“I forgive you.” Sounds like Jesus-speak, does it not? After all, Jesus did tell us to forgive our enemies, did He not … that we should not expect to be forgiven if we ourselves do not forgive, right?
But what if someone “forgives” you for something that you did not do? “I forgive you for stealing from me.” “I forgive you for gossiping about me behind my back.” “I forgive you for slandering me.” Etc., etc., etc.
First off, implicit in this “forgiveness” is an accusation that you actually did the evil to the “forgiver.” But there is no due process. There is no evidence offered that you did the thing. There is only the accusation, couched in what pretends to be “forgiveness.” And this sort of “forgiveness” is not done face to face, man to man (in biblical fashion) with the accused, for in that setting, the two parties, the accused and the accuser, both know the truth and it has no effectiveness if there is no crime behind it; no, it is done in public – the words are spoken in a public forum, often when the one “forgiven” is not even present, for maximum effect.
Now, because it seems so “holy” to be forgiving, onlookers are naturally poised to believe the best about the sincerity of the forgiver, the act of forgiving and the truthfulness of the presumed factual basis of the underlying accusation. Therefore, “I forgive you” can be an effective tool for sliming an innocent person.
Imagine if in the recent Supreme Court nomination process, certain “victims,” instead of airing their beefs with the nominee in the way that they did, had simply said, publicly, “I forgive Mr. so-and-so for what he did to me 35 years ago.” People would be curious, and the “forgiving” tone on the part of the alleged “victims” might well have given them an additional patina of believability such that the accusation would have stuck when people naturally pursued their curiosities to discover what it was that the alleged “forgivee” had done for which to be “forgiven.”
“Forgiveness” of this sort is sometimes used to cover up the much more egregious crimes of which the phony forgiver himself is guilty. What if Charles Manson had said to the families of his victims, “I forgive you for all the slanderous things you’ve said about me”? Would that “forgiveness” have any value, any validity? If someone did not know who Manson was and what he did, it might seem to. Or what if Bill Clinton said, “I forgive you, Monica, for the lies you’re telling about me.”
My friends, this is not the sort of forgiveness that Jesus taught us to exercise towards one another. It is, in fact, the exact opposite. This kind of “forgiveness” of the alleged sins of others is, itself, a sin. It carries offense, and it divides the Body of Christ.
Real forgiveness does not go back and name the “crimes” for which one is extending forgiveness. (Self-examination might well be in order, too, as the extent of one’s sensitivity to that particular “crime” may say something about either one’s own guilt in that area or one’s potential, because of one’s thoughts about it, to actually commit that particular act.) If it is truly forgiven, it does not need to be aired any further so that anyone else might exercise sympathy for the victim and hold the act against the one being “forgiven.” There is, in fact, no victim – at least not any longer – for forgiveness is the act of relinquishing any right to hold another accountable for his bad acts against the one who would otherwise have had a bonafide claim. It is over; justice has been satisfied.
So why bring it up here? How does this “phony forgiveness” idea fit the theme of edging church pew-sitters back towards being the ecclesia? Simply because it is all-too-often typical church behavior, as the church is a forum in which these sorts of lies can be easily spread. It is rank he-said-she-said with a pseudo-holy twist. It is someone – the “forgiver” (accuser) – saying to someone else – the “forgiven” (accused) – “I’m better than you; I’m more spiritual than you; I’m more godly than you; I’m more righteous than you; I’m holier than you; I’m being Christ-like (and you’re not),” without seeming to put on holier-than-thou garb. It is wrapping oneself up in an outward descriptor of Christ-likeness to which one has no actual legitimate claim, almost as if one could climb up on a cross to see how very much like Jesus he is. (And it is often but a smokescreen aimed at covering up the “forgiver’s” own wrongdoing.)
And it stinks. It is beyond hypocritical.
In the military it would be called stolen valor – picking up a uniform at an army surplus store along with some rank insignia and decorations, putting it on, then going out in public acting like the wearer has done something heroic for which he should be recognized.
Real wounded vets respond unsympathetically to these wannabes. How do you suppose Jesus will respond to those who pretend to be like Him in order to garner favor on earth? Scripture tells us the answer: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:22-23)
So be careful who you say “I forgive you” to and how. Be sure that the forgiveness is real and genuine. That will mean that you don’t have to recite (especially publicly … and your forgiveness should not be broadcast publicly beyond the hearing of those who knew of the wrong for which you are forgiving) what you are forgiving the other for. Then be done with it. Let it go.
Then a final step: true forgiveness (while the false variety is building a sympathetic following on Facebook, telling only one side of the story and following it with “…but I forgive you”) actually prays for the forgiven party and looks to see that party the way that God does.
This is what the ecclesia – the true Body of Christ – would do.