Conference yukon::christian_v7

When the Master forgave the debt of many talents, the account against the
man was wiped clean.  However, Scripture does not record that the man
was loaned any further money.

I do not think we are clear as to what forgiveness is.  The world takes
advantage of this when it suckers a Christian, asks for forgiveness,
then suckers them again.  "Turn the other cheek."

Forgiveness wipes the slate clean, but not the memory.  We are not God
to cast forgiven debt into the sea of forgetfulness.  It takes a conscious
effort to be willing to "give another chance."

Looking at Paul and Barnabas, Paul did not want to take John Mark on a
missionary journey because John Mark failed Paul.  Barnabas (the encourager)
thought that John Mark had changed and wanted to take him along.  Paul was
adamant, and so was Barnabas.  They split over this issue!  Paul tool Silas
and Barnabas took John Mark and they went into different regions spreading
the gospel to twice the arena they originally had planned for.

Was Paul wrong to assess his mission as critical and not open to dealing
with someone who had failed him previously?  Or was this within the realm 
of choice, without the condemnation of unforgiveness?

I happen to think that Paul was not unforgiving of John Mark, but that
he also was not predisposed to risk the new mission with someone who may
have jeopardized a previous mission.  I am also happy for Barnabas, who
took John Mark and helped him to be a success.

The Scripture does not record the master as having lent the man more money
after the debt was forgiven.  The parable is a warning to those who are
forgiven and do not in turn extend forgiveness.  As for forgetfulness,
the parable ends in saying that the man was "delivered him to the tormentors, 
till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly 
Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his 
brother their trespasses."  The debt was reinstated: interesting and fearful.

More to come about redemption and purification, which though related to
forgiveness, is wholly separate.

Let's talk about redemption for a moment (and I have to run, so this will be
quick and perhaps messy).

Redemption is being bought back.  You redeem your cans for the the 5� deposit.
The company buys back the can.

The question then arises: bought back from whom or what?
When we sin, we sell ourselves to it.  The only way to be
bought back is through death - which is paid by Jesus Christ 
on the Cross.

There are many stories in the Bible about redemption, and its kin, restoration.
Let's look at restoration:

The prodigal son was restored to his sonship, even after squandering 
his inheritence.  What did he have left when he returned?  Did he have his
inheritence?  Nope.  He had the run of the house, as any son should, but
that which he squandered is lost forever.

We cannot recapture time and lost moments to sin.  When it is spent, it
is gone.  Thanks to God's mercy, we may return while He may be found,
and while we are able.  And we can be restored to the family.  The Father
even rejoices and spends some of his own wealth (the fatted calf).
Talk about grace (unmerited favor)!

(Rats, there is a lot more about redemption and restoration I want to say, 
but I have a meeting and won't get back here for a while.  Later...)

Mark

Vengeance is mine ... I will repay, says the LORD (Romans 12:19, Hebrews 
10:30, quoted from Deuteronomy 32:35)

Dare I take His right to judge from a standard of perfection in to my hands 
which are stained with guilt and rebellion...  To do so could only bring 
judgement on myself.

I've not experienced these circumstances.  The practical application in the
heart might take more time to work through, but God exposes us to these 
tests in order to work His grace deeper...

The David/Bathsheba/Uriah situation leaves the avenger of blood 
(Deuteronomy 19:12) with three options.

	1. Demand full rights of justice, and execute the 'David'

	2. Waive the external rights, letting the 'David' go free, but 
	   holding anger and unforgiveness in the heart (the 'murder' of 
	   Matthew 5:21-22)

	3. Waive justice and forgive from the heart.

Obviously, option 3 is the only New Covenant position.  However, when
actually in the situation it can be difficult to let go of option 2, where 
anger is aimed at the individual rather than at the sin, and the effort to 
make the 'right' outward gestures stumbles over the presence of a great 
lump in the heart.  The temptation is to make a show of 'forgiving', but go 
round with a long face at the sacrifice it involved.  Thereby losing the 
blessing, and endangering the long term disability of living with a grudge 
which impairs our spiritual - and physical - life ...

When we suffer a wrong at someone else's hand, it offers us the opportunity
to emulate our LORD's forgivness, as in Luke 23:34.  Tough, but we're
playing for high stakes.  We're playing for eternal value.  Dying to self
has to be worth it. 

� could and *would* I have readily forgiven ....

Until we're in that position, of receiving so grievous a harm as to break
new depths of immense grief, and to arouse personal reaction against a
perpetration by intent, we can only say "I hope I would forgive from the
heart".  Even if because I believe in the grace and power of God available
to do so beyond any normal 'human' power of forgiveness.  In the 'worst
case', I would hope to hold the only 'action' to taking it before the LORD,
until He healed any desire for harm to the oppressor. 

I've left the repentance of the 'David' side of it as assumed.  It might 
not even affect it all that much in term of the personal forgiveness side.

�    Please avoid trite, pat answers. There will be specific follow up.

I quake at the idea of a practical test...

								Andrew

David was forgiven... and yet an innocent baby died in judgment of David's
sin. And the kingdom was divided because of it, too.
This is in addition to the fact that David's forgiveness could not
bring back the life of Uriah the Hittite.  Andrew speaks well about the
Jewish law, and had not David been the King of Israel, what may have been
the further consequences concerning Uriah's relatives?

Sometimes consequence and judgment follow sin, even after the account of
sin is forgiven.  Why?  Can't God see that I'm truly sorry?

We can speculate that David would never have confessed had he not been 
confronted by God's prophet, Nathan.  But David did respond; being the king, 
he could have responded with other than contrition, but David was contrite.  
It probably ate at him day and night.

I'm no expert on Jewish-ness, but the unnamed child died within seven days.
On the eight day, a child was dedicated to the Lord, was he not?  For the
child, this may have been God's mercy - for the parent's, His judgment.

What we see here is that forgiveness is not NECESSARILY tied to subsequent 
events, if those events pertain to judgment (or unforgiveness on the 
part of the forgiven party - the man with the great debt).  What *is*
tied to forgiveness is the settling of accounts for the past.  The future
needs to be worked on, and faced from the point at which one is forgiven.

David's judgment and consequences did not stop when the child died.
Because of David's sin, there was war within the house of David, and
heartache over his own son seeking to kill him (Absolom) --- BUT NOTE
HERE
how David was indeed changed, because he wept for Absolom, even when 
Absolom was out to kill him.  The kingdom was split after Solomon, because
of David, too.  His sin affected future generations because he was king and
responsible for many.  Yet, there is this promise:

2 Samuel 12:13  And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. 
And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt 
not die.

Forgiveness puts the sin away from God's record, even though, tragically, the
consequences must be faced because of the sin.  Was it fair for David to endure
the remaining years of trouble in his house?  Was it fair for God to take the
child who had no choice in the matter?  Was it fair that a loyal soldier was
left to die?  The unfathomable heartache that can come from supposed pleasure
that "no one will know" about!  What a tragic lie that Satan uses so 
successfully over and over again, until Bathsheba sends word that "I am 
pregnant."  Found out!  But the Lord knew all along!  

And we like sheep are all gone astray.  None are guiltless, lest we are
tempted to condemn, for if we do, we condemn ourselves as surely as the
man who was forgiven a great debt.  Different sins have different
ramifications, and David's was a doosey.

More later...

    Redemption, restoration, and purification.
    
    Redemption is instantaneous.  When Hosea bought back his harlot wife,
    she was his again.  And she was restored to the position of wife,
    but she wasn't very pure, was she?
    
    In the church of the Nazarene, if a Pastor is found to be in sexual
    sin, his credentials are removed.  If he repents and wishes to remain a
    Pastor, he must go through four years of restoration, involving the
    one-on-one accountability with another Pastor.  I don't think he's  
    permitted to pastor during this time, but I could be wrong about this
    point.
    
    Forgiven?  Yes.  Redeemed?  Certainly.  Restoration?  Over time.
    It amazes me to no end how ministries and witnesses that have grown and
    built over years can be utterly destroyed in a matter of moments.  And
    all the while Satan laughs his head off.
    
