On forgiveness. (Part 4)

On forgiveness

Part 4: Only God can mend the damage done when we do wrong

Thus, the forgiveness we seek is a restoration of our relationship with God. I think that, from God’s point of view, our relationship with him can never be broken, but from our point of view, we experience our sins as a gulf opening up between us and him – and this gulf can become, to us, an unbridgeable chasm – though never to God. As we mentioned, when we do something wrong, it cannot be undone. How then can things ever be “put right”? It is this most wonderful ability to put things right that is one of God’s qualities that makes him to be God. We can use images of a sullied or spoilt or damaged prized possession. Or a relationship that has been broken. Or an experience ruined. What is done cannot be undone. But with God, he has the ability to restore and heal, to reconcile and redeem, to purify and to bless. This is what we are seeking when we seek forgiveness. It is not simply the undoing of a wrong action, a futile desire to turn the clock back, or to pretend that nothing has gone wrong. Instead, the wrongness somehow gets built into a stronger, more vibrant, more expansive, more resilient, more joyful future life, rather than being a sin like a weight around your neck, or a heavy regret in your heart that can never be let go of. (This is why Paul had to give guidance that we mustn’t think that this wonderful restorative power of God means that we should sin more so that we can enjoy more forgiveness.) Nevertheless, the forgiveness that God offers is like setting off on a wonderful new journey without a care in the world. And it is this joyful freedom that makes forgiveness so precious. We desire it so that we may return to following God’s way, untroubled by our weaknesses and failures, because we our recipients of God’s grace – and we rely on his grace, paying attention to that, rather than to our failures.

I realise that my preoccupation with my relationship with God may have led me into a new error. It is clear from how I am writing about forgiveness (and this was not crystal clear till after I wrote it) that my focus in forgiveness is on restoring my relationship with God. Is this a selfish preoccupation? Wouldn’t a cleverer – or more spiritually deep – person have focussed on forgiveness as reconciliation with the person whom I have harmed, so that they are the one who is elevated by my act of seeking forgiveness? This would certainly have made me look better. Hmn… I believe I have emphasized the importance of reconciliation and of making amends with and to the person I have harmed. I do not belittle that. However, my primary relationship in my life is the one that I have with God. It is a peculiarity (but one which I think expresses a deep truth) of seeking forgiveness that it involves a devotional declaration along the lines of, “Against you only Lord have I sinned!”. This seems rather unfair when there is a particular person or persons who can present themselves, “Actually, it was me that he was cruel or uncaring to!”. However, I think it is true that in every situation of sinning against a person, we are also sinning against God, and it is not unfair to give this priority. Until the relationship with God is restored, there is no grace to repair the relationship with the persons whom we have harmed.

On forgiveness. (Part 3)

On forgiveness

Part 3: Forgiveness is an action of immense weight

The key “trump card” (if that isn’t too mundane a term) that Christians can play is to appeal to what was done in order to open up the possibility of forgiveness – and much more than forgiveness, to create the avenue for redemption, salvation and new life. The concept of “the price paid” for our forgiveness is a difficult one – certainly for me. I have always been so impressed by the overwhelming love of God that traditional Christian ideas about God having to pay the price to atone for the penalty of sin seem to me to limit God’s power to sweep away all evil with one free, compassionate action. Talk of appeasing “the wrath of God”, or of him being tied to paying a price – and that price being Jesus as a sacrificial victim – have never sat easily with me.

In latter years, I can see the value in the concept. There is nothing casual about God’s forgiveness – it cost him dearly. And once we take on board the divinity of Jesus, we lose any sense of God being cruel to Jesus before he can let go of his hurt for our sins and declare us forgiven. As Jesus is God, then Jesus’ death on the cross is God’s self-giving in order to set us free. In this respect, Jesus’ death – though still, of course, horrific in itself, and horrific as part of human history – does achieve what Christians have always said that his death achieves. Jesus takes our place, and takes our sins on himself. God uses the wickedness of humankind, and turns our evil actions into the means of releasing into the world an unstoppable wave of forgiving love. In this way, a human act in history – Jesus’ crucifixion – became a spiritual action of universal and absolute power to release us from the bonds of sin. Thus, our forgiveness is the weightiest event of all, for, in order for us to be forgiven, God in Jesus died. So, when we seek forgiveness – truly, in a way that is holy – what we are doing is calling upon ourselves the grace that God has made available to the world in the death of Jesus, who -according to God’s will and action – has become our means of forgiveness. Thus we are able to reclothe ourselves with the righteousness that is not our righteousness, but Christ’s, a righteousness which we “let slip” when we lost our poise and gave ourselves to actions that are not in keeping with God’s character, but which contradict it.

