 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
 More Definitions |
Posted Jun 27, 2009; 6:14 pm |
|
Hi RR
The topic of forgiveness is obviously complex and even though I separated trust and forgiveness- as you note- they are wound together.
Taking up Lorne and Sudsy’s challenge to define terms let me give it a go and see if that clarifies anything.
From my end forgiveness is related to debt. If someone owes me and I forgive them- the debt is gone. Do I feel good about that or try to re-engage that debt? Sometimes- but if I have truly forgiven I have no real recourse. I might even be resentful- but the debt is gone and my resentment is my problem.
Using that metaphor- if someone owes me nothing- I have nothing to forgive and any resentment I have is really my own problem. That doesn’t mean I don’t have resentment against people who owe me nothing. They may be entirely unaware of my resentment against them.
Further to that metaphor- while you agree with me that we don’t have the right to forgive on behalf others, IMO a lot of forgiveness language is exactly that. What else does collective forgiveness mean? There is an aspect of that that makes no sense to me. I can forgive- a church or denomination can’t. [I do note that you did define the church as a collection of individual members.] As for forgiving Jim- it seems to me that as an individual he owes us so little that the amount of forgiveness required of us [who are in the outer rings of his impact] doesn't pose a very great challenge. It is wise for him to ask us for forgiveness but I don't think that it is the issue. I think it is trust.
On the matter of trust- from my end the question is- is the level of trust warranted? Forgiveness- by definition is never warranted- it is given in spite of warrant. That is why it is so powerful and Godly.
When it comes time to decide whether or not to trust Jim, whether that is his wife or those he is accountable to- I pray for wisdom for those who have to make the call.
On the power imbalance question I have even more struggles. I grew up in a family of boys who spent their childhood existence fighting with each other. The loser was always the result of a power imbalance. If you are the littler one- you obviously will never win an arm wrestle but you can win at chess if you have more brain-power. I can’t see what is wrong with power imbalances. Seems that’s life.
I spent some 15 years coaching my children’s and grandson’s soccer teams- often on teams with a serious power deficits. Beating that deficit was always our challenge. Some power deficit teams let it get to them. That was sad to watch.
I am sure that there is a real issue behind it but for the most part power deficit language confuses me- but maybe I have a brain deficit in this regard. It wouldn’t be the first time :) |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Jun 27, 2009; 7:54 pm |
|
There is another aspect of offense, apology and forgiveness that is bugging me. I am not quite sure how to express it, but one way might be "the right to feel offended." If someone does an act or says a thing which is in itself not wrong or false, but another takes offense because of what ever their own views or issues are, what was the "sin" or offense?
For example, Jesus never sinned but he caused huge offenses - enough to get killed for them. He is even called a rock of offense. I notice this when I participate on a Jewish forum. Should Jesus apologize because millions are offended at him? Should we Christians apologize for exclusive truth claims which many see as arrogance?
Lately, I have seen numerous examples of politicians apologizing in public for some private comment that may even be true, that someone recorded and released. It is of the "if I have offended anyone, I truly apologize" variety. If you have to say "if" then there is no admission of wrongdoing anyway. A real sin that needs to be admitted, repented of and forgiven does not have "if" in the confession. The governor of South Carolina admits adultery and coverup. That is a confession and he needs forgiveness - at least from God, his wife and his kids - it is to them he owed the primary responsibility of marital fidelity. Federal Minister Raitt who, in a private conversation called the isotope shortage issue a "sexy" issue for the media, spoke the truth. But she is apologizing to the general public in tears because some people spun this in public as being insensitive to people in need of diagnoses, etc. As far as I am concerned, if you listen to somebody's private conversation you need to (a) realize things will be expressed in a different manner than the same truth would be expressed in a public speech, and (b) if you get offended, it's your own issue.
On my home church's website is a blog posting by the Pastor to Women which I commend in this regard. See http://northview.org/index.php/comments/breathing_through_disappointments/ |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| forgiveness can be costly |
Posted Jun 27, 2009; 11:19 pm |
|
Hello Lorne,
While I can appreciate the blog posting you provided, it deals specifically with the daily disappointments we (as men and women) may experience.