    Back to King David: he didn't need to be restored to the kingship, but
    his power was severely eroded so that his reign thereafter was marred
    with sedition and troubles.  These were direct results of his sin.
    However, his restoration progressed over the subsequent years to where
    (as we have said) he loved Absolom, and did not blanch when he was
    showered with insults as he left Jerusalem.
    
    Restoration and purification is a process that takes time.  We don't
    like that much because redemption and forgiveness are instantaneous. 
    What do you mean purification is a process that takes time?  Even Paul
    (Saul) wanted to immediately "switch sides" but needed to take time
    after his conversion.  I'd like to explore this a bit further in the
    morning.
    
    Mark

Restoration is something that happens to you.
Purification is something that happend in you.

Restoration is bestowed.  The prodigal son was restored to the family, with a
new robe and ring and new sandals.  King David was restored when Nathan told
him he wasn't going to die (2 Sam 12:13) which was the rightful judgment on
him.

Because restoration is bestowed and not obtained, it is up to the person
(or Person) offended to restore.  God does; he is divine.  People may or may
not; we are human.  Sometimes restoration is impossible; that is, you cannot
restore an alcoholic to his position as bartender, for example, to resume
his duties and privileges of that job.  Other times, restoration is extremely
difficult, depending on the severity of the offense, because there is a whole
lot of working through that needs to be done.  (How did Uriah's relatives
handle David's exposition and confession?  How did Corey Ten Boom summon
up the will to forgive her captor?  Was it in a moment, while the wound was
still fresh?  I doubt it.  The moment to forgive was and can be while the
wound is fresh, but the feeling and restoration doesn't happen in the
twinkling of an eye.)

Purification is something that happens within and can happen at a drastically
different pace than restoration.  One can be pure and not restored; one
can be restored, yet not pure.  It is important to see these distinctions
and realize that purification is our responsibility towards God and
restoration (as far as people go) is someone else's responsibility towards
God.

Mark

RE: .1

> Forgiveness wipes the slate clean, but not the memory.

How then can you say that the slate wiped clean, if no effort is to be made
to respond to the repentant sinner in a manner which portrays your belief
s/he is now justified and completely forgiven? If the sinner is brought
before the penitent (and allegedly forgiven) sinner in future times, to
"justify" the offended party's responses to him/her, how is the penitent 
*truly* forgiven by the offended? it just doesn't add up - forgiveness means
putting away one's "right" to use the offense against the person who has 
been forgiven.

> We are not God to cast forgiven debt into the sea of forgetfulness.

No, but we *can* ask G_d to do it for us. Read Corrie Ten Boom writings.

> It takes a conscious effort to be willing to "give another chance."

Yes, and making that conscious effort is the minimal Biblical definition of 
forgiveness, is it not?

> Looking at Paul and Barnabas, Paul did not want to take John Mark on a
> missionary journey because John Mark failed Paul.

Because Paul had not yet completely forgiven John Mark for his prior failure.

> Paul was adamant, and so was Barnabas. 

Such adamance (as opposed to humility) is frequently a mark of pride getting 
in the way of G_d's perfect will for a situation. Very infrequenly can we be
so assured of our knowing and walking so completely in G_d's will.

> They split over this issue!

That fact all by itself clearly indicates to me that G_d's perfect will was 
not being followed by one or both of the parties involved. G_d is a G_d of 
order and harmony, not the opposite, which is what was displayed here.

> Paul took Silas and Barnabas took John Mark and they went into different
> regions spreading the gospel to twice the arena they originally had 
> planned for.

A case of G_d's permissive will being a blessing *in spite of* the partial
disobedience of one or more of His servants. Paul and Barnabas were not 
humanly perfect, any more than were any other Biblical humans.

> The debt was reinstated: interesting and fearful.

Indeed. The phrase "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;" takes 
on a whole new and deeper meaning, does it not?

Brian

Galatians 6:1  Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are
spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself,
lest thou also be tempted.

The brethren, those who are spiritual, are admonished to restore someone 
who is found out or detected (prolambano) in a fault.  Further, the brethren
are also admonished not to exalt ourselves as to being above the same failing.

Restortation is clearly to be the goal of the brethren, to bring a fallen
brother back to his place in Christ and in grace.  How this happens and
how long it takes is not defined.  And, as in the example of a Nazarene
Pastor, some restorations may take significant amounts of time.

Humility is something I've been pondering for several years now (no snickers,
folks; I'm serious about it and try).  I'm of the opinion that very few
people possess true humilty and fewer know that they possess it (that is, 
some have humility without knowing or naming it as such); further, that
most people, most Christians incorrectly identify humility (usually as 
meekness and other such misdiagnoses).

Yet, in God's economy, there is a paradox of power.  The greatest must be
servant of all, the last shall be first, and real power is found in the
humble and available ("Here am I; send me.")  And sin displays the opposite:
pride, not humility.  God declares that the proud shall be brought low.
He who exalts himself (through sin) shall be debased (by the consequences
of the lies of temptation), and he who humbles himself (through grace) shall 
be exalted (by the mercies of God).

Purification and humility are close relatives. And who can distinguish
between purity and humility when they are distilled to their essences?
Humilty doesn't happen over night.  And restoration usually follows 
the demonstration of humility, contrition, the dilligence to repent
(turn from) the fault.  How long is the demonstration?  It varies but
is often proportional to the crime.  Forgiving a broken object in the home
is easier than forgiving a bruised ego or violated trust.  When one moves
from the tangible to the intangible, we tap into the complexities of humanity,
psychology, conscience, and emotion.

If restoration by the brethren does not occur, they are responsible to God
for it.  However, the pace of restoration that does not measure up to the
desires of the fallen is not necessarily inaction on the part of the brethren,
and the counsel of the Lord is needed to see how and how long one must
proceed.  Humility and purification will also take varying amounts of time
depending on the condition of the heart.  So, too, the bestowment of 
restoration depends on many factors.

Hebrews 10:36  For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will
of God, ye might receive the promise.

Romans 5:1  Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ:
  2  By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand,
and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
  3  And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that
tribulation worketh patience;
  4  And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
  5  And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in
our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

These verses can support the penitent awaiting restoration.

Mark

I'll get to .7 sometime this afternoon, Brian.  Others are welcome.

Mark

    I agree with the principle that forgiveness is complete and
    instantaneous, but that recovery can take time.  We do not well to
    ignore someone's weakness under the guise of forgiveness.  Forgive,
    indeed; but we need be mindful of the area of weakness in the life of
    another, until such time as there has been demonstrated growth and
    victory.  Being mindful of such weakness, we can seek to avoid bringing
    temptation into the life of such a one (a clear Biblical principle).
    
>> Looking at Paul and Barnabas, Paul did not want to take John Mark on a
>> missionary journey because John Mark failed Paul.
>
>Because Paul had not yet completely forgiven John Mark for his prior failure.
    
    "And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was
    Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed
    from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work."
    (Acts 15:37-38)
    
    There is no evidence here of an incomplete forgiveness on the part of
    Paul.  What I see is a matter of carefulness, not only for the sake of
    the rigors of the journey they were setting out on, but for the sake of
    John Mark as well.  The Bible gives clear direction that we need to use
    wisdom with respect to stature in the work of God.  "Not a novice, lest
    being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil."
    (I Tim. 3:6).  By his departure from the previous journey, John Mark
    had demonstrated a lack of commitment.  I believe that Paul 1) wanted
    to be careful who he took with him on the journey, so as to avoid
    potential problems, and 2) didn't want to "set up" John Mark in a
    situation where he might fail again.  Later, John Mark apparently
    demonstrated growth and dependability, as Paul wrote "Only Luke is with
    me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for
    the ministry." (2 Tim. 4:11)
    
    My view of the situation with Paul and Barnabus?  Barnabus let family
    ties override his relationship with the apostle Paul.  To me, it was a
    sad day for Barnabus, whom we *never* hear of again.
    
    Mark L.

Note 227.7  FUJISI::PHANEUF 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Forgiveness wipes the slate clean, but not the memory.
>
>It just doesn't add up - forgiveness means putting away one's "right" to use
>the offense against the person who has  been forgiven.