On forgiveness. (Part 2)

On forgiveness

Part 2: The heart of forgiveness is restoring our relationship with God – not seeking to be “let-off” for our mistakes

What is it, then, that we are doing when we forgive – and, indeed, when we seek forgiveness? Let’s deal with seeking forgiveness first, as I think that is easier.

As with just about everything, there is a good version and a bad version of it. When we seek forgiveness, it could simply be a desire to escape from the consequences of our actions. We have done wrong, and perhaps we even knew we were doing wrong at the time, but we went ahead and did it anyway, because it suited our interests at the time. On reflection, we recognise that we wish we had made better decisions. Therefore, can the negative effects of our wrong actions – now classified as “a mistake” – be written off, as though we had never made the wrong choice? This desire to “wipe the slate clean” is, I think, a perfectly good desire. The danger is when we think that this can be done glibly, as though we feel we are free to engage in any bad action because we have a “get out of jail free” card, which we play as casually as we sinned. (The root definition of “sin” is, of course, “to fall short” in our aim at goodness.) There is also the huge danger that our main desire in seeking forgiveness is to make ourselves feel better, restoring our sense of righteousness, rather than having our main focus on eliminating the harm that our sin has put into the world.

How then do we do justice to our very genuine desire to put right a wrong, when the very essence of doing wrong is that it cannot be undone? One clear answer is that repentance is not done casually, but sincerely and with genuine sorrow. This is not simply a matter of “crying enough tears” to show that “you really are sorry this time”, but it’s more about taking the measure of your actions, to feel the weight, both of what you got wrong, and of what you now want to get right. We need to be very careful that this doesn’t descend into emotionalism, whereby we “prove our sorrow” and make ever more extravagant promises that “this time it will be different” and we will not make that mistake again. What it does need to be is an intense focus on goodness, to reconnect ourselves with our primary aim in life of living in tune with God – and I think this is the core content of “righteousness”. Even more than a measure of our own actions, it is a relationship with God, who is perfect righteousness – but with God, his righteousness does not veer towards a focus on legality, in terms of who is in the right, for God’s righteousness intrinsically includes qualities of love, compassion, mercy and forgiveness. These are not in competition with, but complementary with, God’s justice, purity and ability to do what is good and right. If forgiveness is focussed on restoring our relationship with the God of love, then that will launch us into a life of living in tune with that love, so that new harm is not done, and old harms are mended.

On forgiveness. (Part 1)

(A theological reflection in 9 (rather long) parts)

On forgiveness

Part 1: True righteousness is complementary with forgiveness; self-righteousness is the opposite of forgiveness

In my recent thoughts on the inadequacies of secularism, particularly in comparison to religion, I touched on the importance of forgiveness, and I would like to now explore this more.

Firstly, we must face the reality of religion’s failure to offer forgiveness throughout much of history. This seems to be because of the conflict between forgiveness and righteousness. (There is no conflict really, but we get even this wrong.) Human beings have a deep desire to be righteous, and this must be reckoned to us as a remarkable achievement. Given our immense ability at self-serving lies and injustice, it is a truly wonderful thing that we appear to have an innate desire to be righteous. This is largely the same as a desire to “be in the right”, but I think there is more to it than even that. Wanting to “be in the right” is, of course, also a good thing, but we can see that it can easily tip over into an arrogant, aggressive and self-centred attitude. In other words, our natural human nature keeps reasserting itself, even when we are trying hard to do the right thing. And yet, we must not be too hard on ourselves, because we truly do want to do the right thing.

However, for me, “righteousness” has all the good connotations of “being in the right”, but with none of the negatives. Righteousness can tip over into “self-righteousness”, and this is the negative version of the desire, but the very terminology has separated itself from true righteousness by indicating that your desire is to “show yourself” as righteous, whereas true righteousness is a self-effacing quality of surrender to what is true and right and good, regardless of whether it serves your own interests or not. Righteousness has a clean, fresh, purity to it, whereby you put yourself to one side because in the goodness of God you have discovered a wonderful life-giving quality of living life well, in tune with God’s own spirit of goodness, truth and love. When we are caught up into this spirit, righteousness goes hand in hand with forgiveness, for our desire – in righteousness – is to make all things whole, and forgiveness is an absolutely fundamental means of achieving that. However, when our righteousness has tipped over into self-righteousness, then that is in direct conflict with forgiveness, for the aim of the self-righteous person is to assert themselves, and their own goodness, and there is no better way to do this than by condemning others- the exact opposite of forgiveness.

