Forgiveness vs Restoration

I've been thinking about this a bit lately.  Especially after the news that "As I Lay Dying" has reformed, including the former lead singer who was incarcerated for the attempted murder of his wife.  Quite frankly I don't care about that band, or their singer...but I'm wondering how far "forgiveness" is supposed to extent.  At what point do we forgive, but not allow ourselves (or our community) to be potentially harmed by the offender?

A few real world scenarios I'm thinking about.

1.  The lead singer of a popular "Christian" band is found guilty of attempted murder and is punished by the courts.  A few years later he returns and resumes his career in said band.

2.  A famous actor in Hollywood is accused of groping a number of women.....more than 20 years ago.  He denies the charges.  No trial, no conviction yet he is black-balled from the industry and will likely never work again.

3. A famous comedian/television actor says something on social media that could be construed as racist.  She is immediately fired, and will likely never work again.  She apologizes, nobody cares.

At what point do we say, "ok, you are forgiven, but you probably shouldn't be allowed in ministry leadership....no matter how repentant you are."  Continue to serve the lord outside of ministry leadership and be grateful God allows repentance.  IDK, just some rough thoughts.

And forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
-------

For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity.
-------

Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
-------

Xid wrote:

And forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
-------

For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity.
-------

Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
-------

All great passages about forgiveness.  However, with the exception of the last one there is little about letting your offender continue to sin against you.

Here is another scenario (a real world one again...my old pastor shared with me).

There is a woman who's husband physically abuses her.  He won't stop no matter what she (or anyone else) does.  She finally flees from her husband and through biblical counseling and prayer comes to forgive him.  Does this mean she "needs" to be reconciled with him (cohabitate) so he can abuse her again?

Staybrite wrote:

All great passages about forgiveness.  However, with the exception of the last one there is little about letting your offender continue to sin against you.

An unrepentant person deserves forgiveness but certainly doesn't have any place in ministry.  

Me forgiving somebody who has wronged me has nothing to do with them and everything to do with me.  I am to forgive as the Lord forgives me.  If that person continues to wrong me I continue to forgive.  I don't recall there being anything that says you need to keep that person in your life.

Xid wrote:

Staybrite wrote:

All great passages about forgiveness.  However, with the exception of the last one there is little about letting your offender continue to sin against you.

An unrepentant person deserves forgiveness but certainly doesn't have any place in ministry.  

Me forgiving somebody who has wronged me has nothing to do with them and everything to do with me.  I am to forgive as the Lord forgives me.  If that person continues to wrong me I continue to forgive.  I don't recall there being anything that says you need to keep that person in your life.

Interesting to see that we have pretty much come to the same conclusion on that one.  
If you want forgiveness from our Lord, it would seem that you must forgive those who sin against you.  If only because your sin against God is so much worse than any sin someone else can commit against you.

Staybrite wrote:

Xid wrote:

And forgive us our debts,
    as we also have forgiven our debtors.
-------

For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity.
-------

Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
-------

All great passages about forgiveness.  However, with the exception of the last one there is little about letting your offender continue to sin against you.

Here is another scenario (a real world one again...my old pastor shared with me).

There is a woman who's husband physically abuses her.  He won't stop no matter what she (or anyone else) does.  She finally flees from her husband and through biblical counseling and prayer comes to forgive him.  Does this mean she "needs" to be reconciled with him (cohabitate) so he can abuse her again?

No way.  

I once attended a church run by a shade-tree mechanic of a pastor, who invented scenarios in order to increase attendance. (One of these instances involved paying professing Satanists to defile the church building!) To top things off, he was having an affair.  He has violated the sacred trust the church--and the community--had placed in him, and was shown the door.  IMO, he should never again be allowed to abuse power in such fashion and should never again be placed in a position of leadership.

Which is why I have problems with Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart ever again being in a position of authority over anyone.

Except in the case of the Lord forgiving us, forgiveness is never for the person who committed sin against you.  It is needed so that we don't become hardened and bitter to the point of becoming completely unloving.  Forgiving someone releases the hatred that can build and grow if left inside.  Forgiving allows us to move on from the circumstances so that we are free to love again.

With that said, forgiving someone doesn't mean that we put ourselves back in that situation.  If a spouse is cheating on you but TRULY repents, then you might take them back.  But, even with that, the offending spouse will have to work hard to rebuild trust which can take years.