There may be more difficult experiences that individuals face, however, requiring a more nuanced approach to forgiveness. This is particularly true when something or someone of value has been lost or taken.
Years ago our daughters attended the same Winnipeg Christian highschool as Candace Derksen did when she was abducted and murdered. Her mother and father, Wilma and Cliff Derksen, have been very public about their struggle to learn and practice forgiveness. Wilma's story of responding to the crime committed against their daughter is a deeply moving experience. As a result, she founded a program known as Victim's Voice. Her story is included among those of others who are included in a valuable resource found at http://www.journeytowardforgiveness.com/mapping/article4.asp
The experience of this family went beyond the "right to feel offended". Many struggles with forgiveness, including my own, are not a matter of being disappointed but rather dealing with the reality of a significant loss. What is lost can often not be replaced but ultimately only forgiven (which is the ultimate goal). While there may a need for justice and punishment (i.e. the ciriminal case for Candace's murderer), this punishment is ineffectual in terms of undoing the past. Many victims of violence are in fact disappointed that they don't feel more satisfaction after a judge/jury finds their perpetrator guilty and pronounces a sentence of punishment. In my struggle to forgive I was not seeking punishment or justice but rather wisdom, understanding and accountable change - within myself.
In this light, does the offense Jesus caused belong in the same category as the sins/offenses committed by everyday folk against one another, or the grave errors of judgment that cause significant loss of life, reputation or marital relationships, etc.? Are we not making light of human sin, injustice and acts of crime when we place these true faults in the same category as Jesus' righteous acts which subsequently caused the self-righteous to protest and resist self-examination and repentence?
Last edited by roadrunning on Jun 28, 2009; 12:49 am; edited 4 times in total. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Re: What do we mean? |
Posted Jun 27, 2009; 11:24 pm |
|
| lornewel wrote: | The next meaning I'd like to explore is "power" and "power imbalance." What do we mean by these terms as used in this thread?
Does a person with a forceful personality or assertive manner have "power" just because others choose not to confront or respond in kind? |
thanks for your posts Lorne, i'll respond to your question (quoted above).
Perhaps, a way to think about 'power' is to think of influence. And very quiet, mild people can influence the outcome of events.
To answer your question directly, yes the person with a forceful personality/assertive manner has power and can influence the outcome of events when others choose not to confront or respond in kind (although, i'd like to think it may not always be necessary to respond to a forceful personality or assertive manner 'in kind.')
sidebar comment: There is a line which should not be crossed where those with forceful personalities/assertive manners can move into agressive behaviours. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| power imbalance |
Posted Jun 28, 2009; 9:54 pm |
|
Hello Lorne,
I want to response to a question you asked in an earlier post: | Quote: | The next meaning I'd like to explore is "power" and "power imbalance." What do we mean by these terms as used in this thread?
|
I understand 'power imbalance' to include (but not be limited to) behavior that discriminates against some member/s within a relationship. This behavior can be built into a social system through structural differences in access and treatment for some individuals when compared to others within the same grouping. In some relationships there is a basic inequity. Inequity is a distribution of some good which not simply 'unequal' but rather unfair and unjust. We might need to define 'fair' and 'just' to fully define inequity. In terms of marital infidelity, for example, secrecy can create inequity. The two partners are not able to engage on 'equal terms' because they don't have access to the same information.
When behaviors and structural differences that allow for inequity are exposed and/or addressed, a 'power imbalance' might reveal itself. A 'self-serving' explanation for why these inequities exist, or why these inequities should be ignored, may emerge. "Self-serving" explanations tend to emphasize the good and not to take responsibility for failure. In some cases, false claims of humility can result. Under these conditions, humility becomes a claim to be better or more special than others. False claims of humility can incite and/or illicit unworthy flattery and lead to tyranny, arbitrary behaviour and arrogance.
Addressing a power imbalance does not allow the power to be taken from one and given to another but involves promoting mutual responsibilities. It is necessary to disallow one party to dominate or coerce another party.
