For some reason we think it is easier for God to forgive than it is for us. God can forgive so easily because after all God is God and we are not. We don't forgive because we don't think we have the power to forgive, after all we're not God. To watch your son dragged through a kangaroo court, beaten, whipped, and finally nailed to a cross, wasn't easy for anyone let alone a Father known as Abba to Jesus. After all of this, for God to grant forgiveness when requested by Jesus, is mind blowing. I know too many earthly fathers who would override their son's request and take out all the perpetrators. However, since no fire from heaven reigned down upon them, you have to assume that God did forgive and the executioner's Ax was stayed mid swing.
But what about Jesus? Was it really easier for him to forgive those who had nailed him to the cross, than it is for either you or me to forgive something not quite as brutal as the cross. Yet Jesus did forgive them and they didn't even ask for it.
Part of the reason I think forgiveness is so hard is that we are mistaken about what it means to forgive. We need to know what forgiveness is not. Forgiveness is not pretending that the painful event didn't happened. When Jesus forgave those who had crucified them from the cross, it doesn't mean that Jesus was pretending that he wasn't on the cross. He is fully aware of the nails and the crown of thorns, with the warm drops of blood tracking down his face. Pretending would take one ounce of pain away. Part of the point of forgiveness is that we commit to working to behave towards this person as if it hadn't happened. It is a conscious choice we make not to let their actions against us control our response to them or towards anyone else.
Forgiveness presupposes that what happened to us- happened- to us. It was evil and cannot be set aside as if it didn't matter. It did matter. It did hurt. But in choosing to forgive we are choosing to act as if it did not happen as we consciously try to rebuild a severed relationship.In forgiving, we are always full aware of what we are trying to forgive, and yet living in relationship with them as if it didn't take place, not only for our good but also for theirs.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
To Forgive or not to Forgive?
Which is harder to forgive ourselves or to forgive others?
When questioned about how many times we are to forgive someone, seven times? Jesus answered not seven times but seventy times seven. In other words there are not limits to the amount of forgiveness we are to offer. Which is all well and good unless you're the one being asked to forgive, then rubber really hits the road. What's that saying about getting burned... So Jesus challenges us to forgive all things all the time... no limitations on what or who receives our forgiveness. Since Jesus pulled it off at the cross we have at least one example, and don't give me the of course he could do it because he is Jesus stuff. If the writer to Hebrews talks about Jesus being tempted in every just as we are yet was without sin, Heb.4:15 Jesus' saying no to temptation was not due to his divine nature, but within his human ability. His forgiveness is powered by his humanity and not his divinity.
Jesus expects us to follow his example when it comes to forgiveness.
We are to forgive others and forgive ourselves... which means that we are also to forgive ourselves seventy times seven times.If there are no limits regarding the number of times we are to forgive others, then there are no limits as to the number of times we are to give ourselves. However, if we were to forgive others the way we forgive ourselves, there is a strong possibility that others may never be forgiven.
We just seem to be able to forgive others more readily than we forgive ourselves. Some how it seems easier to let the other guy off the hook while keeping ourselves firmly impaled. I am not quite sure why. Lack of self forgiveness clearly leads to self loathing, and self incrimination, not mention sabotaging our self worth. Why someone likes to point at a personal failure, whether it is faith related or moral, and beat themselves up with it repeatedly makes no sense. Yet from the people I talk to, lack of self forgiveness is the norm not the exception. From their perspective it is easier to forgive others than it is to forgive ourselves.
Could it be that we hang on to these past failures as a fall back position in case things take a turn for the worse. We become our own scapegoat, and who wouldn't expect otherwise... It validates the worst we think of ourselves, and cancels out whatever goodness might have crept in.
Perhaps the inability to forgive ourselves is one more outworking of the story in Genesis when we chose to know for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, of who to forgive and who not to forgive- including ourselves.
Lest we be without hope- Jesus has an app for this too.
When questioned about how many times we are to forgive someone, seven times? Jesus answered not seven times but seventy times seven. In other words there are not limits to the amount of forgiveness we are to offer. Which is all well and good unless you're the one being asked to forgive, then rubber really hits the road. What's that saying about getting burned... So Jesus challenges us to forgive all things all the time... no limitations on what or who receives our forgiveness. Since Jesus pulled it off at the cross we have at least one example, and don't give me the of course he could do it because he is Jesus stuff. If the writer to Hebrews talks about Jesus being tempted in every just as we are yet was without sin, Heb.4:15 Jesus' saying no to temptation was not due to his divine nature, but within his human ability. His forgiveness is powered by his humanity and not his divinity.
Jesus expects us to follow his example when it comes to forgiveness.
We are to forgive others and forgive ourselves... which means that we are also to forgive ourselves seventy times seven times.If there are no limits regarding the number of times we are to forgive others, then there are no limits as to the number of times we are to give ourselves. However, if we were to forgive others the way we forgive ourselves, there is a strong possibility that others may never be forgiven.
We just seem to be able to forgive others more readily than we forgive ourselves. Some how it seems easier to let the other guy off the hook while keeping ourselves firmly impaled. I am not quite sure why. Lack of self forgiveness clearly leads to self loathing, and self incrimination, not mention sabotaging our self worth. Why someone likes to point at a personal failure, whether it is faith related or moral, and beat themselves up with it repeatedly makes no sense. Yet from the people I talk to, lack of self forgiveness is the norm not the exception. From their perspective it is easier to forgive others than it is to forgive ourselves.
