Peter Hynes charts the steps we must take from being wronged to forgiveness and reconciliation.

The journey of forgiveness

by Peter Hynes

We have all heard it said that time and distance heals many wounds. But in reality, both are often very poor healers, because they leave deep, infected wounds that fester. The harm might feel trivial to an outsider—“Your father forgot we were supposed to meet at the restaurant after his work to celebrate your birthday, and went home instead”—but for the teenage birthday boy, it is just further proof that his father really doesn’t care for him.

With such wounds, we all know that it isn’t easy to forgive someone. Sadly, our society and even our churches don’t do this very well. But whether the hurt be physical, emotional or spiritual, if it is left uncared for, one or both parties can get stuck in a broken relationship, unable to move on.

As Christians, one thing we know is that the gospel is very demanding. In comparison, our natural tendency is to be quick to curtail its demands in order to give us some breathing space. However, when it comes to forgiveness, Jesus never allows us to get comfortable: in the Lord’s Prayer, he requires Christians to forgive unconditionally: “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt 6:12). So as we consider the topic of forgiveness, we know that somewhere in the process, there must be repentance, and that the goal should always be reconciliation and restoration. But what do these words actually mean? What are their boundaries? And how do they fit together?

1. Acknowledging the wrong

First of all, in forgiveness, reconciliation is required because there has been breakdown in the relationship between two entities. In order to bring about reconciliation, there must be an acknowledgement of the wrong and agreement of its precise nature between the two parties. Each side needs to know what they are forgiving or what they need to repent of.

If the parties don’t agree on this, the only other possibility of reconciliation is turning a blind eye. This is very common when we choose to ignore the other person’s wrongdoing and, instead, say, “love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet 4:8). We may choose to do this with “small” offences—particularly if we want to continue to live in harmony with the offender.

But what about occasions when the offended party doesn’t realise they have been wronged, or is no longer around? For the offender, it can be torture to live with a guilty conscience. So, naturally, we might seek to cover up our sin (for example, through rationalising, excusing or justifying ourselves) and not reveal it. But if we are still secretly engaging in such practices (for example, viewing pornography or engaging in an adulterous affair), even if it’s hidden, our sin will manifest itself in other ways (for example, a strained relationship with our spouse).

The difficulty here is how to deal with guilt: how can it be removed if there is no forgiveness or possibility of forgiveness?

2. Forgive unconditionally, repent unconditionally

For the Christian, depending on whether they are the perpetrator or the victim, after acknowledging the wrong, they must either forgive or repent. Furthermore, such forgiveness or repentance must be unconditional, without expecting that the other person will also forgive or repent. True forgiveness and repentance find their proper starting point with God, for with all sin, he is the primary offended party. Christians forgive because God has forgiven us far more than any wrong done to us. David is a prime example of this: after having committed adultery and murder, he said to God in Psalm 51, “Against you, you only, have I sinned” (v. 4). Of course, his sin wasn’t just against God, and he knew that; rather, when he finally realised the magnitude of what he had done to the most glorious and holy God, his sin against man appeared trivial in comparison. God forgave him (2 Sam 12:13)—something David did not forget for the rest of his life.

However, in human relationships, it’s rare that the offence is exclusively one-sided; there is usually a pattern of escalation—of responding, of refusing to take responsibility for our actions, but instead preferring to blame it on another. (See, for example, Genesis 3:12-13, where Adam blames his sin on Eve, then Eve blames the serpent.) But if we bring God into the picture, it helps us see that we are ultimately responsible for what we do and how we respond, and we are therefore in a better position to forgive or repent unconditionally.

3. Reconciliation and reparation

That said, forgiveness must not be equated with turning a blind eye; we mustn’t oppose forgiveness and punishment. The story of Achan in Joshua 7 reveals that repentance doesn’t dispense with punishment: God knew from the beginning what Achan did, and in his gentleness, he brings Achan to acknowledge his sin. Yet this doesn’t mean Achan avoids the penalty. Quite the contrary! But it does set the scene for God to act out his justice without appearing harsh.

The offence may also have a civil or spiritual dimension that cannot be ignored. If the offender has broken a law (civil or divine), they will have to face the consequences for that too. It’s important to remember that the forgiveness offered by the victim doesn’t free the offender from the required penalty.

Furthermore, if a wrong has been committed, something must be done to repair the material and emotional damage, and to restore justice and truth, as well as the relationship. Perhaps the offender reimburses the victim for what has been stolen over the course of an agreed schedule. Or the offender pays for any repairs resulting from the inflicted damage. In any offence, the offended party must be allowed to obtain from the offender what is needed for them to rebuild their lives.

Forgiveness and repentance are about dealing with our emotions—our internal animosity. They are about not letting the offence become our identity. They are about taking responsibility for what happened to us, or for what we did, and, more importantly, for what we are going to do about it.