True, but while the offense cannot be used AGAINST the perpetrator, it is
not to be used as the arbitor of guilt and is not a condition for future
treatment.  For example, let's look at someone who beats his wife.
His wife can forgive the husband, but in no means should she put herself
back into the situation until the husband has a clearly demonstrated
rehabilitation.  Forgiving seventy times seven does not necessarily 
including providing the oppotunity to be beaten 70*7-1 times.  

Why was it important for walls to be built around Jerusalem?  God is omnipotent
and can care for His Chosen people, right?  It doesn't add up, does it?
Before I comment on this, think about it.

>> We are not God to cast forgiven debt into the sea of forgetfulness.
>
>No, but we *can* ask G_d to do it for us. Read Corrie Ten Boom writings.

Sure, but how long was it after Corrie was imprisoned did she work out her
hatred for her captors?  The forgiveness happened, she extended the hand, but
it was only the glimmer of feeling that she had - there was much to work out
before she's invite her captor over for tea or on acation with her.  Does God
remove "thorns" instantaneously?  Perhaps, but perhaps, God heals in time,
which seems to be the greater part of experience of this human race which He
designed.

>> It takes a conscious effort to be willing to "give another chance."
>
>Yes, and making that conscious effort is the minimal Biblical definition of 
>forgiveness, is it not?

Be careful of legalism here, where "the Biblical definition" is used to condemn
another whose heart we cannot fully see.  Further, if demands are made, rather
than the promptings of the Holy Spirit, it can serve to be detrimental to the
natural healing process.

>> Looking at Paul and Barnabas, Paul did not want to take John Mark on a
>> missionary journey because John Mark failed Paul.
>
>Because Paul had not yet completely forgiven John Mark for his prior failure.

This is an opinion, Brian.  I think Paul could have completely forgiven John
Mark without wanting him to come along.  I can have no ill feelings towards
someone who has previously done shoddy work for me, yet I don't need to give
this carftsman another chance when I need to be careful about my next woodcraft
project.  Forgiveness is not necessarily tied to Paul's not wanting John Mark
around with him.

>> Paul was adamant, and so was Barnabas. 
>
>Such adamance (as opposed to humility) is frequently a mark of pride getting 
>in the way of G_d's perfect will for a situation. Very infrequenly can we be
>so assured of our knowing and walking so completely in G_d's will.

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

>> They split over this issue!
>
>That fact all by itself clearly indicates to me that G_d's perfect will was 
>not being followed by one or both of the parties involved. G_d is a G_d of 
>order and harmony, not the opposite, which is what was displayed here.

"God's perfect will..."  Good, better, and best.  Please read note 203.

>> Paul took Silas and Barnabas took John Mark and they went into different
>> regions spreading the gospel to twice the arena they originally had 
>> planned for.
>
>A case of G_d's permissive will being a blessing *in spite of* the partial
>disobedience of one or more of His servants. Paul and Barnabas were not 
>humanly perfect, any more than were any other Biblical humans.

I'm not sure it was partial disobedience at all, as I think I have explained.
Christians can have sharp disputes without either one being out of God's will.
Another subject, no doubt.

Mark
    

It's going to take me some time to catch up with this flow...

Meanwhile, on one point of Markel's:

�    My view of the situation with Paul and Barnabus?  Barnabus let family
�    ties override his relationship with the apostle Paul.  To me, it was a
�    sad day for Barnabus, whom we *never* hear of again.

That is reading more into the record than we are justified in doing.  That
*may* be the case, but I think it unlikely.  Equally, the scenario may be
that God had a different calling for Barnabus than He had for Paul. 
Remember that Acts was written by Luke, who accompanied Paul rather than
Barnabus.  It was the missionary journeys of Acts he needed to record,
rather than the possibly more personal ministry of Barnabus.  That this
ministry was effective in this case, and didn't merely serve to soften Mark
beyond any spiritual usefulness can be seen from Paul's later positive
reference to him in 2 Timothy 4:11, which says: 

 "...Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for 
  the ministry."

Don't judge a person's spirituality by how much they're in the news.  The
place God had for Barnabus was a private one.  From Acts 4:36 we see that
he was previously called Joseph, and his character brought him the name of
Barnabus, which means "Son of Encouragement", indicating that he had a
personal ministry from the LORD significant enough to receive positive
recognition.  I have also heard reasonable conjecture that his character
may have been 'tenderised' as the 'Joseph / Barsabbus' of Acts 1:23, who
was the one proposed who didn't get the 'apostle' slot vacated by Judas. 

If Barnabus' ministry was that personal, I could understand that it would
operate better outside the limelight, even if a limited time accompanying
Paul was useful at one stage.  God only needed one Paul.  He also needed at 
least one Barnabus....

There *may* be a deeper significance in the fact that we hardly hear of any
of the apostles' later work, and Paul is brought in when the quorum is 
thought of as complete.  However, that's off topic, though an interesting 
study.


							Andrew

	Brian,

	Wish I had more time to respond here...

	I do agree with you about forgiveness and forgetting.  I think there
	are two areas here.  One, when we've forgiven someone, if we've
	truly forgiven them, then we should not be looking for opportunities
	to remind the person of the sin (in a sense, holding it over their
	head in an attempt to have an upper hand).  I think this happens quite
	frequently, when the hurts run so deep that we can't separate the
	sins from the sinner, and seek to make the sinner "pay" for the
	hurts they've caused, or be sure that they truly realize how
	deep the hurss go.  (Not saying someone consciously says, "I'll
	make her pay", but that the subconscious reaction to hurt can
	be to hurt back, or to be sure the person is *truly* sorry).
	I had a hard time with this early in my marriage, but am finding
	as time goes on that I'm less and less likely to even remember an
	offense just hours after.  It's definitely an area that needs much
	prayer, as the offended party can do as much or more damage as the
	original offender through his or her response.  
	

	Two, when someone sins, as Markem said, we may forgive, but
	we may also remember the sin and choose not to open ourselves to
	the opportunity again until such time as the sinner shows true 
	repentence.  I can see wisdom in this, yet "turn the other cheek"
	keeps coming to mind.  There's a part of me that wants to say, "I
	know that God can heal and restore any wounds that I may endure, 
	and if this person hurts me again, God will continue to restore me."

	I've given this some thought lately, and more and more I'm feeling
	as thought the Lord *would* have me forget entirely, and trust in
	Him to protect me from further harm, or act swiftly to heal if harm
	occurs.  I suppose most would consider this foolish, yet I'm trying
	to think, what's the most loving way to respond ??

	I don't think this applies to someone we hire to do a job for us.
	I hire someone to do a job; the job is flawed.  Has the person 
	truly sinned, or was the person just not qualified for the particular
	job.  I won't hire him again, but I'm not sure this really jibes with
	the question of forgiveness.

	hmm, longer than I thought, but not any clearer...

	Karen

Moses was not lost to God's favor and his body was disputed over between Satan 
and God's angel.  Moses was highly favored by God - even after sin, judgment
and consequence.  See here:

You know the story where Moses was commanded to speak to the rock and
it would bring firth water for Israel.  Instead, Moses chose to do it 
his way and struck the rock with his rod, contrary to God's instruction.
And the judgment seems harsh for the crime, does it not?

Numbers 20:12  And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me
not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall
not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Deuteronomy 3:23  And I besought the LORD at that time, saying,
 24  O Lord GOD, thou hast begun to shew thy servant thy greatness, and thy
mighty hand: for what God is there in heaven or in earth, that can do
according to thy works, and according to thy might?
 25  I pray thee, let me go over, and see the good land that is beyond
Jordan, that goodly mountain, and Lebanon.
 26  But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and would not hear me:
and the LORD said unto me, Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto me of this
matter.

Let me tell you another story: My wife was friends with another woman in our
church.  It so happened that this woman gave birth to her daughter on a
Sunday that we were in Quincy visiting our parents.  We arrived home at
around 10pm and got the phone call.  We were happy and congratulated them.
Our schedule was such that we could not come to the hospital for a visit
and met them at their home on Wednesday night afer church.