One example of a power imbalance is verbal bullying. When addressing verbal bullying, the 'victim' is not given the power to verbally assault the 'bully'. Rather, some effort is made to allow for the level of respect that is missing. This might mean providing a complete hearing for the one who has been silenced by the bullying, understanding the reasons for the bullying, identifying possible solutions that are important for each of the parties involved ('victim' and 'bully'), and making sure the information about the matter is not misrepresented, but fair and just.
This is just one example of a 'power imbalance' in a relationship. Hopefully this is somewhat helpful as a beginning to this definitional work. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Jun 29, 2009; 1:36 am |
|
RR, I think you were making the same point I was - there are "real" offenses, like the murder of Candace Derksen which call for real confessions and real repentance leading to real forgiveness.
But there are also "perceived" offences when there has been no actual wrongdoing. Jesus' strong words which offended many and his claims which still offend today are in this second category. Somewhat alike are comments which are made in private and are truthful in content but, when made public by someone who is not the ally of the speaker, may cause some to take offence. What "sin" shall that speaker confess?
RR's first post said some church leaders "misrepresented my character in a rather public way." That sounds like lying or at least slander - both of which are sins. There was a formal apology. Apologies are not always the same as confession. If one has sinned, he should confess it by clearly naming it. If the church leaders spoke falsehood, their confession should admit that what they said was false. I also believe that the "circle of confession and restitution" should be the same size as the "circle of offence." If one speaks slander to one other individual, he must confess it to the person slandered and to the hearer and not spread the poison further by making it public. But if the slander was done to a large group in the first place, then the confession and restitution must include the wide group.
Back to the topic of "power imbalance in the church." I still have not seen somebody say who has power in the church, whether they should have that power (biblically) and, if so, why it would constitute an "imbalance." What power is there and why should it be balanced by some other power?
Ephesians 4 says that God has placed in the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. To the extent that those have "power" it is the power to equip believers to become mature. And that power is God-given. It is not the power to "lord it over" others, but to be servants even as Jesus taught and displayed. On the other hand, we are commanded to obey those who have the rule over us in the church, because they have to give an account for their leadership of us. I think those who had the rule in the NT were the elders. Is there something in the Bible to say their authority is to be offset or counter-balanced somehow? Or is it our culture's ideas of democracy which have infiltrated the church which make us think that? |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| number of topics |
Posted Jun 29, 2009; 8:20 am |
|
Hello Lorne,
We do share a common perspective related to real and perceived offenses. I agree that dealing with perceived offenses can be very difficult because the nature of the offense cannot be dealt with clearly since it is, in some sense, fabricated.
I appreciated the links you drew between confession and apology. I think this link is important. Can one offer a genuine apology if there has been no acknowledgment or confession of the wrongdoing? I also appreciated the idea that confession and restitution belongs within the group that has been effected by the sin. I think this may be what James Toews was addressing with his concern about who is responsible to forgive Jim.
You asked a couple of questions: | Quote: | | we are commanded to obey those who have the rule over us in the church, because they have to give an account for their leadership of us. I think those who had the rule in the NT were the elders. Is there something in the Bible to say their authority is to be offset or counter-balanced somehow? Or is it our culture's ideas of democracy which have infiltrated the church which make us think that? |
I think some of these issues of power and counter-balance were addressed during the Protestant Reformation. It has been suggested that the Christian church is once again in some kind of 'reformation'. In particular, the power dynamics between the Western churches and worldwide indigenous churches have come to light and are being addressed in some quarters.
As I indicated in my previous post, I still hold that | Quote: | Addressing a power imbalance does not allow the power to be taken from one and given to another but involves promoting mutual responsibilities. It is necessary to disallow one party to dominate or coerce another party.
|
|
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Jun 29, 2009; 9:03 am |
|
Ok, RR, I think I am getting closer to understanding what you are getting at, but I am still floundering somewhat about imagining something concrete in the church when you say:
| Quote: | | Addressing a power imbalance does not allow the power to be taken from one and given to another but involves promoting mutual responsibilities. It is necessary to disallow one party to dominate or coerce another party. |
What power does one legitimately have in the church?
How is that legitimate power "taken" from one and "given" to another?
Who does the taking and the giving, and how did they get the "power" to do that?