But sadly, we must accept that, for some relationships, full reconciliation and restoration may not happen this side of eternity. Nevertheless, even though the grieving or the consequences may continue for a long time, they will not continue into eternity, and for that we can be thankful.

Read more . . .

Fourth year Moore College student, Jerome Jayasekera, considers why Adam was able to sin in the Garden of Eden when the Scriptures teach us that God is in control of all things.

Sin in the world of a sovereign God

by Jerome Jayasekera

At times of uncertainty and strife, the question of whether God is in control grips our hearts and minds. In the face of distress, the answer that God is indeed in control but we must still live with the consequences of Adam’s sin, also feels somewhat unsatisfying. Why, if God is in control, did he allow Adam to sin in the first place?

Perhaps you’ve heard the reply that Adam sinned because he was given the freedom to do so. We all recognise a degree of freedom in our own lives that makes us responsible for the actions that we choose to take. But we also learn from examples in the Old Testament that since the time of the fall, human beings seem to be trapped: we often choose evil over good. The solution to this conundrum is found in the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ.

So, how is it that Jesus was able to be obedient when all other human beings failed? The obvious response is that he was divine—he was God. But what does Jesus claim to be the source of his obedience? In John 14:31, just as he was about to perform his greatest act of obedience by dying on the cross, Jesus said that he does ‘as the Father has commanded the Father’.

Love is at the heart of obedience. The profound connection between love and obedience is a subtle yet pervasive teaching of Scripture. In Deuteronomy 6, Moses’ instructions to the Israelites to obey God’s commandments are tied to a wholehearted commitment to love God with their whole being (Deut 6:5-6). In Leviticus 19, the commandment to treat others rightly is to come from a genuine love for their good (Lev 19:17-18). When he was asked his opinion on which of the commandments is the greatest, Jesus answered that the commandments to love God and to love one’s neighbour were the basis for obedience to all the other commandments (Matt 22:36–40).

If love is at the heart of obedience to God, where does it come from? In philosophical theology, the Relational Free Will Defence is founded on the premise that for love to be genuine it must be born of a free will. That is to say, humans must have genuine freedom so that we can choose either to love or not to love, a suggestion that is common in popular Christian literature. But saying that love comes from the freedom to choose does not provide us with the source of our choices, as our choices are rarely random or arbitrary. They are almost always governed by internal or external influences—in fact, if they are not we would regard them as acts of indifference. In the Bible’s terms, our choice to love is based on the desire of our heart.

When Moses commanded the Israelites to love God from the depths of their being, he acknowledged that love must come from the desire of our heart. Obedience was to be an outward demonstration of this love. Moses knew that the reason why people did not obey God was because they had a problem with their hearts (Deut 10:12 – 16). He also recognised that because the problem was so much a part of who they were, they would need God to work within them to bring about a change in their hearts (Deut 30:6 – 8). The prophet Ezekiel also pointed out this problem and stressed the need for God to give them a new heart and to put his Spirit within them (Ezek 36:26–27). Through God’s work in changing them internally, they would become people who were now capable loving God and so be obedient to him.

From the Bible, we learn that our choice to obey or disobey God comes from the disposition of our heart rather than to an inherent freedom that we have over our actions. The reason why Adam disobeyed God was not because he was given the freedom to do so but because his heart possessed the disposition to do so. Jesus’ obedience to God came from his love for God. His love came from his union with his Father through the Spirit. It is the same Spirit who regenerates hearts and indwells people as he unites them to Jesus Christ. Out of this union with Christ, we participate in Christ’s love and obedience as we are transformed into his image.

Returning to the question about why God allowed Adam to sin, we see now that Adam needed something that only Jesus Christ could provide. He needed to participate in the relationship of the Trinity in a way that was only possible through the indwelling of the Spirit and the transforming power of Christ. God’s solution to the problem of the Fall is not that we go back to being like Adam was before he sinned but that we become like his Son, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. This was God’s intention for humanity before he created the world.

Read more . . .

There was no heckling or massed protest, no social media flame-throwing, and a marked lack of animosity. Which I guess means that the answer to our question at last Wednesday night’s CCL event on ‘Can we talk about same-sex marriage?’ was … ‘Well, perhaps we can’.

The video and audio of the evening will be available in the next week or so, but in the meantime here are five things that I personally took away from last Wednesday’s stimulating discussion:

One: thinking publicly and socially, it’s important for Christians to speak up about same-sex marriage, for the common good. The consequences of same-sex marriage becoming law are very likely to be bad: for marriage as an institution, for children raised in genderless families and an increasingly genderless society, for religious liberty, and for free speech.

Two:  ‘genderless marriage’ is a better way to describe what is being proposed, because that’s what is really at stake—whether marriages and families in our society will continue to be gendered realities (with husbands, wives, mums and dads) or not (partner 1, partner 2, parent 1 and parent 2).