Come to find out, she's peeved that we were *unable* to visit her in the
hospital.  My wife apologized as far as she could, asking forgiveness for
(not her unwillingness, but inability to be there in the hospital).  To this
day, the relationship is casual where it once was close.

My wife did everything right, but would not be forgiven (for an offense that
probably didn't warrant forgiveness) by the other person and it has affected
what could have been a close relationship.

The point of this is that it is not our responsibility for them to forgive us.
Confusing?  It should be.  We cannot make people forgive us, nor can we
brow-beat them into it by preaching if we have abdicated spiritual authority
by our own sin.  Making people forgive us is not our responsibility.  And
if Joy is never forgiven, or time simply heals the wound in this person,
it won't change the consequences of unforgiveness, which resulted from
an [in]action on my wife's part (which happened to be out of her control
really).  So, Joy moves on into the heart of God, into humility and 
service.  The Holy Spirit has the job of speaking to people's hearts
about their responsibility.

Getting back to Moses, it seems that in Deuteronomy, Moses was really, really,
really sorry for his sin against God.  Hadn't he suffered enough?  Why hadn't
God forgiven and forgotten and nullify the consequences (judgment) against him?
God CERTAINLY forgave Moses, but Moses STILL paid the price.  God told him
to "speak no more unto me about this matter."  Case closed.  Consequences
remain even after forgiveness is given.

And what if God tells us, "Enough!  Let it suffice Thee [that you are forgiven
and this sin is not counted against you]." ?  Do we let it suffice and 
accept the consequences of our foolishness as a constant reminder of our
lowly estates, so that we may be made pure and perfect when we stand before
the judge, put off mortality for immortality, and put off the corruptible 
and put on the incorruptible?  Or do we beseech and pray (plead) with God
beyond his firm decision?

David said: 

2Samuel 12:22  And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept:
for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child
may live?
 23  But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again?
I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

While the matter is open, David sought and plead for the child, but when the
matter was closed, he could do nothing else, and did not expend his energies
further on it.  Instead, he went about the task of knowing God.

Mark

RE: .2

> We cannot recapture time and lost moments to sin. When it is spent, it
> is gone.

Agreed.

> Thanks to God's mercy, we may return while He may be found, and while
> we are able.

Amen!

> And we can be restored to the family.

This is the crux of the discussion - being restored to the family. Does the
penitent sinner have a reasonable expectation of being restored to the Body
of Christ as a direct result of repentance and divine forgiveness (implying 
the responsibility of human forgiveness), *OR* is this human forgiveness 
something that must how be earned, based on performance according to certain
expectations?

Brian

RE: .3


>  The David/Bathsheba/Uriah situation leaves the avenger of blood 
> (Deuteronomy 19:12) with three options.

>	1. Demand full rights of justice, and execute the 'David'
>
>	2. Waive the external rights, letting the 'David' go free, but 
>	   holding anger and unforgiveness in the heart (the 'murder' of 
>	   Matthew 5:21-22)
>
>	3. Waive justice and forgive from the heart.
>
> Obviously, option 3 is the only New Covenant position.

Agreed - but it is all too rarely the option taken by church-going,
professing "Christians."

> However, when actually in the situation it can be difficult to let go of
> option 2, where anger is aimed at the individual rather than at the sin,
> and the effort to make the `right' outward gestures stumbles over the
> presence of a great lump in the heart.

Understood. However, over (a relatively short period of) time, the veneer 
of civility wears *very* thin, making the charade very obvious, especially 
to the individual for whose benefit it was performed.

> The temptation is to make a show of 'forgiving', but go round with a long
> face at the sacrifice it involved.  Thereby losing the blessing, and
> endangering the long term disability of living with a grudge which impairs
> our spiritual - and physical - life ...

Even if there is no "long face," the lack of genuiness of affection becomes
painfully obvious. The joy is completely lacking, every interaction is done
from obvious duty and not love, and even expressions of concern appear 
obviously forced.

Now then, the question becomes, "What, if anything, could/should the 'David'
do under these circumstances?"

Brian

>> And we can be restored to the family.
>
>This is the crux of the discussion - being restored to the family. Does the
>penitent sinner have a reasonable expectation of being restored to the Body
>of Christ as a direct result of repentance and divine forgiveness (implying 
>the responsibility of human forgiveness), *OR* is this human forgiveness 
>something that must how be earned, based on performance according to certain
>expectations?

Trust is earned; forgiveness is given.  Some follow-up questions can
be brought up.

What time frames are there for restoration?
Do they differ depending on the severity of sin?
  Certainly it is easier to restore a Pastor who has hit someone in anger 
  than a Pastor who has committed adultery.  Both involve a trust, but one is
  more severe and takes longer to regain that trust.
Does restoration to the body of Christ include everything that was before?
  How can it if what was had was squandered and lost?  We humans trudge 
  inexorably through time in one direction, so we can only move into the
  future and cannot regain the past.  The past is our foundation.

I believe you are still confused between the differences of forgiveness,
restoration, and purification.  Forgiveness and restoration are two
different events and two different things.

What does restoration mean to you?  There are several levels of restoration:

a) restores status as a son come home (spiritual)
     but did the prodigal receive a second inheritence?  He was a son, but
     weren't his accrued rewards lost forever?  And again, was the man whose
     huge debt was forgiven, given any more talents?
b) restored status of trust and position (temporal)

Until one realizes the difference between forgiveness and restoration, 
whenever someone doesn't "restore" us as quickly as we think we should
be restored, we will set ourselves up in pride, thinking you have the moral
high ground to point at *their* intractibility and *their* responsibility
towards us!  See?  

Whatever is *their* responsibility is *THEIR* responsibility between THEM
and God.  And Christ's words re-echo: "What is that to you?  You must follow Me."

The sum of Christian responsibility is invested in two words: "Follow Me."
And speaking to others about their responsibilities is a matter for those
whom God has put in spiritual authority, which is received in yielded (not
forced) submission, and to be administered with fear and trembling, for
God will hold those in authority accountable.

Mark

>Now then, the question becomes, "What, if anything, could/should the 'David'
>do under these circumstances?"

See Moses.  Move on with life and what you can do. In short, "follow Christ."

MM

At Christmas time, the children disappear into a blur of wrapping paper.
And after opening seven or eight lovely presents, the child looks around
and asks, "Is this all?"

Mom and Dad have bought some ice cream for themselves after the kids go to 
bed, but in a fit of generosity, they offer it up for dessert after dinner,
scooping it into bowls with fixings.  "She got more than I did." 
"Can I have some more?"  "Is this all?"

Judgment and punishment, when we know and confess our guilt, is accepted
as long as it is swift.  We want it "over and done with."  David was
given a choice of seven years of famine, three months of running from
his enemies, or three days of "pestilence."  David chose the quickest
route.  (2 Sam. 24)  We want to "perform" the pennance that the
Priest issues (30 Hail Mary's and 40 Rosaries) and wash his hands of
the consequences.  In children, they'd take a spanking to be rid of 
the guilt and consequences.  Get it over and done with.

Sometimes the restoration process takes an agonizingly long time for 
the consequences of some sin.  And spiritual authority is lost for
a long time.  And when spiritual authority is restored, by little increments, 
humilty can be grateful for what is given instead of ungrateful for 
what has been not yet restored.

The children in my house have needed to learn the lesson of gratitude
for a little dessert when there may have been none, and for some gifts
when there may have been none or one.
 
Luke 15
17  And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my
father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
 18  I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have
sinned against heaven, and before thee,
 19  And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired
servants.

The Prodigal Son had to "come to himself"; nothing but.  He had to realize
that he didn't even deserve sonship anymore.  He owned his condition and
was not concerned about whether his brother should forgive him.  It was
the father who spoke to the elder brother and told him what he should do
(verses 31-32), yet we do not know how long it took for the brother to
come to the joy of the father in the parable.  The Prodigal must do what
he must do and leave the brother also to the father.

