The Dangers Of Corporate Forgiveness (October 5, 2003)

A question came up in Sunday School about whether we should forgive Bill Clinton (presumably for his adultery, perjury, and relentless lying that cost American taxpayers millions of dollars). The question has given me occasion to reflect on the nature of judgment and forgiveness.

It helps to understand what the Bible teaches about forgiveness if we keep in mind the biblical illustration of indebtedness. Forgiving a sin is like canceling a debt. I owe you $100, can't pay it, and you forgive me the debt so I don't owe you anything. It is as Jesus taught us in Matthew 6:12: "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."

But let's say that John Doe owes you $100, and, needing the money back, you remind him of it. Suppose he says, "I don't owe you anything. Paul Lundquist said I don't have to pay." You would be puzzled, perhaps indignant, and say "Paul Who? He's got nothing to do with this! You owe the money to me, not to him."

The point is that I cannot forgive someone's indebtedness to a third party because I have no jurisdiction over that debt. The only debts I can forgive are those that are owed to me, just as the only sins I can forgive are the ones where I personally have been wronged. Forgiving sins committed against another is beyond presumptuous - it is a usurpation of the authority of God. That is why the Pharisees protested when Jesus said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5). They reasoned, rightly, that only God could forgive sins. In forgiving the paralytic, Jesus claimed to be the One against Whom all the man’s sins were committed.

For that reason, it is inappropriate to speak of our forgiving Bill Clinton. My share of victimization on account of Clinton’s sins is either miniscule or nonexistent. Who in the world am I to say, "I forgive him"? That is not my call. There are many wronged parties here, and it is up to them to decide whether to forgive their sliver of the pie of Clinton's offense. Hillary appears to have "forgiven" her husband's philandering, though the more cynical among us suspect
that that has more to do with her political ambition than with her sense of charity. As for Ken Starr, Clinton unleashed the hounds on him, and as far as I know has never apologized to Starr or sought forgiveness for the misery to which he subjected him. And how do Madeline Albright and other staff members feel about having been made unwitting agents of Clinton's deception?

Each wronged party has the right to forgive, and Christians are required to forgive those who wrong us and seek our pardon. But let us be careful about employing that word "forgive" beyond its appointed boundaries. Biblical forgiveness is deep and full, but narrowly channeled. Forgiveness without accountability is simply enablement. And forgiving someone who has not wronged you comes dangerously close to playing God. If we start forgiving people without heeding these biblical constraints, we'll soon be more wicked than the unjust judge of Luke 18:1-5. At least that lazy judge eventually upheld the cause of a poor widow. But a thoughtless forgiver would say, "I have taken the high road here and granted merciful pardon to your oppressor." The widow would weep, and the oppressor would rejoice at the opportunity to go out and defraud more widows.

If we "forgive" our leaders when (1) they have not repented and (2) we had no right to forgive them in the first place, then we will have no excuse when, decades from now, ambitious villains and fiends seize on our wrong-headed mercy and rule us with a cruelty that will make Clinton's immorality look like child's play.