In the case of a pastor who has done terrible things to abuse his position, I could see them back in ministry only if they are willing to build public accountability partners so that everyone could see that they were back on course.  Again, it is up to the offender to build the trust of people slowly and intentionally thus to prove that they have truly changed.

With Tim and AILD, it isn't like they were a Christian band anymore.  The band itself admitted that after he was arrested and convicted.  If they are going back out as a secular band, then I see no reason why this couldn't work for them.  If they truly want to be a ministry band, then Tim will just have to rebuild the trust of his fans who feel like he betrayed them and the Lord when he attempted to have his ex-wife killed.

Switch and look at Scott Stapp of Creed.  His on again/off again relationship has hurt him.  Is he even doing music?  His solo projects were supposed to be him turning back to the Lord but he fell off the wagon again after that was released.  Fans just can hear a repentance story so many times before they shut you out.  Celebrity is not a guarantee no matter who you are.  If you wrong and alienate your fan base, they have the right to quit caring about your music.

Great input guys thanks.

Alldat wrote:

With Tim and AILD, it isn't like they were a Christian band anymore.  The band itself admitted that after he was arrested and convicted.  If they are going back out as a secular band, then I see no reason why this couldn't work for them.  If they truly want to be a ministry band, then Tim will just have to rebuild the trust of his fans who feel like he betrayed them and the Lord when he attempted to have his ex-wife killed.

I was wondering if they considered themselves a Christian band or not. Not at all a fan of the band, but not sure I could continue to support them even if I was.

I was a fan of AILD, but never really saw them as a Christian band, just as a band with Christians in it. That said, if Tim is repentant and wishes to again be viewed as a minister, if he ever was in the first place, then he must demonstrate his life change and be consistent in his walk.
Even then, he has lost the window of opportunity for a whole lot of people who will not trust him no matter what.

It does boil down to the difference between forgiveness and trust. Ours is to forgive those who've wronged us and move on with our lives, but we are never called to trust that person again. Case in point, my daughter's boyfriend. Lisa and I will have nothing to do with him after assaulting our daughter, holding a knife to her throat, threatening to kill her and their baby, and ending up in jail for several months. Now, being the Christian parents, we're expected to "forgive" him like our daughter did, to which I say "It's not a matter of forgiveness at this point - IT'S A MATTER OF TRUST". Even if he were to change his ways and even come to faith, I would still never trust him.  It'd be like having a beloved dog that was good and faithful.. after a couple years, the dog suddenly turned on you un-provoked and bit you badly. You may still love that dog, but you will NEVER trust it again after a display of psychotic and violent behavior like that. 

All that to say, we need to forgive those who've wronged us (like Alldat said), but it doesn't mean we "forget" and trust them again.

Well said. 

Quote :

It'd be like having a beloved dog that was good and faithful.. after a couple years, the dog suddenly turned on you un-provoked and bit you badly. You may still love that dog, but you will NEVER trust it again after a display of psychotic and violent behavior like that.

Where I live, people would either take the dog and have it put down or just shoot it themselves.  Once a dog turns on its owners, there is no retraining the animal and it should be destroyed.

Of course, I am merely stating what happens to a dog like that here.  I am not saying this is what should happen to people.

Lots of good stuff here.  Honestly, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all rule here and Scripture is, I believe, deliberately vague.  Personally, I totally agree with what alldat said about forgiveness--it is mainly about us releasing our feelings regarding that person so that WE can heal.  The affect on the other party is secondary.  Restoration, however, is totally the responsibility of the offender.  If they wish to be reconciled, it is up to them to take the steps necessary to heal the relationship. 

As for Tim, I was shocked and disappointed at the news of what he did, but I never held bad feelings toward him and quite frankly, I couldn't understand all the people who were so filled with anger and judgement toward him.  His offense was against his ex-wife, not me, and I just don't understand being so filled with outrage over it.  I hope this is coming out the way I mean it.  No, I don't support or condone murder in any way, but the way people were reacting, it was like he put a hit out on them.  Anyway, he seems to be in his right mind now, seems repentant (from what I have read, it seems his ex-wife has forgiven him and he has earned the trust of his bandmates), and seems to be moving forward, so who am I to continue to hold it against him?