MM

	Brian,

	I missed the comment about the long face... looks like it was
	one of Andrew's gems... said it much better than I did!

	Although I see and understand Markem's point, I don't think you're
	implying that consequences should be done away with.  

	I think when you are dealing with believers, you at some point need
	to say, "This person is aware of his sin, and has asked God's forgiveness
	and mine.  If I forgive him, I am *choosing* to forget, and believe
	that he will 'go and sin no more'."  

	Any other response seems to say, "Come back again next week, and if
	you're still sorry, maybe we can talk."

	Note, forgiving and forgetting does not remove the consequences, but
	is it our place to oversee the consequences, or God's ?  (I realize
	children and punishment is different, I'm talking between adults here.)

	Karen

>	Although I see and understand Markem's point, I don't think you're
>	implying that consequences should be done away with.  


The point of my notes is to see where responsibility lies.
Let me put it this way:

(1) I must forgive
(2) They do not have to forgive

What's this?  If "they" are Christian, then they must forgive, too, right?

The reason I must forgive is because my relationship with God, One on one,
tells me I must do this.  I am responsible for the actions and reactions
of my relationship.

The reason "they" do not have to forgive is not because "they" shoudln't" but
because "they" are NOT our responsibility!  If they do not forgive, then it
is a matter that God deals with with "them."  We do not, nor cannot, force,
brow-beat, coerce someone into forgiving us because we have pointed out
chapter, paragraph, and verse in "The Manual" about what "their" responsibility
is.  We discuss the Word; the Holy Spirit quickens it and opens our eyes to
it - not us.

When we say, "I've done my part, and paid my pennance; 'they' now must
do theirs." we've erred in our thinking.  You must do your part whether or
not "they" do their part.  And we must also be careful with our charges
for we may find ourselves judge in the same situation.

This is not unlike the biblical marriage relationship.  The 50-50 marriage 
does not work and is not biblical.  A biblical marriage is 100-100.  What
this means is that ideally, each individual in the marriage gives 100% 
of himself or herself to the spouse.  When you give 100%, you give all.
And please please please read this: you are to give 100% even when it is
NOT reciprocated.  Why!?   Because it is MY responsibility to love my
wife as Christ loved the church.  It is not my responsibility to force 
my wife into submission - it's not biblical submission.  She must submit,
"as unto the Lord" which is given, yielded, and gladly offered.

So, Karen, you are correct in assessing our (my) responsibility to forgive
remembering that I am only responsible for my response and not someone else's.

>	Any other response seems to say, "Come back again next week, and if
>	you're still sorry, maybe we can talk."

The power of the blood of Jesus cleanses us from the guilt of sin.
But it is the grace of God that sustains us through the thorns in 
our flesh.  Again, forgiveness removes the guilt, but restoration
to former position is not the proverbial carrot before the horse.
Healing takes time, in the physical, and in the psychological.

>	Note, forgiving and forgetting does not remove the consequences, but
>	is it our place to oversee the consequences, or God's ?  (I realize
>	children and punishment is different, I'm talking between adults here.)

Excellent question.  (BTW, my EMail personal name is "Adults are the biggest
children."  Many adults exhibit a woeful lack of maturity.)

Is it our place to oversee the consequences?  Let me ask you whether a woman
who is being beaten by her husband should place herself back in his care 
after forgiving him?  When should she do this? 

You see, the severity of some circumstances warrant circumspection and oversight.
Further, I am reminded that God can oversee the consequences by permitting
a [beaten] wife to remain out of touch with her husband until such time as
he is demonstrably rehabilitated.  Some women have ended up dead by going back 
or being sent back to an abuser.

Oversight by people is not new.  It is a societal norm (jails, etc), a
church norm (a functioning church, that is), a company norm (probation, 
code of ethics, etc).  The Bible says that God places people in authority,
for oversight and governing (as two facets of authority).  So even between
adults, it is actually very little different than children and punishment.
It is just that as adults, we're better capable at effecting rebellion
against authority.  We're supposedly rational and more mature, but that
has only served to make us better at badness when we are children of
the devil instead of Children of God.

Mark

If all this seems "unforgiving" rather than forgiving, it is a self-focused
attitude that prompts this perception.

Why?  Because we are demanding our rights to be treated as we were before
our fall into sin.  We lump forgiveness and restoration, two different
actions, together and trivialize all sinful action by saying "sin is sin in
God's sight, and He has forgiven my sin."  While this is true, the statement
is being used to demand restoration as if nothing ever happened.

A girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock has the unfortunate biology to be
found out.  She can request and obtain forgiveness, forgiven free and clear,
but she will always be reminded of her sin.  (The male counterpart is
in graver danger in that he can be fooled into thinking his consequences
are not as severe; and presumption is one of the most dangerous sins of all.)

When we hear verses such as "turn the other cheek," "go the extra mile,"
and "judge not lest ye be judged," we say "Amen, preach it brother, because
*so-and-so* needs to hear this."

Stop right there.  How often have you heard preaching for *someone else*?
That is not your responsibility!  It's not your job.

Turn the other cheek is application for ME and not for someone else.
Go the extra mile is for ME and not for someone else.
Judge not is for ME and not for someone else.

If someone else DOESN'T, what is our obligation?
I know what our inclination is: "If they don't then I won't."
But our obligation is "WHETHER or NOT THEY <fill-in-the-blank>, WE MUST."

Demanding that other people perform, even according to Scripture, so that
you are treated fairly and properly is not imitating the Master; and I 
convict myself with these words.  And again, my life application verse,
my verse, re-echoes "What is that to you?  You must FOLLOW ME."

Mark

RE: .8

> The brethren, those who are spiritual, are admonished to restore someone 
> who is found out or detected (prolambano) in a fault.  Further, the brethren
> are also admonished not to exalt ourselves as to being above the same failing.

> Restortation is clearly to be the goal of the brethren, to bring a fallen
> brother back to his place in Christ and in grace.

And if it is not clearly the goal of the brethren? In fact, what if the appparent
goal of the "brethren" is to permanently disfellowship the penitent person?

> How this happens and how long it takes is not defined.  And, as in the example
> of a Nazarene Pastor, some restorations may take significant amounts of time.

Regarding restoration to position, I totally agree. Regarding restoration to 
fellowship, though...

> And restoration usually follows the demonstration of humility, contrition, the
> diligence to repent (turn from) the fault. How long is the demonstration? It
> varies but is often proportional to the crime.

Agreed, providing one is discussing restoration to position. However, restoration
to loving Christian fellowship certainly should be conditional *only* upon true
repentance and the grace of G_d, correct?

> Forgiving a broken object in the home is easier than forgiving a bruised ego
> or violated trust.

Easier, yes. But how is forgiving for whatever (larger) offense less required than
for any other (smaller) offense. "If one fails in own point of the Law, one is 
guilty of violating the whole Law" (bad paraphrase).

> If restoration by the brethren does not occur, they are responsible to God
> for it.  However, the pace of restoration that does not measure up to the
> desires of the fallen is not necessarily inaction on the part of the brethren,
> and the counsel of the Lord is needed to see how and how long one must
> proceed.  Humility and purification will also take varying amounts of time
> depending on the condition of the heart.  So, too, the bestowment of 
> restoration depends on many factors.

Again, I agree, *providing* one is discussing *positional* restoration. But the 
arguement completely falls apart when discussing restoration to fellowship.

Brian_who_is_trying_to_get_to_address_all_of_your_comments

>    I agree with the principle that forgiveness is complete and
>    instantaneous, but that recovery can take time.  We do not well to
>    ignore someone's weakness under the guise of forgiveness.  Forgive,
>    indeed; but we need be mindful of the area of weakness in the life of
>    victory.  Being mindful of such weakness, we can seek to avoid bringing
>    temptation into the life of such a one (a clear Biblical principle).

We are in violent agreement, Markem!

8^{)

Brian

RE: .11

�> Forgiveness wipes the slate clean, but not the memory.

�  It just doesn't add up - forgiveness means putting away one's "right" to use
�  the offense against the person who has  been forgiven.

