Tag Archive for 'forgiveness'

Forgiveness and the Second Chance

I am a Christian. I believe that when we turn back to the Father and repent of our sins, we are truly forgiven through Jesus' blood shed on the cross, and given new life through his resurrection and in the power of the Holy Spirit.  (And as you can probably tell from that sentence, I am also a theologian with a postgraduate degree!)

But what does that forgiveness mean? What are the consequences of that forgiveness, as opposed to the consequences of my sin? When we are forgiven by God, do we still have to face some consequences of our wrongdoing, or are we given a genuine second chance?

Continue reading 'Forgiveness and the Second Chance'

Communities of Grace

Over the years I have frequently thought about the relationship between the uncompromising ethical stance of much of the New Testament (not least the Sermon on the Mount), and salvation as the free gift of God, through the cross, while we were still God's enemies.

With the help of various theologians (John Calvin, Karl Barth etc), as well as sustained reflection on the Bible (not just the New Testament) I have come to think of it in terms of a response.  We are given a free gift of live, salvation through Jesus Christ, which we must live out.  We must live a life worthy of the calling we have received.

But of course the context of that life is always that it is a free gift.  We didn't earn it in the first place, and we can't mess up so badly that there is no way back.  We can't lose our salvation in Christ through our failure to live it out.  There is nothing we can do that is so bad God won't forgive us—if we repent.

And right there is the crux of the issue.  We can stuff things up terribly, but if we repent and turn back to God, he will forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  Although our sin cuts us off from God, there is always a way back, through the cross, if we repent.

Unrepentance I think comes in two guises: first, refusing to repent of what we know is sinful behaviour (this is the most obvious kind); second (more subtly perhaps), failing to acknowledge that we are simul iustus et peccatore, at once justified and sinner, and that we do mess things up.

The first is perhaps more common in our individual lives, the second much more common in our communities.  In many (evangelical) churches I have been privileged to be a part of, there has been an unspoken culture / expectation that actually things are all right for everyone.  Maybe that's my perception, I don't know, but that's how I've felt.

When the culture is like that, it is very difficult for individuals to acknowledge serious failures.  Yeah we can all say a confession, I haven't put God first, that kind of stuff, but when there is a serious problem, the sense of failure is so strong that it is difficult to tell anyone, because you are worried they will judge you for not being a good enough Christian (or whatever).

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that.  Often in churches it can feel as if we are expected to be perfect, so when things aren't it is very difficult to talk to anyone about it.  Somehow we need to create an atmosphere in which failure (privately and publicly), while not accepted as 'right', is not condemned or judged, but accepted as 'real' and worked through, drawing on God's grace and power.

We need to create communities of grace (I'm sure I've not made that phrase up, but I don't know where it's come from), which accept sinners, but challenge sin and encourage an atmosphere of repentance and forgiveness.

We need not to expect people to be perfect, or even close, but to be real about the messed-up world we live in, that things don't always work out, that people get things wrong, that we all do, just some of us more obviously than others.  People need to be aware of all that, so they feel comfortable and able to be real and honest, to share where they are really at, so that sin can be dealt with in God's way (by repentance and forgiveness) rather than being allowed to fester within our congregations.

Barth on Human Wickedness

This was originally published as a comment on this blog on 13 May 2006. The author asked: 'And what is the difference between the wickedness exhibited in the actions that led to that young man's death, and the wickedness of ordinary folk muddling their way through life?'

Karl Barth's answer to your question,

'If wickenedness belongs to human nature, how would it possible for the incarnation to take place?'

is basically that we are not truly human – Jesus is. We are corrupted, so that what we do does not flow directly from what we are. We are liars, appearing to be something we are not. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but this isn't the time (or space..!), and I'm not the person.

This is one of his reasons for starting his anthropology with Christology – looking at Jesus (rather than ourselves) for his definition of 'human'. We can know ourselves more truly through Jesus, whose nature is revealed in the Bible and through the Holy Spirit, than through looking at ourselves. Our actions are symptoms of our corruption, they do not show us what it is to be human.

That does side-step rather neatly the problem of Jesus being 'just like us', when we are fallen and corrupted.

Thus 'evil' within us is not a characteristic, but something deeper than that, twisting and corrupting our very being. It cannot be trained out of us, and it is common to us all.

Hueston's final question is the tricky one! In human terms of course, we would say there is a huge difference between beating someone to death and lying to your boss. The 'sound' answer is to say that sin is sin is sin – any black mark on something white spoils it. There are effectively two states of being – holy (God) and sinful (us).

While that last statement is undoubtedly true, it's difficult to accept the previous one. A couple of little black marks are hardly noticeable – a great splodge of ink is surely much worse. Surely lying to your boss is nowhere near as bad as murder.

On one level, that is correct. Our society recognises that in the criminal justice system. There are set fines and jail sentences for difference crimes, increasing with the severity and circumstances of the crime, and so on.

But on another level, it isn't. We come back to Barth's idea that we are basically liars. We do not behave as we should, we do not act like true humans, because we are corrupted. Any lie is a lie, no matter how big or small. Any act which is not in line with our humanity is a lie, it de-humanises us (quite literally for Barth – when we sin we give up our humanity and become something else).

The bar is high, and we'll fail to jump it every time we try, because of our corrupted nature. We can't win! But that's where Jesus comes in – as the only true human that has ever lived, he sealed that achievement on the cross when he died. Through his achievement, on his return all those who belong to him will be transformed to be like him: fully and truly human, incapable of sin and free from the power of death.

God has promised to forgive all who turn back to him in repentance – whoever they are, whatever they've done. God's forgiveness is open to those people who beat that poor boy to death, hard as that may be for us to accept, in the same way as it is there for the rest of us.

Categories

Twitter

Recent Comments

Archives