Scenario 2 & 3 are ones I have wrestled with.  One of my FB friends made a comment a few days ago that really hit a nerve with me.  He said that he is proud of his generation's zeal for justice, but he wishes it was tempered with more forgiveness.  I responded that I don't think it is limited to his generation.  Society-wide we are such a vengeful people.  We remind me of those old monster movies with the mobs with torches and pitchforks over every thing.  And yes, it is good and noble and right to fervently stand up against injustice, but when people get worked up over the President saluting a foreign general or a guy kneeling down during the national anthem as much or more than they do over the inhumane treatment of fellow human beings, it all becomes just noise and our outrage means nothing.  It's like the language we use.  It used to be that people used the phrase "pissed off" to mean really, really angry about something.  But now people are pissed over being fired, over being treated unfairly, and over losing a game of Candy Crush.  It is meaningless.  I think the same thing is happening in both of these scenarios.  Quite honestly, I'm not really concerned about someone groping or having "improper" contact with someone else 20-30 years ago.  I'm concerned if there is a continuing pattern of behavior.  We all do stupid things, particularly when we are younger, and I'd hate to think I would be forever judged based on some of the things I did in my 20s.  Quite frankly, it doesn't excuse the behavior, but the 80s/90s were a different time than the 2010s.  There wasn't the same level of awareness of power differentials and that kind of thing was considered part of the culture.  When you "grow up" in a culture, there's a greater tendency to just accept the norms and values without questioning them, particularly if they benefit you (or at least don't harm you), and it really is unfair to judge the actions of people in the past based on what we know and believe today.  I do, however, think it is entirely appropriate to call out people who are still doing it.

The same thing with "offensive" social media posts.  I'm not going to get upset over one post, but if it becomes a regular thing, I'm done.  And quite frankly, any TV executive who didn't expect something shocking or offensive from Roseanne Barr probably shouldn't be permitted to make decisions beyond what underwear to put on.  It's like those radio stations that hired shock jocks and then fired them when they did something offensive!  I wasn't the least bit surprised that she said something like that, which is also why I don't care about her apology.  I've seen enough of her behavior over the years to believe that it isn't sincere, she just wants to avoid the consequences of her actions.

But that's another point too.  When someone does apologize for their actions, we have a tendency to pick apart the apology and try to discredit it or we find something else to be angry about in the apology.  Maybe Roseanne was sincere.  I decided she wasn't.  No one really bought Kathy Griffin's apology either.  People kinda bought Kevin Spacey's apology, but got mad that he "outed" himself in the apology and seemed to be using it as an excuse.  Honestly, I think the only celebrity apology in these cases that hasn't gotten a lot of blowback was Louis CK's, but he really seemed to be the only person who seemed willing to accept responsibility instead of just trying to get out of trouble.

messiaen77 wrote:

As for Tim, I was shocked and disappointed at the news of what he did, but I never held bad feelings toward him and quite frankly, I couldn't understand all the people who were so filled with anger and judgement toward him.  His offense was against his ex-wife, not me, and I just don't understand being so filled with outrage over it.  I hope this is coming out the way I mean it.  No, I don't support or condone murder in any way, but the way people were reacting, it was like he put a hit out on them.  Anyway, he seems to be in his right mind now, seems repentant (from what I have read, it seems his ex-wife has forgiven him and he has earned the trust of his bandmates), and seems to be moving forward, so who am I to continue to hold it against him?

I said something similar to someone else.  Tim doesn't owe me an apology.  His sin was against his wife/family and God.  He needs to repent and beg forgiveness of them.  While I don't have any animosity towards him (frankly don't feel anything at all because I don't know him), for some reason I don't think I would feel right about buying his music.  I can't put my finger on why, but it just bothers me for some reason.

messiaen77 wrote:

Society-wide we are such a vengeful people.  We remind me of those old monster movies with the mobs with torches and pitchforks over every thing.  And yes, it is good and noble and right to fervently stand up against injustice, but when people get worked up over the President saluting a foreign general or a guy kneeling down during the national anthem as much or more than they do over the inhumane treatment of fellow human beings, it all becomes just noise and our outrage means nothing.  It's like the language we use. 