>  True, but while the offense cannot be used AGAINST the perpetrator, it is
>  not to be used as the arbitor of guilt and is not a condition for future
>  treatment.

What can possibly be done if the offense *is* being used against the perpetrator
(by others in the Church, *NOT* by the immediately offended party) "as the
arbitor of guilt and a condition for future (current) treatment?"

Brian

>> Restortation is clearly to be the goal of the brethren, to bring a fallen
>> brother back to his place in Christ and in grace.
>
>And if it is not clearly the goal of the brethren? In fact, what if the appparent
>goal of the "brethren" is to permanently disfellowship the penitent person?

I note the quotes around brethren, and perhaps rightly so.
The answer is "what is that to you?  You must follow me."
The secondary responses are the proper expectations of each, the
penitent and the elders.  If it is a matter of not moving quickly enough
for the penitent to perceive any restoration effort then many things can
be examined, such as whether one is truly penitent (demonstrating 
rehabilitation for a time), and whether there are other factors, BUT
it ultimately comes down to "what is that to you? You must follow Me"
if the penitent knows he is in and has done the Lord's will, even when 
exterior circumstances seem to be unjust.

>> How this happens and how long it takes is not defined.  And, as in the example
>> of a Nazarene Pastor, some restorations may take significant amounts of time.
>
>Regarding restoration to position, I totally agree. Regarding restoration to 
>fellowship, though...

I understand there are some congregations who have received people back into
fellowship, some fallen pastors who have too much shame to return to that
church, and some congregations where the rift and wounds are deep enough
that it is best that fellowship is found in another gathering of believers;
at least, until the Holy Spirit completes the healing process.  Outside
of Pastors, there are many churches who practice probationary periods for
lay people who want to be restored and "stick it out" (generally, they
leave for a long time).  No teaching Sunday school or any other "responsibility
for ministry" until the Pastor determines (quite arbitrarily and can be
any length of time) when the person is "ready" to return to ministry.
And again, fellowship in a congregation depends on the severity.
Spray-painting graffiti on the church walls will bring a certain amount
of ostracizing from people who would watch the person's behavior for some
time after contrition and repentence.

>> And restoration usually follows the demonstration of humility, contrition, the
>> diligence to repent (turn from) the fault. How long is the demonstration? It
>> varies but is often proportional to the crime.
>
>Agreed, providing one is discussing restoration to position. However, restoration
>to loving Christian fellowship certainly should be conditional *only* upon true
>repentance and the grace of G_d, correct?

Well, I don't think so.  We are all sinners and guilty.  Some of us are
pardoned.  Humanity and decency should be the mark of a Christian.
However, humanity is complex and possession of knowledge alters behavior.
While I can welcome the teenager who sprayed paint on the walls, you can 
best believe I'd be checking to see if he had any other type of graffiti 
implement and if so, watch him especially carefully.  He may feel as if 
he isn't trusted even though he knows in his own heart that he has repented
(changed), and that's because trust is not something built as easily as
it is torn down.  (You can blow up a bridge in seconds that took months
to build. - And until it is rebuilt, a journey across the river may
take one on a very long detour.)

>> Forgiving a broken object in the home is easier than forgiving a bruised ego
>> or violated trust.
>
>Easier, yes. But how is forgiving for whatever (larger) offense less required than
>for any other (smaller) offense. "If one fails in own point of the Law, one is 
>guilty of violating the whole Law" (bad paraphrase).

It is easier because we tie our emotions to the offense.  A good word for
it is "complications."  Compount fractures are worse than scratches, even 
thought to a hemophiliac, both can be life-threatening.  but you are right
to point out that the act of forgiveness is one and the same for everything:
the expunging of accounts - not to be confused with restoration of trust
(where spray paint may be concerned).

>Again, I agree, *providing* one is discussing *positional* restoration. But the 
>arguement completely falls apart when discussing restoration to fellowship.

No it doesn't because we have positions in our personal (fellowship)
relations.  To someone we are in the position of friendship.  And a violated
trust means that position could be damaged or lost.  So this isn't merely
for those with a particular ministry in the church, for we are all ministers
and witnesses for Christ.  When the position of "fellow" is damaged, "fellow"
(one who has fellowship) is restored when the fellowship bestows it (usually
one fellow at a time).

Mark

> 	I do agree with you about forgiveness and forgetting.  I think there
>	are two areas here.  One, when we've forgiven someone, if we've
>	truly forgiven them, then we should not be looking for opportunities
>	to remind the person of the sin (in a sense, holding it over their
>	head in an attempt to have an upper hand).

Thank you for saying this, Karen! You've clearly deliniated the problem!

>	I think this happens quite frequently, when the hurts run so deep that
>	we can't separate the sins from the sinner, and seek to make the sinner
>	"pay" for the hurts they've caused, or be sure that they truly realize
>	how deep the hurss go.  (Not saying someone consciously says, "I'll
>	make her pay", but that the subconscious reaction to hurt can
>	be to hurt back, or to be sure the person is *truly* sorry).
>	I had a hard time with this early in my marriage, but am finding
>	as time goes on that I'm less and less likely to even remember an
>	offense just hours after.  It's definitely an area that needs much
>	prayer, as the offended party can do as much or more damage as the
>	original offender through his or her response.

If this *is* occuring, what can/should be done?

>	Two, when someone sins, as Markem said, we may forgive, but
>	we may also remember the sin and choose not to open ourselves to
>	the opportunity again until such time as the sinner shows true 
>	repentence.  I can see wisdom in this, yet "turn the other cheek"
>	keeps coming to mind.  There's a part of me that wants to say, "I
>	know that God can heal and restore any wounds that I may endure, 
>	and if this person hurts me again, God will continue to restore me."

Does the same thing apply if the person declining to act in a forgiving manner 
is *not* the offended party, but another Christian who takes up the offense?

>	I've given this some thought lately, and more and more I'm feeling
>	as thought the Lord *would* have me forget entirely, and trust in
>	Him to protect me from further harm, or act swiftly to heal if harm
>	occurs.  I suppose most would consider this foolish, yet I'm trying
>	to think, what's the most loving way to respond ??

Precisely. What (if anything) can be done to foster this loving attitude in others?

Brian

!�> Forgiveness wipes the slate clean, but not the memory.
!
!�  It just doesn't add up - forgiveness means putting away one's "right" to use
!�  the offense against the person who has  been forgiven.
!
!>  True, but while the offense cannot be used AGAINST the perpetrator, it is
!>  not to be used as the arbitor of guilt and is not a condition for future
!>  treatment.
!
!What can possibly be done if the offense *is* being used against the perpetrator
!(by others in the Church, *NOT* by the immediately offended party) "as the
!arbitor of guilt and a condition for future (current) treatment?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What can be done?  Indeed.  My first reaction is to move on.
But my second reaction is to stick it out in humility.  I would not
think poorly of the person who moved to another fellowship if the
fellowship was becoming the abuser, and more likely immature or ignorant
of proper Christian conduct in these types of matters, not having dealt
with them well, ever.

The church blew it during the sexual revolution, the drug culture, and 
the disintegration of the family.  It took about 15 years for the church
to respond in each case and when it did, it did so poorly.  A single mother
was ostracized because the church did not know how to support her while
not appearing to condone her sin.  And families today go through this when
they have a son (or brother, in my case) who is unfaithful to his wife,
divorces and remarries.  Then you come face to face with what one should 
and should not do.  And like raising children, there isn't really much
of an instruction manual - but the knowledge of the Word is put to the 
practicability test!

And when I say the church has the responsibility to support the unwed mother
without condoning sexual misconduct, I mean that each one of us indivially
is responsible to do so as we are asked by the Holy Spirit.  (Recently,
I sat down in church with a biker who had the look; turned out to be a
Christian biker; the story is elsewhere in this conference.  The point of
bringing it up here is that the church is to welcome such; but I can't
wait for "the church" [others] to do it.  I am [part of] the church;
you are [part of] the church.

