even some anger when you think about what happened.  You are never going to forget what happened, but you can come to the place where you treat the offender with love rather than justice.  Note: not personally seeking justice does not mean not allowing the government to pursue justice.  That is the government’s God-ordained role.  The state is not the church and is not required to forgive offenders; on the contrary, the state is to punish offenders (see Romans 13).

3) While I think the transactional view is biblical, it can be cold and harsh in the hands of one who loves the biblical ideal more than he loves people.  This is true of any biblical truth, but it is especially damaging in regard to the truth of forgiveness, since strong emotions are often involved.  Compassion for those who are hurting leads us to be patient with them, giving them time to work through their emotions and deal with their pain and anger.  Insisting that people bypass the process of working through emotions and simply conform to the ideal immediately is not loving or realistic.  It will not help anyone and will only lead to further pain.  The critical thing is that the offended person is committed to forgiving, even if they struggle daily to do so.  The struggle is okay; indeed, it is sometimes necessary.

Do-able Christianity

It occurred to me recently as I studied 1 Corinthians 13 and thought about many of the sermons I have heard over the years that Christians who have a tendency toward legalism sometimes express it by sucking the emotions out of every virtue. Joy and happiness are defined as two completely different things, so that joy is reduced to peace or hope. Faith is said to have nothing to do with one’s feelings and is reduced to believing Gospel facts to be true. Love is said to be an action (which is true), not an emotion (which is not true). Fear of God is said to be respect or reverence, not actual fear. So one can have joy with no happiness, faith with no heart, love with no affection, and fear with no uneasiness. You can be a miserable person, but as long as you don’t deny Christ you can claim to be joyful. You can have no emotional reaction to the cross of Christ, but as long as you believe it to be true, you have faith. You can despise someone, but as long as you act good to them, you have love. As long as you behave biblically, you’re okay.

Could it be that this Christian behaviorism is nothing more than an attempt to make Christianity do-able without the Holy Spirit? I can see how legalism would push in that direction. I can’t change my heart, but I can choose to act certain ways, so I’ll define Christianity exclusively in terms of decisions of the will rather than affections of the heart. Give me the list of rules and I’ll keep them, but don’t ask me to have affection for someone I dislike. I can’t just decide to do that.

In fact, I’ve often heard preachers say, “God would never command us to do something that we can’t do!” Meaning, God would never ask us to change our emotions, because we can’t seem to do that by an act of the will. I say the exact opposite: “God never asks us to do anything that we can do.” Meaning, we cannot obey any of Christ’s commands without the Holy Spirit working in us. Legalism seems to want to make the Christian life naturally possible, whereas Scripture makes the Christian life naturally impossible. That is precisely why we need something supernatural in order to live it. I need the Spirit of God to work powerfully in my heart so that my emotions are stirred and enlivened in God-honoring ways. What is the fruit of the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, humility, moderation? Sounds like pretty emotional stuff.

On this topic, I highly recommend Jonathan Edwards’ book, The Religious Affections, in which he establishes that true Christianity consists largely in the emotions (affections), enumerates things that don’t indicate one way or the other that your spirituality is genuine, and describes how to recognize true, grace-prompted emotions.