What does God expect of offenders?
Forgiveness is only one party’s half of the initial work of reconciliation.
The below is an outline of a word of instruction I gave sometime in the months after news broke of Bill Hybels’ sexual misconduct.
Where does this topical teaching, submitted under full subjection to you, come from?
a response to some mishandling of sexual misconduct I’ve heard about in the church,
inspired by my reading of Fleming Rutledge’s The Crucifixion, and
a realization of what has worked in my own battle against my own sin (especially against my wife).
The starting point: The sin Jesus directly addressed via the Cross was our sin against God and did not include our sin against one another. This is never stated explicitly directly in Scripture, but consider:
Our sins are forgiven (e.g., Ephesians 1:7), but we are to forgive one another (Ephesians 4:32).
I repeat: Our sins are forgiven (e.g., Colossians 2:13), but we are to forgive one another (Colossians 3:13).
So there are still sins that can remain unforgiven after the Cross. Against whom? There is only one possibility: Against one another.
Therefore, after sinning interpersonally, there’s one thing we can say and one thing we cannot:
Can: God forgives me my sin and I am reconciled to Him.
Cannot: The person I have sinned against forgives me my sin and I am reconciled to them.
Here’s the primary point of this teaching: Human-to-human forgiveness and reconciliation will require work on the part of the sinner.
Even reconciliation to God isn’t automatic after the Cross. It probably requires:
confession (1 John 1:9) and
repentance (Acts 3:19, Mark 1:15, Luke 24:47).
Not to mention: It required the Cross! (Granting us forgiveness with total impunity would not have been good for us.) Wouldn’t reconciliation to people require similar things?
So, when we sin against someone else, instead of assuming a quick apology will be enough for interpersonal forgiveness to be automatic, what should we do?
Leave your offering and be reconciled (Matthew 5:24).
Understand the gravity of sin:
If you call somebody a good-for-nothing, you’re guilty enough to “go before the court” (v 22).
If you call somebody a fool, you’re guilty enough for Gehenna fire (same verse).
“Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8) and “perform deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:20).
Imitate Jacob (Genesis 32-33), whose brother was justifiably angry with him.
Notice he lets his victim—who had in return threatened his life—call the shots. Jacob submits himself to Esau.
Imitate Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8-9).
Notice the extravagance of the restitution he offers.
The point is: Offenders must work at reconciliation.
Not restoration to ministry.
Not celebrating and flaunting God’s forgiveness.
Yes reconciliation when possible.
“So far as it depends on you, be at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18).
“Make every effort to live in peace with everyone” (Hebrews 12:14).
Obviously, there is a major emphasis in the New Testament on the duty of the offended to forgive, e.g.:
Mark 11:25, and
Colossians 3:13 & Ephesians 4:32 like we just read above.
But it’s like in some corners of Christian culture, including the corner I come from, we have successfully internalized this duty of the victim to forgive without also internalizing the duty of the perpetrator to bear fruit in keeping with repentance and to be truly reconciled.
So, the next time we encounter abuse, let’s not approach it as if the main objective is to coerce a statement of forgiveness from the victim. Let’s instead look at Luke 17:3-4’s additions to Matthew 18: “If he repents, forgive him…”
Cheap grace from God would be no good to us. Likewise, our extending cheap grace to offenders is no good to them. If there are no consequences and we all proceed parading an ersatz reconciliation instead of the real thing, the victim is left harmed and offender is left degraded.