False Forgiveness

When I was a 7 year old boy, I was hit by a car. I and my family were vacationing in California when this happened. I was following my cousin across the street when the car came up and hit me. The accident was very serious. I flew about 10 yards or so, according to my sister who witnessed it. My leg was broken and my arm was severely scraped and bleeding. I was also lying there in a semi-conscious state when the authorities arrived. To say the least, my mom was frantic at the sight of me. But, of course, I survived.

But here's the thing that happened, which some churches don't seem to understand. The paramedics, and all involved, weren't immediately concerned about the feelings of the driver, the need for the victim and the victim's family to forgive the driver, or to ensure that everyone gets over it and moves on. The immediate concerns were for my survival, the comfort of my family, making necessary adjustments for my rehabilitation, and for determining the driver's responsibilities monetarily. Sure, forgiveness played a role, but not as a panacea for the immediate concerns.

However, some churches tend to focus on forgiveness as if that is the solution for serious sin within its own ranks — such as an adulterous preacher, or deacon who is a wife beater. On the other hand, healthy churches — although they may have forgiveness as a concern too — see forgiveness as part of a process of repair and reconciliation after some serious work is done. Wrongs and the subsequent ramifications aren't ignored, appropriate blame and consequences are clearly handled, and then room is made for sincere forgiveness.

Very few people forgive when it's unsafe to do so. And no one truly forgives from the heart when they are compelled to forgive. Healthy churches understand this, and create an environment where true forgiveness can be accomplished. However, some churches, who use forgiveness as a solution to very real problems, use the concept of forgiveness as a means to avoid problems, unpleasant feelings, and hard solutions.

How can you tell the difference?

1. Healthy forgiveness can overlook some insults and foolishness while acknowledging the pain of the sin. But it doesn't ignore significant sins and its ramifications.
   
   However, false forgiveness minimizes sin by equalizing all sin as the same. The philosophy works like this: Since all sin is falling short of the glory of God, and all have sinned, then there is really no significant difference between sexual sins and other sins. And there's no difference between the sin of a preacher, elder, or a new convert. As a result, forgiveness becomes the de facto response to sin regardless the grossness or consequences.
2. Real forgiveness is done in response to repentance. Some people may disagree with this, because it is often taught that forgiveness is given even if people don't (or can't) repent. Victims are released from bitterness and emotional ties associated with demanding retribution of the perpetrator. But, even if it is true that releasing a situation into God's hand is often necessary when someone refuses to repent, or they just can't (like when they die), it doesn't follow that it is biblical forgiveness. Forgiveness is a two-way exchange. It is a response to a person's desire to be forgiven. God responds to our need for forgiveness when we repent. But if we refuse to repent, God doesn't forgive. However, God treats the unrepentant with kindness. God may overlook some of our sins, but he doesn't necessarily forgive us unless we repent. It may be a semantics problem, but no matter what you believe, forgiveness isn't used to avoid the problem.
   
   False forgiveness, on the other hand, ignores repentance altogether because the goal is to avoid problems and hurt feelings. At its root is a fear of man. Getting over bad feelings and uncomfortable circumstances is the goal.
3. Last, real forgiveness doesn't avoid problems, but brings them into the light. Problems caused by the sin, dealing with the sinner and those who supported the sinner, and protecting the victims may be unpleasant but forgiveness comes from the light. Everything is visible and clear, consequences are understood, and forgiveness is done with full knowledge and safeguards in place.
   
   False forgiveness keeps problems in the dark. Only the obvious facts may be in the light. But darkness and secrecy is the result of false forgiveness. And although it is designed to alleviate bad feelings, these feelings simply go underground. People's relationships break, people don't talk, and if someone wants to bring it up it upsets the status quo.

Forgiveness isn't a solution for sin in the church. Acknowledging and working on problems is the best approach. And forgiveness may be the result of this work. And although there are times when reconciliation is impossible, those who practice true forgiveness would be able to recognize these situations clearly.

Why Bereans and Jehovah's Witnesses Would Not Get Along

After the last post, I've been thinking about the reasons why a Jehovah's Witness would be offended when told that there is a difference between Watchtower doctrine and Biblical doctrine. And that they, when they are challenged, always try to defend the organization, while claiming allegiance to the Bible. I guarantee you that no one who truly reads the Bible in context comes up with Watchtower doctrine (and extra-biblical prohibitions) on their own. At some point a potential Witness had to be convinced in the Watchtower doctrines before becoming a Witness. Unfortunately, those who are most susceptible to Watchtower doctrine are sincere people who either haven't really read the Bible, or have read it poorly.