Three: in our personal conversations about the issue, there’s nothing more important than asking and listening. People’s attitudes to ‘genderless marriage’ come from lots of different places, and sometimes reflect deeply personal commitments and values—or not. Some people are just riding the wave of popular sentiment; others are deeply invested.

Four: in every case, it is worth taking the time to expose the real nature of our disagreement, which comes down to a profound difference in how we see the world—as the creation of a good God and ruled by the risen Jesus Christ … or not. It may take some time and conversation to bring this to the surface, but unless we do so our non-Christian friends are likely to believe the media caricature of why Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage (bigotry, homophobia, traditionalism, repressed sexuality, and so on). Explaining the real basis for our view is part of our vocation as God’s people—to proclaim his excellences to the world (1 Pet 2:9), and to give the reason for the hope that we have (1 Pet 3:16).

Five: one of the many profound consequences of our belief in the risen Jesus Christ is that we have (at last!) a solid sense of who we are, and secure hope for the future. Particularly for those who have a personal stake in same-sex marriage, these are massive questions, and worth unearthing in conversation. The push for same-sex marriage is about identity, hope, affirmation and acceptance. We should never tire of testifying to the identity, hope, affirmation and acceptance that we have found in Christ.

 

(To be notified when the ‘Can we talk about Same-sex Marriage?’ video and audio comes online, sign up for our email updates in the sidebar.)

Read more . . .

Welcome to our new-look CCL website. We hope you find it better organized, better looking, and easier to explore.

The nav bar across the top shows the kind of resources you’ll find on this site to help with the challenge of ‘bringing biblical ethics to everyday issues’. Working from left to right, you’ll notice that we have:

Events

Obviously enough, this is where you’ll find information about our forthcoming public lectures.

Read

In this category, we’ve gathered together all the text-based resources on the site, divided into three sub-categories:

• The Christian Living Blog will contain short regular pieces, not just from me, but also from College students who are eager to share how their theological studies are helping them think differently about the various challenges of living as a Christian;
• The Essays section will feature longer articles, mainly adapted from past public events. We have around seven of these essays ready to go, and will be uploading them over the next month or so.
• The Book Reviews section harks back a few years to when Andrew Cameron first set up CCL. We’re hoping to start adding new book reviews of important books relating to Christian ethics in the not-too-distant future.

Watch

Here you’ll find a growing library of video from our public events, organized by topic, and featuring members of the Moore College faculty.

Listen

In response to numerous requests to make our public lectures available as audio (to listen to in the car or on the train), we’ve gathered together all our current audio files under this category.

~

That’s about it. We’d love your feedback on the site—just use the contact form at the bottom of this page to tell us what you think and to make suggestions.

And of course the best way to keep in touch with the increasing amount of new content we’re planning to upload to the site is to sign up for our monthly email newsletter (which you can do in the side-bar).

Read more . . .

Voting in elections, like pretty much everything we do, is an exercise in glorifying God by loving our neighbour.

Or as Paul puts it: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 10:31-11:1).

The principle as it applies to voting is simple enough: we should do everything for the glory of God by seeking the advantage of many. As we eat or drink or work or drive or vote, we should not seek our own good, but the good of many others, and especially their chief good of being saved in Christ.

What does this mean for our vote this Saturday?

Well there are many ‘goods’ we can and should seek for our neighbours—the good of employment, the good of adequate health care, the good of hospitality (if they are seeking our refuge or help), the good of a safe and sustainable environment, and so on. And when we vote, we are considering which of the available candidates and parties are likely to bring about these goods, based on what they are proposing to do, as well as how likely they are to achieve it (which brings into play their experience, character and record).

Our decisions about these things are complex, because we have to consider not only the ordering of these goods (which of them might be more important to achieve than others, given limited resources), but also the means by which the various parties are proposing to achieve them. In fact, this is usually the most significant difference between Left-leaning and Right-leaning political views—not so much the goods that they wish to achieve (e.g. security, health-provision, economic prosperity, a fair go for all, and so on), but the means by which they propose to attain them. Left-leaning parties tend to favour a more centralized, state-driven approach to achieving social goods; right-leaning parties favour a more privatised, market-driven approach.

Neither of these tendencies or approaches (centrist or privatist) are inherently good or evil. And as Christian citizens our task is essentially one of wisdom—to judge which approach on which issues is more likely to be effective in bringing about the goods that will be of most benefit to our neighbours (remembering that our focus should be on others rather than ourselves).

Every election is like this, and the one we are facing now in Australia is no different. As Christians, we should make a considered, thoughtful, prayerful judgement as to which of the candidates and parties is likely to bring about the best mix of ‘goods’ for the benefit society as a whole.

