Chris Brauns (author of Unpacking Forgiveness) has a thought-provoking and Gospel-saturated post over at Reformation 21, where he contemplates implications of believing that forgiveness should be automatically, unconditionally granted to someone who has wronged us.  Among other things, Brauns says that believing this shortchanges justice, breeds bitterness and, above all, misses the point of the Gospel. 

Here are three quotes that I think point to the crux of the article:

[Some might say,] “You say, ‘offer forgiveness’. I say, ‘give it’. What’s the difference?”

There is a big difference. If we say that everyone is forgiven, then we redefine forgiveness. Instead of it being something that happens between two parties (as it is in when God forgives us), forgiveness becomes something that I decide to do on my own–independent of the one who has hurt me.

…

Furthermore, forgiving in this privatized, automatic kind of way has become far less than what the Gospel requires. It seems fair to assume that Grammer has no intention of ever offering anything to Freddie Glenn, yet this is exactly what God did. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). Indeed, those who put their faith in Christ can say, “. . . He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.(Col 1:13-14, emphasis added).” Christians are called to follow the Savior’s example, offering the handshake of forgiveness to those receive it in repentance.

…

Automatic forgiveness packs unforgiveness. It redefines forgiveness as far less than what it means biblically.  It hardens hearts with bitterness, isolation, and pessimism. In contrast, conditional forgiveness centers on the Cross. It offers the Gospel to all, recognizes that because of Christ any offender can be forgiven, believes that all relationships can be redeemed, and rests knowing that justice will be served.   

Read the whole thing here.

Comments RSS