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong. Part 6

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong

Part 6: It is the assurance and forgiveness found in religion that our society needs

This lack of forgiveness also applies where someone is genuinely in the wrong and realises they need to change their mind. As we said, making mistakes is a part of being human, so this is a natural and unavoidable process. However, because modern ideologies do not accept that our moral judgements are based on our values, they still cannot offer forgiveness, but must, instead, aim for the destruction of “the heretic” who dared to challenge their own value system. What they fail to realise is that everyone bases their actions on good values – it’s simply that sometimes all of us select the wrong good value to take precedence in a particular situation. Hence the importance of forgiveness when we realise that we have got it wrong – but the secular mindset will not offer forgiveness because they falsely regarded their own actions as not based on a value judgement but on a scientifically proven fact.

Of course, as we have argued, “truth” in belief systems is not about being able to prove that our values and commitments are scientifically proven facts – that is impossible. However, we can discuss and debate the quality of the values that are being expressed in our belief systems, and how well those values are being implemented in actions that achieve good outcomes in society. If everyone is trying to live by good values, the key question is, “Is it true that the values I am employing in this particular situation will produce the most beneficial outcome?”. That is something that needs to be discussed – but which is precisely what modern ideologies refuse to do in their intrinsic totalitarianism. Though secularists reject religion as false and destructive, it turns out that in comparison to modern ideology, religion is an oasis of wise sanity. It is the religious believer who has access to true and deep forgiveness, and who enjoys a deep sense of assurance in the love of God, who is able to discuss, compromise and find a beneficial way forward, while the secularist is committed on a point of principle to condemn anyone who disagrees with them. It is their lack of assurance and their inability to find forgiveness for themselves or to forgive others which condemns them to a hateful and angry outlook. The more they succeed in imposing their world view on society, the more hateful and angry society becomes, incapable of anything but totalitarian condemnation of all who dare to disagree with them. The simple assurance of the religious believer and the ability to receive forgiveness and to forgive others is the antidote that our society needs.

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong. Part 5

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong

Part 5: Our moral judgements are based on our value system, not on facts

This does not mean that our moral points of view are worthless – quite the contrary. Because they are not facts, to which we can demand universal acceptance, for only the ignorant and liars deny facts to be facts, instead we have to establish our morality on the values of our belief system. Which values do we regard as most precious, and how convincingly do we argue from those values to our commitments and actions? It is inescapably faith that we have to appeal to, in that we are relying on our belief systems. As the secularist has rejected the value of faith, they cannot appeal to this as the foundation for their own commitments, and so falsely claim that they are dealing in simple facts. The thought that they might be wrong is unbearable, for they have no sense of assurance to give meaning and value to their lives, and so must seek meaning and value through being – in their view – absolutely and objectively right in their commitments and actions.

This feeds their intrinsic totalitarianism, and this overflows into their lack of forgiveness. Of course, in the everyday round of life, they will accept that mistakes are made and forgiveness can be offered. However, on those issues around which modern ideologies have constructed a fashionable consensus, anyone who deviates from the perceived and imposed orthodoxy is suddenly beyond forgiveness. There can only be condemnation, and a witch-hunt mentality is imposed so that anyone not immediately repenting of their ignorance can be isolated and persecuted to destruction, while those who originally agreed with them are frightened into silence or even into joining in the condemnation. Thus, we have a society where there are a number of “unforgivable sins”, for modern secularists can neither find forgiveness for themselves – and so must stringently insist on the complete perfection of their views, and neither can they forgive those who challenge their views, for this would risk the entire edifice they have constructed coming crashing down once we raise the question that must always be suppressed by modern secularists: “But is what you’re saying actually true?”.

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong. Part 4

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong

Part 4: Secularists’ false claim that their opinions are not beliefs but facts

How then are secular people to cope with their lack of assurance and the inadequacy of forgiveness that they are able to receive?

It is my view that these realities are an important factor in the spirit of our age, of instant outrage and utter intolerance, all under the umbrella of a totalitarian mindset. It means that the secular person has to be absolutely right and cannot cope with being wrong. Lacking the assurance that they are fully embraced in the love of God, they have to take refuge in being completely right in all their ideological commitments. Now, the only way to believe that you are completely in the right in your beliefs is to deny that you have beliefs at all. That would put your values, commitments and actions in the realm of belief – which is precisely what the secularist has rejected in claiming that the life of faith is false and destructive. They must therefore assert that their beliefs are not “beliefs”, but “facts”. If they claim that their beliefs are really scientifically proven facts, then there is no scope for anyone to disagree with them. Hence we see the totalitarianism of modern ideologies where anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid/ignorant or wicked. They will allow the plea of ignorance, for this is a powerful affirmation of their point of view. The secularist can say. “Look, this person once thought we were in the wrong, but once we explained the situation to them they have now repented of their error and embraced our truth”. However, unless there is immediate repentance, anyone who opposes them must be simply wicked to reject their supposedly scientifically proven truth. Hence, they must be completely rejected, as there can be no compromise with those who “reject facts”. However, it is a simple truth in moral philosophy that there are no such thing as “moral facts”. A moral view is always a value judgement; it is a belief – and often part of a belief system. It is simply not possible to prove that your moral point of view is factually true.

