By Nosa Olotu

In the part 1 of this article, I gave three examples of the misconceptions that have distorted the meaning of forgiveness. In this second part, three further examples of the misconceptions of forgiveness are discussed.

Forgiveness does not mean trusting an untrustworthy person

SLAcoleridge1 I am willing to forgive, no matter what this entailsMany people are unwilling to forgive their offenders because they think forgiveness goes with trust— that this means you must trust him even though he may still be untrustworthy. Does forgiving a sexual offender mean that you entrust your young children to his care? Does forgiving a thieving church member mean that you allow him to handle collections? Does forgiving someone’s dishonesty mean that you believe everything he says?

Forgiveness and trust, though related, are nonetheless distinct. Forgiveness relates to a past offense. It chooses to accept the painful consequences and sets the offender free from our retribution. Forgiveness, therefore, is something we choose to grant freely, with no strings attached.

Trust, however, relates to the present. It is a measure of the confidence we have in a person’s reliability. Trust is earned. This is why we speak of people being “trustworthy”—they’ve proven themselves to be worthy of our trust in an area because of their reliable performance. Trusting an untrustworthy person is not spiritual; it is foolish (you may get burned), irresponsible (others may be injured), and unloving (you refuse to discipline the offender).

It is possible, then, to grant someone forgiveness while still insisting that he or she earn back your trust. Those who insist on being trusted just because they admitted their sins are especially suspicious, because they would probably not grant this request if they were in the other person’s shoes. After confessing that I had been lying to them for years, my parents forgave me—but they didn’t trust my word for a long time afterward.

My initial response was outrage. After all, I was sorry for my lying and I was now telling them the truth. Upon reflection, however, I realized that they could gauge my heart only by my actions, and my actions rightfully told them I was untrustworthy. Their mistrust was valid, and it taught me to place greater value on their trust.

Likewise, when people betray important responsibilities in ministry, we should forgive them freely. We would be irresponsible, however, to allow them to resume these responsibilities until they demonstrate repentance by establishing a proven record of reliability in this area.

Biblical forgiveness is different from trust, but it often involves the willingness to allow the offender to rebuild responsible trust. Forgiveness keeps its eyes open, but it desires to see restoration of this important part of the relationship.

Forgiveness does not mean passively tolerating future injury

Some Christians view forgiveness as adopting a doormat posture toward an offender. The idea of pressing charges on a physically abusive spouse, for example, seems to some people incompatible with extending forgiveness. Since forgiveness means not paying people back, doesn’t this mean we shouldn’t make our offenders experience any negative consequences for their sins? Many people are quick to foster this view so they can go on preying on others, but such a view is a serious distortion of biblical forgiveness.

According to the Bible, forgiveness is an expression of love—and the love that extends forgiveness also disciplines. It’s willing to confront offenders, to allow them to experience the consequences of their sins, and even to devise consequences to influence their lives for good. Jesus chose to give himself to his captors because it was God’s will for him to die for our sins, but he never allowed people to run over him because they wanted to. He “felt a love” for the rich young ruler, and because of this he exposed his idolatrous love of money (Mark 10:21). He told the Laodiceans, “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent” (Rev. 3:19).

The same Paul who says, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil … Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:19-22) goes on to inform Christians that civil government is “God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). God forbids the vengeance-taking of bitterness, but he acknowledges that Christians may resort to the police to protect them from thieves. While some people use the civil authorities to take vengeance on their enemies, we can involve them out of love as an expression of discipline when other lesser disciplines have failed.

Forgiveness is not the same as reconciliation

Reconciliation is the restoration of a relationship because both parties have resolved that which separated them. It is always bilateral. Both parties must be willing to reconcile a relationship. As many divorcees know by painful experience, one spouse who is willing to forgive and work on the marriage is not enough to ensure its success. Forgiveness, by contrast, is a decision to release an offender from my retribution. We can forgive others regardless of whether they ever repent or agree to work on their relationships with us.

Reconciliation is normally a goal of forgiveness, and forgiveness is a condition for reconciliation —but they are not the same thing. Paul makes this distinction in the way God deals with us. In 2 Corinthians 5:19, he says that through Christ’s death God has extended forgiveness to all people (“not counting their sins against them”)—even to those who are non-Christians.

He goes on, however, to appeal to those who have not yet received this forgiveness to “be reconciliation to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20). Because God has extended forgiveness, reconciliation is possible—but it does not occur unless we choose to receive his forgiveness and become reunited with him. If we choose to continue our rebellion against him and deny our need for his forgiveness, we remain separate from God and justly under his judgment.

What does it mean if you claim to have forgiven someone, yet have no desire to be reconciled with him? It depends. In a fallen world, relationships sometimes break beyond repair. Physical death, for example, can permanently prevent reconciliation. By God’s grace, though, we can forgive even these people and move forward in our walks as a result. If your reticence is due to this refusal to repent, your position may be justified. In this case, you may be saying that you refuse to act as though the issue is resolved when it isn’t. If, however, you’re unwilling to consider reconciliation of any sort regardless of his demonstrated repentance, you may have deceived yourself about having forgiven him.