But coming back to my second reaction, I might stick it out in humility.
Let's look again at David and part of his consequences:

2 Samuel 16

  5  And when king David came to Bahurim, behold, thence came out a man of
the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera: he
came forth, and cursed still as he came.
  6  And he cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David: and
all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left.
  7  And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody
man, and thou man of Belial:
  8  The LORD hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in
whose stead thou hast reigned; and the LORD hath delivered the kingdom into
the hand of Absalom thy son: and, behold, thou art taken in thy mischief,
because thou art a bloody man.
  9  Then said Abishai the son of Zeruiah unto the king, Why should this dead
dog curse my lord the king? let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his
head.
 10  And the king said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? so
let him curse, because the LORD hath said unto him, Curse David. Who shall
then say, Wherefore hast thou done so?
 11  And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son,
which came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life: how much more now may this
Benjamite do it? let him alone, and let him curse; for the LORD hath bidden
him.

 12  It may be that the LORD will look on mine affliction, and that the LORD
will requite me good for his cursing this day.

Mark

> While the matter is open, David sought and plead for the child, but when the
> matter was closed, he could do nothing else, and did not expend his energies
> further on it.  Instead, he went about the task of knowing God.

At what point should a Believer consider the matter of a willfully disrupted
relationship with other brethren "Closed?" When do you stop reaching out to those
who have hardened their hearts against you? Does this change if a spouse or other
family member wishes to maintain a close friendship with the hardened brother or
sister?

Brian

A personal aside:

>A single mother was ostracized because the church did not know how to 
>support her while not appearing to condone her sin.

I did not mean to leave out the sin of the father-donor, by the way.
I think it is appalling that the woman must suffer the obviousness of
her sin but the man can exists relatviely anonymously.  Be sure that
God sees and the father-seed-donor is not anonymous, nor absolved of
his guilt in the matter.

MM

>> While the matter is open, David sought and plead for the child, but when the
>> matter was closed, he could do nothing else, and did not expend his energies
>> further on it.  Instead, he went about the task of knowing God.
>
>At what point should a Believer consider the matter of a willfully disrupted
>relationship with other brethren "Closed?" When do you stop reaching out to those
>who have hardened their hearts against you? Does this change if a spouse or other
>family member wishes to maintain a close friendship with the hardened brother or
>sister?

If I said that the point is defined at such and such an point, it would
immediately become legalistic, and be wrong for many other people because
the point is not definable.

Paul and Barnabas didn't stick around to resolve a dispute that neither was
budging on.  Jacob fled for his life rather than seek to restore his relations
to Esau. He attempted to do so only after 20 years and did so with fear and
trembling.  (An interestng case study, by the way that has application here.)
Disciples were told to "shake the dust from their feet" if they were not
received in some towns, rather than remain until people were brought to obey
the Truth.

Contrast this with Barnabas giving Saul (Paul) a chance; and later 
opposing Paul by giving John Mark a chance, too!  :-)  

So at what point?  Who can say?  But it may become clear whether to stay
in humility and endurance or leave in humilty and sorrow through prayer 
and conversation with the Lord.

Unrequited desire is especially difficult.  For example, one wants to 
recapture closeness to his wife on whom he's cheated.  She doesn't want
it.  (I discussed this with my wife, and we agreed that if I violated
her trust in this way, it would take perhaps 3 or 4 years before I could
be trusted and up to a decade before I could be returned to my position
of spiritual authority in my home and church.)  You have two choices:
wait patiently for something that may never come (her desire to return),
or realize that she's severed the ties and decide what to do with your 
life.  (A dear friend of mine did just that: waited for his wife to return
(she separated from him), but she never did.)

Mark

Restoration = healing, or restoration -> healing.
(Is restoration healing, or does restoration lead to healing.)

It's really hard to tell and I wonder if it matters.  But looking at 
healing as recovery from a wound, we can begin to understand that it
doesn't take long to recover from a scratch on the finger, or a jab with
a needle.  You likely put a band-aid on the spot to keep the dirt from
irritating the wound while it heals.  And in doing so it heals rather
quickly.

Considering more serious trauma, such as a compound fracture, there is 
pain in resetting the bones, removing the dirt, sterilizing the area,
and bandaging and casting the wound so that it can begin to heal.  And
healing takes significantly more time than the scratch on the finger.

And what about severe injury, multiple trauma, which sometimes can mean the
loss of a limb to save the life?  The medical technicians work to reset
that which is out of order, removing the dirt, sterilizing the wound, doing
what they can to save the limb if possible; and if not, amputating so that
gangreen doesn't eat away at the patient and kill him.  Healing takes
time and care, much care for greater trauma.  Rehabilitation may take 
many hours walking a treadmill to build up atrophied leg muscles; or
learning to walk with a prosthesis.  It may mean learning to reuse 
muscles that before were used without aforethought.

And there is the two-car accident where one recovers quickly from 
injuries sustained from the accident she caused, but the one to whom
the accident was caused may be paralyzed and unable to recover to 
her former self.

Life is complicated, and psychologies impinge upon rates of healing;
each individual heals at different paces; different from event to event
depending on the state of mind, too.  But healing occurs in little
increments, scar tissue forms.

Sometimes an athlete can be impatient with the healing process and ignore
the pain and continue to play until the body shuts him down for good.
Instead of strengthening himself, he was actually doing more damage to 
the point that his injury could no longer be repaired.

>	Although I see and understand Markem's point, I don't think you're
>	implying that consequences should be done away with.  

I feel exactly the same way. I, too, see his point, but am not implying that 
legitimate consequences should be done away.

>	I think when you are dealing with believers, you at some point need
>	to say, "This person is aware of his sin, and has asked God's forgiveness
>	and mine.  If I forgive him, I am *choosing* to forget, and believe
>	that he will 'go and sin no more'."  

That is how understand Scripture to teach, and what I have strongly endeavored to
do as a Christian. Admitting that one is having a problem is doing what is right
is one thing; but refusing to do it, while attempting to maintain a moral high
ground is another...

>	Any other response seems to say, "Come back again next week, and if
>	you're still sorry, maybe we can talk."

Precisely. And I'm left at a loss to understand what to do, as the response comes
from people I previously regarded as elders in the Church, and role models.

>	Note, forgiving and forgetting does not remove the consequences, but
>	is it our place to oversee the consequences, or God's?

I *thought* it was G_d's place, but perhaps I was wrong, based on observations...

Brian

>>	Note, forgiving and forgetting does not remove the consequences, but
>>	is it our place to oversee the consequences, or God's?
>
>I *thought* it was G_d's place, but perhaps I was wrong, based on observations...

God's place is for the avenger. "I will repay!"   Revenge is not part of
the Christians' role to administer consequences.  But! it is part of the 
Christians' role to administer (oversee) restoration, which may include
restitution, rehabilitation, or admonition and punishment.

But let's turn the table a little, Brian.

What have you thought the proper response is?  Let's say you are on the
board of elders (or some such leadership council) and the Pastor has
been discovered in serious (aka, sexual, or other trust-betraying) sin.

  In this case: what is forgiveness?
  What are the processes and conditions of restoration?
     What is the pastor's responsibility?
     What is the elder's responsibility?
     What is the layman's responsibility?
  How long should restoration take and *why*?
  Should the pastor [ever] be restored to the Pastorate? How?  How long?
    and under what criteria?
  Should the pastor [ever] be restored to the fellowship? How?  How long?

After all this, have we determined what "they" ought to do, or what
"we" ought to do if we are found in their stead?  The focal point is VERY 
important.

Mark

> When we say, "I've done my part, and paid my pennance; 'they' now must
> do theirs." we've erred in our thinking.  You must do your part whether or
> not "they" do their part.  And we must also be careful with our charges
> for we may find ourselves judge in the same situation.

I hear your correction, and humbly accept the reproof. Thank you for making the
point so gently.

> This is not unlike the biblical marriage relationship.  The 50-50 marriage 
> does not work and is not biblical.  A biblical marriage is 100-100.  What
> this means is that ideally, each individual in the marriage gives 100% 
> of himself or herself to the spouse.  When you give 100%, you give all.
> And please please please read this: you are to give 100% even when it is
> NOT reciprocated.  Why!?   Because it is MY responsibility to love my
> wife as Christ loved the church.  It is not my responsibility to force 
> my wife into submission - it's not biblical submission.  She must submit,
> "as unto the Lord" which is given, yielded, and gladly offered.