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong. Part 3

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong

Part 3: The importance of assurance

Religious assurance is equally powerful. As well as making mistakes being a part of the human condition, so is the anxiety to live life well. The truth is, of course, that life is difficult. Most people have to struggle to some degree, and for many life is almost constant struggle. We find ourselves with this wonderful, extravagant gift of life, only to realise that it is rather short, usually filled with some (or a lot of) suffering and injustice. We are very vulnerable, and it is difficult to realise our goals and desires. What we want is to reach a conviction that we have found the ultimate in life; to consider that, whatever our shortcomings, failings, disappointments and limitations, we have reached the heights of what life has to offer, and have acquired a share in what is deepest and most satisfying in life. The religious believer has this readily to hand. In their relationship with God, through his love for them, and by his grace suffusing their lives, religious people gladly confess that they have found life in all its fullness.

The secular person is simply unable to do this. I think this is true on a point of principle, for without God, there is nothing obvious that qualifies as “the fulfilment of life”. It would certainly differ for each person, though, no doubt, common themes would emerge, and we can image secular people -certainly those fortunate enough to live in the UK today – reaching old age and feeling a deep peace and contentment that they have fulfilled all their worldly ambitions – in the way their family and working lives have worked out, and in their enjoyment of the good things of creation. It still doesn’t have the sense of completeness and certainty that a religious person has through their assurance, and the secular person remains a hostage to fortune, should all their worldly achievements crumble to dust in some catastrophic event. Clearly, in practice, a large proportion of people are likely to feel that life has been a disappointment, and their youthful dreams turned out to be mere fantasies.

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong. Part 2

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong

Part 2: The importance of forgiveness

Everybody makes mistakes; it is an inevitable part of the human condition. When we do make mistakes, it’s vital that we acknowledge it, say sorry, and make amends as best we can. However, it is not always possible to do this, and even when we can, it is likely that the wound we inflicted on ourselves through doing what we now recognise (and perhaps knew at the time) to be wrong cannot be fully healed by any secular ideological process. If the person we harmed forgives us, and we make full reconciliation, that will have a very powerful effect, and may be sufficient. However, it may not, because it cannot erase the reality that we were in the wrong, and that is a difficult thing to face up to. As I say, it may also be the case that we are not able to apologise and make amends, or, if we do, perhaps that will not be acceptable to the person we wronged, and they maintain a grudge against us.

In contrast, the religious believer is able to take their sorrow to God (as well as making amends to the person they wronged). In their faith, they are able to believe that God does forgive them, make them whole, and is at work to heal, make whole and bless the person who was wronged. It is their faith that God has sufficient power to overcome any evil, and that he can redeem, restore and put right any situation and any relationship. Thus religion has the ability to offer complete forgiveness for our mistakes, in a way in which secular ideology is simply incapable of matching.

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong. Part 1

(An analysis of the contrast between secular and religious ideology in 6 parts)

Secularism cannot cope with being wrong

Part 1: Why is so much modern ideology intrinsically totalitarian?

My general theory on secularism is that it promotes an ideology much worse than that which religion promotes. I also have a specific view that secularism – having abandoned or rejected religion because it is deemed to be false and destructive to society – has nevertheless set about recreating all the bad features of religion (but sadly without all the good features of religion). Today, I pick up on a particular feature of how secularism goes wrong.

Why is it that so much of modern secular ideology is intrinsically totalitarian? An easy answer to that is because many of these ideologies come from a Marxist school of thought, and Marxism is intrinsically totalitarian. However, going deeper than that, we can locate this totalitarianism in the spirit of our age, which is instant outrage and utter intolerance. Now, the spirit of an age will depend on many factors, but we mustn’t just say, “That’s just the way the cookie crumbled”. Why are so many people – especially in the younger generations – vulnerable to outrage and intolerance?  

An important factor is the loss of vital strengths that religion gives to people, and I particularly focus on two: forgiveness and assurance.