Agreed. Unfortunately I have found myself doing this, just like much of the rest of society does.  I don't want to do it anymore, but it just sneaks in there sometimes.  Heck you even called me out on it for a hate-filled meme I reposted on facebook (and rightly so).

messiaen77 wrote:

Quite honestly, I'm not really concerned about someone groping or having "improper" contact with someone else 20-30 years ago.  I'm concerned if there is a continuing pattern of behavior.  We all do stupid things, particularly when we are younger, and I'd hate to think I would be forever judged based on some of the things I did in my 20s.  Quite frankly, it doesn't excuse the behavior, but the 80s/90s were a different time than the 2010s.  There wasn't the same level of awareness of power differentials and that kind of thing was considered part of the culture.  When you "grow up" in a culture, there's a greater tendency to just accept the norms and values without questioning them, particularly if they benefit you (or at least don't harm you), and it really is unfair to judge the actions of people in the past based on what we know and believe today.  I do, however, think it is entirely appropriate to call out people who are still doing it.

Had almost this exact conversation with my wife.  Is their some sort of "statute of limitations" for this sort of thing?  Legally I would guess there is for much of the behavior, but not in the court of public opinion.  Our public standards of morality (or at least what is tolerated) change over the years.  For some reason people feel the need to take these new standards and hold them up to actions that occurred 20-30 years ago and sneer at the offenders.  I'm just thankful there isn't a detailed account of the stupid stuff I did in my twenties and early thirties. 

messiaen77 wrote:

But that's another point too.  When someone does apologize for their actions, we have a tendency to pick apart the apology and try to discredit it or we find something else to be angry about in the apology.  Maybe Roseanne was sincere.  I decided she wasn't.  No one really bought Kathy Griffin's apology either.  People kinda bought Kevin Spacey's apology, but got mad that he "outed" himself in the apology and seemed to be using it as an excuse.  Honestly, I think the only celebrity apology in these cases that hasn't gotten a lot of blowback was Louis CK's, but he really seemed to be the only person who seemed willing to accept responsibility instead of just trying to get out of trouble.

Well Kathy Griffin retracted her apology, so apparently she didn't mean it.  I commend Louis CK for accepting what he did (and hopefully doesn't do anymore), but I have to think at least one of those men who were jumped on by the "Me Too" movement was absolutely innocent of the charges leveled at him.  Why should he apologize, why should he lose his career?  Where is the accountability/proof?

Staybrite wrote:

messiaen77 wrote:

As for Tim, I was shocked and disappointed at the news of what he did, but I never held bad feelings toward him and quite frankly, I couldn't understand all the people who were so filled with anger and judgement toward him.  His offense was against his ex-wife, not me, and I just don't understand being so filled with outrage over it.  I hope this is coming out the way I mean it.  No, I don't support or condone murder in any way, but the way people were reacting, it was like he put a hit out on them.  Anyway, he seems to be in his right mind now, seems repentant (from what I have read, it seems his ex-wife has forgiven him and he has earned the trust of his bandmates), and seems to be moving forward, so who am I to continue to hold it against him?

I said something similar to someone else.  Tim doesn't owe me an apology.  His sin was against his wife/family and God.  He needs to repent and beg forgiveness of them.  While I don't have any animosity towards him (frankly don't feel anything at all because I don't know him), for some reason I don't think I would feel right about buying his music.  I can't put my finger on why, but it just bothers me for some reason.

I get that.  There is something that feels awkward if not wrong about it. 

Quote :

messiaen77 wrote:

Society-wide we are such a vengeful people.  We remind me of those old monster movies with the mobs with torches and pitchforks over every thing.  And yes, it is good and noble and right to fervently stand up against injustice, but when people get worked up over the President saluting a foreign general or a guy kneeling down during the national anthem as much or more than they do over the inhumane treatment of fellow human beings, it all becomes just noise and our outrage means nothing.  It's like the language we use. 

Agreed. Unfortunately I have found myself doing this, just like much of the rest of society does.  I don't want to do it anymore, but it just sneaks in there sometimes.  Heck you even called me out on it for a hate-filled meme I reposted on facebook (and rightly so).

I did?  I don't remember that one.  I normally just keep my head down and look for funny stuff to repost.

Quote :

messiaen77 wrote:

Quite honestly, I'm not really concerned about someone groping or having "improper" contact with someone else 20-30 years ago.  I'm concerned if there is a continuing pattern of behavior.  We all do stupid things, particularly when we are younger, and I'd hate to think I would be forever judged based on some of the things I did in my 20s.  Quite frankly, it doesn't excuse the behavior, but the 80s/90s were a different time than the 2010s.  There wasn't the same level of awareness of power differentials and that kind of thing was considered part of the culture.  When you "grow up" in a culture, there's a greater tendency to just accept the norms and values without questioning them, particularly if they benefit you (or at least don't harm you), and it really is unfair to judge the actions of people in the past based on what we know and believe today.  I do, however, think it is entirely appropriate to call out people who are still doing it.