Could it be that we hang on to these past failures as a fall back position in case things take a turn for the worse. We become our own scapegoat, and who wouldn't expect otherwise... It validates the worst we think of ourselves, and cancels out whatever goodness might have crept in.
Perhaps the inability to forgive ourselves is one more outworking of the story in Genesis when we chose to know for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, of who to forgive and who not to forgive- including ourselves.
Lest we be without hope- Jesus has an app for this too.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Is God a Micro-manager?
Is God a micro-manager? As I engage the so-called new wave of Calvinists, or the New Calvinists, the question might be, Is God a micro-manipulator, planning and controlling things since before time and eternity? Does God really plot before time and eternity the suffering of innocent children? Does God yank an arm off here, a leg there, or infect an organ with cancer, just to see how we can handle it, or for people to be amazed at our adaptability, our faith, and moral courage?
In that classic text, "You meant it for evil but God meant it for good,"Genesis 50:20
Joseph sees the providential hand of God behind the evil done to him by his brothers and others along the way. The text has the look and feel of God being the micro-manipulator. In the end,his brothers did bow before him as the original dream predicted, and the vision was fulfilled in ways and means no one would have ever dreamed possible. However, in light of the entire story, had not Joseph maintained his faithfulness, it could have ended quite differently. The false accusation by Potiphar's wife landed him in jail where he could have been angry at God, and allowed a relational distance to increase. However, Joseph chose to engage God deeper, and his spiritual gifts;dreams and the interpretation of dreams continued and were developed for further future use.
It seems to me that there is a quantum difference between orchestrating evil for good ends, and being able to bring goods ends out of undesired, unplanned, and unintended evil circumstances. The theological word for this is not providence or sovereignty, but redemption. In my personal life it goes by another name, hope.
In that classic text, "You meant it for evil but God meant it for good,"Genesis 50:20
Joseph sees the providential hand of God behind the evil done to him by his brothers and others along the way. The text has the look and feel of God being the micro-manipulator. In the end,his brothers did bow before him as the original dream predicted, and the vision was fulfilled in ways and means no one would have ever dreamed possible. However, in light of the entire story, had not Joseph maintained his faithfulness, it could have ended quite differently. The false accusation by Potiphar's wife landed him in jail where he could have been angry at God, and allowed a relational distance to increase. However, Joseph chose to engage God deeper, and his spiritual gifts;dreams and the interpretation of dreams continued and were developed for further future use.
It seems to me that there is a quantum difference between orchestrating evil for good ends, and being able to bring goods ends out of undesired, unplanned, and unintended evil circumstances. The theological word for this is not providence or sovereignty, but redemption. In my personal life it goes by another name, hope.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Freedom to Choose
H. Kushner attributes bad things happening to good people as an implication of being made in the image of God, where choice is found in the character of God. Choice is also at the heart of Wm. Paul Young's The Shack as the explanation for the presence of pain and evil. Young's approach differs from Kushner's because choice is essential to a loving relationship. God by creating beings to enter into a reciprocal love relationship created the possibility that the relationship might not be reciprocal. God took the risk of loving us knowing we might choose not love to God in return. For God to create us to only love God and others without the possibility of not loving would have us more robotic than human. Consequently it is not choice that makes us more human and better image bearers, but choice in the context of love. Anyone out on the dating circuit knows the dangers of loving someone and the possibility of not being loved or even liked in return. It is easy to see why creating humanity in God's image was a high risk move.
Having said that, having our independence and insisting on having that independence from God, we get truly angry at God for loving us enough to give us what we wanted.
What we really want God to do is not to intervene when we do the things we want to do, and love whom and the way we want to, but to jump in there and either correct our poor choices, or protect us from the consequences of someone else not loving, or their painful and evil actions. The down side of this is where does accountability lie? When things go well and we love well and are well loved, we get the credit, and when things go south relationally and other ways, God gets blamed. If God is good, and really loves us then God will or should intervene. God's failure to intervene is frequently taken as a sign of God not being good or loving.
The irony is that the possibility of pain and evil, of not loving responses is a direct consequence of God's goodness and love. It is also clear that God has more in mind than sitting back as some jilted lover, but wishes to open and deepen that relationship and correct the destructive outcomes centered in ou r unloving choices to God and to others.
Having said that, having our independence and insisting on having that independence from God, we get truly angry at God for loving us enough to give us what we wanted.
What we really want God to do is not to intervene when we do the things we want to do, and love whom and the way we want to, but to jump in there and either correct our poor choices, or protect us from the consequences of someone else not loving, or their painful and evil actions. The down side of this is where does accountability lie? When things go well and we love well and are well loved, we get the credit, and when things go south relationally and other ways, God gets blamed. If God is good, and really loves us then God will or should intervene. God's failure to intervene is frequently taken as a sign of God not being good or loving.
The irony is that the possibility of pain and evil, of not loving responses is a direct consequence of God's goodness and love. It is also clear that God has more in mind than sitting back as some jilted lover, but wishes to open and deepen that relationship and correct the destructive outcomes centered in ou r unloving choices to God and to others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)