While your statement is 100% valid, it is not directly applicable to this current
situation...

Brian

� What can possibly be done if the offense *is* being used against the perpetrator
� (by others in the Church, *NOT* by the immediately offended party) "as the
� arbitor of guilt and a condition for future (current) treatment?"


> What can be done?  Indeed.  My first reaction is to move on.

That would indeed be the path of least resistance, and is *extremely* tempting.
You know, "Blow them off, and let G_d deal with 'em!" But that would make me as 
guilty of unforgiveness and ingraceousness as I perceive them to be, wouldn't it?

> But my second reaction is to stick it out in humility.

I am going to somehow attempt that, if the people even allow me near (thus far, 
they have authoritatively and physically prevented my fellowshipping with them
or my wife and family while on their premises).

> I would not think poorly of the person who moved to another fellowship if the
> fellowship was becoming the abuser, and more likely immature or ignorant
> of proper Christian conduct in these types of matters, not having dealt
> with them well, ever.

I hear, but that would be rather difficult, as my wife has very strong emotional
ties to them, and desires to continue *her* fellowship with them.

Torn,

Brian

>> When we say, "I've done my part, and paid my pennance; 'they' now must
>> do theirs." we've erred in our thinking.  You must do your part whether or
>> not "they" do their part.  And we must also be careful with our charges
>> for we may find ourselves judge in the same situation.
>
>I hear your correction, and humbly accept the reproof. Thank you for making the
>point so gently.

This is not an easy lesson to learn (at least not for me).  You often learn
it the hard way; they don't do their part! and you're left with "what do I
do now?"

Several years ago, I was arguing with God about this, myself.  "God, it
just is not fair!"  (No argument there.) "So, what do I do?"  "Follow Me."
"Yeah, but things won't be as good as if they did their part." (Silence.)
"If they were convicted to do their part, revival will come and things
will take off and the kingdom will advance and..." (Silence.)  "I have
to do this by myself?"  "If that's what it takes.  Follow Me."  "But
what about their responsibility?" "What is that to you? You must Follow Me."

I tell you that this is a distilling of the conversation I had ongoing 
with God for months.  And I also tell you that there are still times when
I am faced with others who have a responsibility to God who aren't doing it
and I think that the kingdom suffers....  And I am tempted to complain
and rationalize that I'm doing as much or more than so and so.  And these
complaints often come mostly when the relationship ebbs; I don't as quickly
let it roll off the shoulders; no burdens on my back, because it isn't my job.
I keep coming back to two words: Follow Me.  And though I grumble at first,
because my focus is on me, if I lift up my eyes to the Lord, and He again
becomes my focus, (not me, not them, but Him,) things have a way of coming
into proper perspective.  "What is that to you?  You must follow Me."

"Yes, Lord.  Here I come."

Mark

Re: .34

> What have you thought the proper response is?

Love, forgiveness and mercy, per Matthew 18...

> Let's say you are on the board of elders (or some such leadership council)
> and the Pastor has been discovered in serious (aka, sexual, or other
> trust-betraying) sin.

OK, but understand that the explicit issue becomes that I have been placed in a
specific position and role of oversight responsibility, acknowledge, aceeded to,
and sought by *all* parties involved. In this hypothetical situation, I have
neither usurped the position, nor have I assumed it covertly while publicly deny
my responsibility.

> In this case: what is forgiveness?

Forgiveness is the acknowledgement that G_d had remitted the person's sin, the 
restoration of that person to Christian fellowship, and the dismissal of negative
emotional responses toward the penitent.

> What are the processes and conditions of restoration?

The conditions of restoration to fellowship are non-existant. If the individual 
has truly repented and sought forgiveness, restoration to fellowship is *not* 
optional, *despite* our human emotional tendencies otherwise.

Restoration to position, OTOH, *is* conditional on continued good behavior, and 
remedial actions as appropriate to the situation.

> What is the pastor's responsibility?

To submit humbly to the authority established over him.

> What is the elder's responsibility?

To prayerfully, correctly and mercifully apply the Word of G_d to the situation.

> What is the layman's responsibility?

To lovingly accept the penitent brother (former Pastor) back into fellowship.

> How long should restoration take and *why*?

Positionally, it could take a couple of years, gradually being restored to full
responsibility. This is because it takes time to reestablish full trust, even in
the face of honest and humble repentance.

> Should the pastor [ever] be restored to the Pastorate?

IMHO, providing he is honestly and humbly repentant (don't read that as doormat),
abosolutely *yes* - otherwise the whole concept of redemption is a complete sham.

> How?

By the gradual and purposeful re-establishment of loving trust through demonstrated
faithfulness and reliability.

> How long and under what criteria?

It will take months, perhaps a year.

> Should the pastor [ever] be restored to the fellowship?

Immediatly upon genuine repentance.

> How?

In humble and merciful love, knowing that each and every one of us has been
likewise forgiven a great debt, and "there, but for the grace of G_d, go I."

> How long?

NOW! How long does G_d wait to restore a repentant sinner to fellowship with Him?

> After all this, have we determined what "they" ought to do, or what "we" ought
> to do if we are found in their stead?  The focal point is VERY important.

If there is a difference from person to person, it should not exist, IMHO.

Brian

>> In this [hypothetical Pastor's] case: what is forgiveness?
>
>Forgiveness is the acknowledgement that G_d had remitted the person's sin, the 
>restoration of that person to Christian fellowship, and the dismissal of negative
>emotional responses toward the penitent.

We disagree.  You have three functions here rolled into one: remission:
restoration, and action.

>> What are the processes and conditions of restoration?
>
>The conditions of restoration to fellowship are non-existant. If the individual 
>has truly repented and sought forgiveness, restoration to fellowship is *not* 
>optional, *despite* our human emotional tendencies otherwise.

Oh?  How did the disciples know that Saul (Paul) was "truly" repentant?

Acts 9
 20  And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son
of God.
 21  But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that
destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for
that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
...
 26  And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the
disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a
disciple.
 27  But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared
unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him,
and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

>Restoration to position, OTOH, *is* conditional on continued good behavior, and 
>remedial actions as appropriate to the situation.

***Where do you get the idea that restoration to fellowship is different than
restoration to position?***  As I have said earlier in this topic, they
are the same, for position in fellowship  is position somewhere, just 
as position on office is.  Restoration to fellowship is no different.

>> What is the layman's responsibility?
>
>To lovingly accept the penitent brother (former Pastor) back into fellowship.

In what timeframe?  Immediately?  You said there has to be demonstration of
"true" repentence.  Is the wailing of many "I'm sorry's" and self-flagellations
proof enough?

>> Should the pastor [ever] be restored to the fellowship?
>
>Immediatly upon genuine repentance.

How do you determine the genuineness?  Do all people have to believe in
his genuiness at the same time?

>> How long?
>
>NOW! How long does G_d wait to restore a repentant sinner to fellowship with Him?

God sees the heart.  Men do not.  God knows when someone is "truly"
penitent.  The rest of us need a demonstration of truth and humility.
Demanding one's "rights" seems to rub against humility.

>> After all this, have we determined what "they" ought to do, or what "we" ought
>> to do if we are found in their stead?  The focal point is VERY important.
>
>If there is a difference from person to person, it should not exist, IMHO.

Who shold determine this?  Who should enforce this?  If I demanded THEM
to do what THEY ought to do, I condem myself anew for not doing what I
ought to do at all times.  Further, I would be guilty of self-righteousness
and pride of my "humility, and penitent attitude" if that were possible.

There is no difference from person to person, Brian.  Each person should
NOT be concerned with what THEY ought to be doing but with what each
person in himself should be doing.

John 21
 21  Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
 22  Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that
to thee? follow thou me.

Each one of us should repeat this over and over until it sinks in.
UNTIL IT SINKS IN.

MM