His words still reverberate in my ears.
25 years ago, I served as pastor of a small church in Silicon Valley.
People attend small churches for various reasons. Near the top of the list is significance.
Many churchgoers want to have a say in decision-making, so leaders schedule lots of “business meetings.”
We had such a meeting one Sunday night after the evening service.
A woman made a statement in the meeting. While I cannot recall her precise wording, she mentioned something positive about her Bible teacher, who was also a board member.
The board member interpreted her comment in a negative manner. He quickly yelled out a response in front of the entire church, mentioning her indirectly.
The meeting was spinning out of control – and the moderator stood there in silence.
A few days after the meeting, I contacted the shouting board member and told him that he needed to apologize to the entire congregation for his behavior.
(If you sin in the presence of one person, you need to apologize to that one person. Sin in front of a group, apologize to that group. Sin in front of the congregation, apologize to the congregation.)
It took courage for me to speak with him.
He was twice my age.
He had been a pastor and a missionary in the past.
He was an intimidating individual.
He had vented his wrath on me at times, too.
But he had crossed a line, and he needed to acknowledge his mistake in front of his church family.
Sometimes we had guests on Sunday mornings, so that wasn’t the optimal time for his apology.
I invited him instead to make his apology during our next Sunday evening service when only our church family was present.
It was a so-so apology – maybe good for him, although not as sincere as I would have liked.
If the board member hadn’t apologized, I would have asked him to step down from the board. Yes, leaders mess up, just like everyone else, but when we do, we need to make things right by admiting our sins and requesting forgiveness – especially when we sin in a public setting.
In this case, we forgave him, and that was that.
If this incident happened in your church, how would it have been handled?
Some Christians prefer to deny that anything happened.
Others excuse such misbehavior.
A few believers choose to avoid the sinner in the future.
Some decide to ostracize the offender instead.
And some believers quickly forgive the person without waiting for any type of confession on the offender’s part.
The church as a whole tends to ignore Jesus’ instructions in Luke 17:3-4:
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”
Notice the sequence: Your brother sins. You rebuke him. He repents. You forgive him.
But we tend to ignore the rebuking and the repenting steps. It’s too much work … and, truth be told, we often lack the courage to rebuke anyone … even our kids or friends.
So when our brother sins, we take a shortcut. We instantly forgive him … but we really choose to overlook his sin instead.
That doesn’t help him at all. He’s more susceptible to repeating his behavior.
And some people will choose to tiptoe around the offender from then on.
In the process, we teach our church that when you sin, nothing happens.
I seek to practice these words of Jesus in my own life and ministry.
They deal with sin realistically.
They heal relationships.
They provide true reconciliation.
This week, when a Christian brother or sister sins, gently rebuke him or her so they will repent. In essence, Jesus says, “No repentance, no forgiveness.” (Re-read the second half of verse 4 above.)
And when they repent, let them know you forgive them.
That’s Jesus’ way.
If Christians obeyed Luke 17:3-4, we’d have far less conflict and broken relationships in our churches.
And that’s the biblical way of dealing with sinning Christians.
So why don’t we do it? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Restoring Kingdom Builders 
There’s a very good book called Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy about the 2006 tragic school shooting in Nickel Mines, PA. The book does not just tell that story but delves deeply into how the Amish feel about forgiveness. It was written by three experts on the Amish. They don’t rebuke the offender or wait for the offender to repent. Forgiveness is immediate, and does not require anyone to ask for it. The Amish feel they are commanded to forgive in this way. Their starting point is the Lord’s prayer, which they recite every day. I find it very interesting to compare their beliefs to what you have written above.
LikeLike
Ce Ce,
I’m somewhat familiar with the Amish story. I’d make the following distinctions:
First, Jesus is talking in Luke 17 about someone with whom you already have a relationship. The implication of His words is that a family member, friend, or fellow believer has hurt you and harmed your relationship in some way. In the Amish story, from what I understand, the Amish did not know the perpetrators beforehand.
Second, Jesus is talking about reconcilation – the restoration of a relationship that’s been broken – rather than unilateral forgiveness, the kind the Amish practiced. The more severe the offense – and the closer the offender is to you – the more difficult it is to forgive them.
David Augsburger believes that when Jesus talks about forgiveness in Luke 17, He’s talking about reconciliation rather than unilateral forgiveness. Matthew 18:15-20 seems to be a parallel passage. It says, “If your brother sins against you [offense], go and reprove [rebuke] him in private. If he listens to you [repents], you have won your brother [reconciled].”
Lewis Smedes in his book Forgive and Forget states that when someone hurts us severely, we cannot properly reconcile with them unless they repent. We can and should forgive them unilaterally, but the relationship will remain broken unless the offending party repents. Jesus recognizes the reality of this.
We can and should forgive everyone who has hurt us unilaterally, but we cannot reconcile with them unless they repent, which may require some rebuking/reproving on our part. (Think about the abusive husband who promises to change without receiving counseling/treatment for his issue.) Because most Christians are unwilling to rebuke so that another believer will repent, we cheapen Jesus’ words and suffer too many broken relationships in the body of Christ.
Here’s another way of looking at my article: if I as pastor had not spoken personally with the leader who shouted in the meeting, would anyone else have done so? Probably not. This is a colossal weakness among Christians, where we claim to forgive people when we’re really just tolerating their sin. This may be a reason why too many Christians aren’t growing in their faith.
Finally, if I remember the Amish story, the perpetrators were arrested. Were they set free from incarceration? My guess is that they weren’t. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) Forgiveness comes easier if the offenders cannot hurt you again, which imprisoned individuals cannot do. But in the church, when we fail to rebuke people for their sin, they’re free to sin again and again and again without the correction of the body. The yelling leader was known for his quick temper, but as far as I knew, I was the only person in the church to call him on it.
Feel free to interact with me on this one. Thanks again for writing!
LikeLike
I understand the distinction you’re making here. In the case of the Amish, you are correct, they did not have a relationship with the perpetrator, so reconciliation was not the goal. And he still had to suffer the consequences of his actions. The Amish did reach out to the offender’s family to let hem know they did not blame them-but that’s another part of the story. I believe if someone in their community harmed another there would be rebuking, and they would probably not hesitate to do so.
I shouldn’t be surprised that Jesus would address broken relationships differently than other situations. The one we should be closest to experiences a broken relationship every time we sin.
LikeLike