And because these judgements are complex and (frankly) impossible to be certain about, we will come to different decisions, based on our experience and wisdom and personal insights. This is why Christian pastors and leaders are wise not to endorse one side of politics over another—it ends up making complex wisdom judgements the stuff of division and disunity.

However, as we think about which goods are most important, Christians will regard people’s destiny in Christ as their chief good. As we consider all the good and harm that may be attained through governmental action, we will give a special priority to those actions that provide space and opportunity for the gospel to be clearly proclaimed. As Paul said, do everything for the glory of God by seeking the good of many, so that they may be saved.

And that’s why this election is unlike any I’ve voted in over the past 36 years in Australia.

In all of those elections, as far as my middle-aged brain can recall, the issues that divided the major parties had very little impact one way or the other on gospel preaching. Should we have Medicare or not? Or a GST or not? Or tax cuts or not? Or WorkChoices or not? These were huge questions that helped determine the outcome of elections—but none of the policies of the major parties on these issues made any material difference to the opportunities or space Christians had to preach the gospel that brings salvation.

This time, however, there’s a good chance that they will.

If the next Australian government legislates for ‘same-sex marriage’, the consequences for free and open gospel preaching are likely to be serious and widespread. (This is quite apart from whatever personal, relational and social harm we think might ensue from our society going down this path.)

If ‘same-sex marriage’ is made law, then we are almost to certain to see greater restrictions being placed on the open proclamation of Christ, especially in public spaces like schools. I say ‘greater restrictions’, because restrictions have already commenced.

To give just three brief examples of many:
•‘Special Religious Education’ (SRE) has already been removed from the school curriculum in Victoria, and is under active investigation in NSW and Queensland for its supposedly hateful and harmful teaching on human sexuality.
•Churches that meet in schools are already having their hiring agreements cancelled because of the content of sermons on homosexuality.
•Some university Christian groups have already stopped teaching publicly about sexuality on campus in order to avoid being denied use of campus facilities.

This trend will doubtless continue. If ‘same-sex marriage’ becomes law, it will very likely accelerate.

This is why the differing positions of the major parties on same-sex marriage are significant at this election for Christians.

Under the policy framework of the Greens and Labor, ‘same-sex marriage’ will become law, and quickly. Under the policy of the Liberal-National coalition, the issue will be determined by a plebiscite of the Australian people.

Now it is quite possible that such a plebiscite will still lead to ‘same-sex marriage’ legislation. But it also very possibly may not, and we (like all citizens) will have the right to argue our case and express our will, if given this opportunity.

All of which leads this article towards a distinctly uncomfortable and seemingly partisan conclusion—uncomfortable for some readers with particular political leanings, and very uncomfortable for me as a Christian leader and writer who has assiduously avoided any partisan political statements in 27 years of public teaching and writing. Am I going to complete the logic of this article by urging evangelical Christians not to vote for Labor or the Greens at this Saturday’s election?

I am not, because readers must test the logic and assumptions of my argument and draw their own conclusions—as they must always do.

It is possible, after all, that I have over-estimated the threat to gospel preaching that the legalisation of ‘same-sex marriage’ will entail. Perhaps freedom of religion protections in the legislation will be adequate. Perhaps there will be a public backlash against the overly-zealous pursuit of Christian organizations, resulting in a backdown. Or perhaps a spot of persecution and public restriction will in fact result in more boldness and gospel preaching than at present.

All these matters, readers must judge for themselves, weighing them against the other ‘goods’ that are at stake in the proposed policies of each party, and then giving glory to God by voting not for ourselves but in love for the good of many, that they may be saved.

Have something to say about this article? Please send us a message below.

Read more . . .

In 2012, Christopher Ash presented at a CCL Open Night on the topic of God, sex and marriage.

His biblical understanding and wisdom, combined with his clarity and winsome manner, ensure that this talk continues to be relevant and informative four years on. Ash provides us with an astute articulation of how Christians are viewed in the current marriage debate and highlights that this is an extraordinary change from society’s opinion on Christian sexual ethics in the middle of the 20th century. The lecture aims to help us understand, as ordinary Christians, how we should participate in and respond to the current marriage conversation by addressing the following seven suggestions:

1. Christian people ought to expect to be marginalised
2. Christian people need to be realistic about prejudice
3. Marriage is a creation ordinance
4. Men & women have consciences, even without Bibles
5. The purpose of marriage
6. The definition of marriage
7. As Christians, we want always to leave room for the grace of God.

Ash speaks on this topic with pastoral gentleness, yet remains unwavering in his conviction that God’s ways are best for all people. He encourages us to commend God’s definition and purpose for marriage as good for our society (as experience shows) rather than ‘shrilly’ defending it, as if society’s attempt to redefine marriage can actually destroy it.

Here is a brief taste of this lecture, but we hope that you’ll listen to the full version concerning this contemporary ethical conversation.

Have something to say about this article? Please send us a message below.

Read more . . .