Had almost this exact conversation with my wife.  Is their some sort of "statute of limitations" for this sort of thing?  Legally I would guess there is for much of the behavior, but not in the court of public opinion.  Our public standards of morality (or at least what is tolerated) change over the years.  For some reason people feel the need to take these new standards and hold them up to actions that occurred 20-30 years ago and sneer at the offenders.  I'm just thankful there isn't a detailed account of the stupid stuff I did in my twenties and early thirties. 

Legally there is a statute of limitations, but never in the court of public opinion.  I think some people are so convinced of their moral superiority that they look for any opportunity to flaunt it.  I was reading today some guy's boasts shaming Americans for not doing anything about children being kept in cages and that if he ddin't live 3,000 miles away, he'd go down there and tear down those fences and set them all free.  Yeah, sure you would...  (BTW, I'm not trying to get anything started on that topic, that was just what the guy was talking about and the perspective he held.)

Quote :

messiaen77 wrote:

But that's another point too.  When someone does apologize for their actions, we have a tendency to pick apart the apology and try to discredit it or we find something else to be angry about in the apology.  Maybe Roseanne was sincere.  I decided she wasn't.  No one really bought Kathy Griffin's apology either.  People kinda bought Kevin Spacey's apology, but got mad that he "outed" himself in the apology and seemed to be using it as an excuse.  Honestly, I think the only celebrity apology in these cases that hasn't gotten a lot of blowback was Louis CK's, but he really seemed to be the only person who seemed willing to accept responsibility instead of just trying to get out of trouble.

Well Kathy Griffin retracted her apology, so apparently she didn't mean it.  I commend Louis CK for accepting what he did (and hopefully doesn't do anymore), but I have to think at least one of those men who were jumped on by the "Me Too" movement was absolutely innocent of the charges leveled at him.  Why should he apologize, why should he lose his career?  Where is the accountability/proof?

Again, in the court of public opinion, evidence isn't necessary for a conviction.  Charges make the front page, retractions are buried.

messiaen77 wrote:

Quote :

messiaen77 wrote:

Society-wide we are such a vengeful people.  We remind me of those old monster movies with the mobs with torches and pitchforks over every thing.  And yes, it is good and noble and right to fervently stand up against injustice, but when people get worked up over the President saluting a foreign general or a guy kneeling down during the national anthem as much or more than they do over the inhumane treatment of fellow human beings, it all becomes just noise and our outrage means nothing.  It's like the language we use. 

Agreed. Unfortunately I have found myself doing this, just like much of the rest of society does.  I don't want to do it anymore, but it just sneaks in there sometimes.  Heck you even called me out on it for a hate-filled meme I reposted on facebook (and rightly so).

I did?  I don't remember that one.  I normally just keep my head down and look for funny stuff to repost.

It was something dumb about muslims hating the American flag (or something like that).  Just made me feel bit convicted of spreading hatred/anger/fear over something that might not even be real (or at least not wide-spread).

Sadly, we Christians are a lot like someone who keeps a manicured yard and tends to their shrubs and garden constantly.  It looks good on the outside, but the inside can still be a mess.

alldatndensum wrote:

Sadly, we Christians are a lot like someone who keeps a manicured yard and tends to their shrubs and garden constantly.  It looks good on the outside, but the inside can still be a mess.

I'll do ya one better... whitewashed tombs, nice and Biblical

Driven wrote:

alldatndensum wrote:

Sadly, we Christians are a lot like someone who keeps a manicured yard and tends to their shrubs and garden constantly.  It looks good on the outside, but the inside can still be a mess.

I'll do ya one better... whitewashed tombs, nice and Biblical

Jesus did have a way with words! 

Sounds to me Chris that you're just trying to get out of doing yardwork!  

kerrick wrote:

Sounds to me Chris that you're just trying to get out of doing yardwork!  

If I weren't so cheap, I'd pay someone else to do it. 

I love a thread that makes me smile by the time I get towards the end 

Guilty/Forgiven wrote:

I love a thread that makes me smile by the time I get towards the end 

And this thread is officially DEAD!