The Watchtower approach is unlike that of Paul in Scripture. When Paul entered Berea in Acts 17:10-12. The Jewish Bereans didn't berate Paul or simply accept what he said was true. They checked out the Scriptures themselves. The Bible then commends the Bereans for their attitude — saying they were of noble character because of this. Paul didn't get angry with them for not "getting it." or disagreeing with him. In fact, it seems that the Bereans had a high view of Scripture, and were very knowledgeable of the text. The Scriptures were held as authoritative even over the Apostles themselves!

However, Watchtower doctrine is dependent on a particular manner of interpretation (prescribed by the Watchtower), not on a plain reading of the text, and sound Biblical exegesis. A prospect must be convinced that the Watchtower interpretation supersedes whatever she has come to believe the Bible says from simply reading it. She must be led to believe that she has read the Scriptures wrong, and that hard to understand sections are correctly interpreted by the Watchtower. Once convinced, the prospect naturally follows the Watchtower's conclusion that the Watchtower is God's organization, and therefore speaks for God (feeding the flock at the proper time).

She will become confused between Biblical authority and organizational authority. She will be unable to distinguish between the two. That's why a Jehovah's Witness would never admit that they follow the Watchtower. In their mind they are only following the Bible. But it's on the grounds that their interpretations match with Watchtower doctrine.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Only One Problem

When that doorbell rings unexpectedly, especially around Easter or Christmas, it just might be a Jehovah's Witness coming to share her publications and a peculiar theological perspective. However, for many people, it is an unwelcome event—especially for Christians rooted in the truth of Scripture. For others it is simply an annoyance. But for a few people it is an opportunity to share the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But the difficulty with sharing Christ with Jehovah's Witnesses isn't the information, but the receptivity. It can be a frustrating experience for the immature or the mature Christian. Yet, there is really only one issue that needs to be dealt with if any headway is to be made.

A Jehovah's Witness is trained to defend preconceived ideas and challenge established Christian theology. They have no interest in what you have to say, because you are deceived. Therefore, they are predisposed to not listen to any reasoned argument if it doesn't reflect the Watchtower organization's point of view. Being fully devoted to the Watchtower organization's theological framework they are willing to reinterpret and twist Scripture to agree with the Watchtower.

What makes it more difficult is that they are fully convinced in their own minds that mangling Scripture isn't what they are doing. Instead, they believe that the Scriptures teach what the Watchtower believes. However, when they prove this point they will jump from passage to passage with no regard for context to justify this notion. Then they claim that their way of interpreting Scripture is the norm. "See the apostles use different Scriptures to make their point." What they ignore is that apostles and prophets are clearly ordained by God through visible power and special appointment by Jesus, or God himself, while our goal is to understand what they taught. (The difference between inspiration and perspiration.)

Another issue that makes it very difficult to share with them is that they are willing to tell half-truths, or even lie, to convince people that what they are saying is true. They call this spiritual warfare. The idea is that since Christians are deceived, it is okay to employ this tactic in order to get them to acknowledge their truth.

What's the best approach?

Well, how do you share with people who do these types of things? Ignoring them certainly isn't going to much effective. (Although, there are times when this is the best approach.) When Christians choose to engage a Jehovah Witness, there really is only one problem to deal with. Rather than going through bunny trails and endless debating, just ask them to explain one issue: "Why do you trust that the Watchtower speaks for God?" That really is the issue, isn't it?

Although Witnesses may counter with statements such as, "They only speak what the Bible says", "They don't speak for God, they merely interpret what God said", or even, "Don't you use trusted sources to help you interpret the Bible?", it doesn't matter. Find out why they trust the Watchtower organization (these few men) for themselves—as individuals. Did the men in the Watchtower organization do something to illicit this trust? How can you know what they say matches the Scriptures, if you need them to explain the Scriptures? If they aren't prophets or speak for God, how can they have the authority to teach on extra-biblical theology such as the nature of the Spirit, celebrating birthdays, and so on? And if they are ordained to speak for God (as prophets), how were they ordained and what's the proof?

I've found many times that Jehovah's Witnesses place their trust in the Watchtower organization (men) because they feel deep down inside that these men are telling them the truth. Some have even said that the publications, the Watchtower produces, says that they are telling the truth. (I kid you not.) So the next question is an obvious follow-up: "So, if I told you that I am telling you the truth from God, then why don't you believe me?" Some get the point, while others choose to ignore the problem. But either way, the true issue is exposed, rather than engaging in endless debating.

Whatever happens next really doesn't matter, because the problem still remains: the Jehovah's Witness has her trust in a few elders in a N.Y. office called the Watchtower for no good reason, other than she has chosen to. It is incumbent upon the Witness at your door to demonstrate why you should believe that too.