In our country, how can one dominate or coerce another in the local church, snce it is a voluntary association and anyone can leave rather than be coerced?
Could you elaborate on this statement please: | Quote: | | In particular, the power dynamics between the Western churches and worldwide indigenous churches have come to light and are being addressed in some quarters. |
|
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 29, 2009; 2:38 pm |
|
Lorne posted -
| Quote: | | On the other hand, we are commanded to obey those who have the rule over us in the church, because they have to give an account for their leadership of us. I think those who had the rule in the NT were the elders. Is there something in the Bible to say their authority is to be offset or counter-balanced somehow? Or is it our culture's ideas of democracy which have infiltrated the church which make us think that? |
IMO, there need be no 'counter-balance' of authority. But the leaders/elders of one local church and/or denomination may take a different stand on an issue than the leaders/elders of another Christian group. And, as was pointed out, we can go to the local church of our choice. Or perhaps, we have made a commitment in a formal membership that would mean we must break this covenant. Hmmm, another thing to consider.  In some cases, it would probably be better for some MBs or Baptists or Pentecostals or whoever, to move on to another church and discover for themselves whether the issue is really with them or not. However, some never learn or quit running around from church to church as they will not come under any authority that does not fit with their own judgements on what is just and fair and/or to their tastes. They are 'strangers passing through' but in the wrong sense of the term. 
In the area of what is 'just' and 'fair' I think of the life of Joseph. His own brothers threw him in a pit and then sold him and lied about what happened to him. Potiphar's wife tried to seduce him and when he rejected her he was wrongly accused of rape and thrown in a terrible dungeon for years. But did any of this change God's plans for Joseph ? Things work together for the good in God's timing, not ours. Life will not seem to be fair at times and when it comes to suffering, why not me.
No mortal man or group of men can supersede the plan of God for our lives. God sees and knows what will happen to us before it occurs. He is still the one in ultimate control. There is great freedom in this belief. As Joseph showed, I believe he remained free from these offenses, remained submitted and faithful to God and God blessed him richly in the end. I must live 'by faith' regarding what is 'just and 'fair' and not 'by sight'. God will make all things right in his time. We have to trust Him in this.
Well, sorry to ramble on. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Lorne |
Posted Jun 29, 2009; 8:40 pm |
|
You’ve been asking good, thought provoking questions. Perhaps, one of the issues we are having on this Thread is that we are speaking in generalities rather than specific situations (other than the recent Herald letter asking for forgiveness). So this thread may be a bit frustrating, and imo that’s fine. This Forum probably isn’t suited for dealing with specific situations.
In dealing with power/submission/power imbalance you’ve referenced Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”
Within a church setting, the ‘sheep’ i.e. general membership are to submit to leadership. I also think there is a kind of mutual submission going on – where leadership (both salaried and volunteer) are held accountable by the larger body (and within our denominational setting also by denominational leadership). The idea of a self-perpetuating leadership team that doesn’t have to answer to the church body strikes me as dangerous.
I think what makes how power manifests within church/denominational settings so critical is our expectations for Christian love, ethics and integrity. We rightfully pour ‘family language’ into our church interactions and thus have high expectations of how things should be handled.
edited once.
Last edited by westcoast frame of mind on Jun 30, 2009; 7:32 am; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| questions about human power |
Posted Jun 30, 2009; 1:11 am |
|
Hello Lorne,
You asked some good questions: | Quote: | What power does one legitimately have in the church?
How is that legitimate power "taken" from one and "given" to another?
Who does the taking and the giving, and how did they get the "power" to do that?
In our country, how can one dominate or coerce another in the local church, snce it is a voluntary association and anyone can leave rather than be coerced?
|
I will attempt to provide answers that are meaningful to me. Hopefully these responses will faciliate further fruitful discussion.
1. As human beings - within the church and outside of the church - we have legitimate power that comes with being human. We can think, speak, plan, act, and create. We possess and express a wide range of emotion, will and intellect. We have the power to reproduce children, values, and cultures. There are many other powers that humans share (i.e. the five senses) and that can be legitimately exercised within the church communities.
2. I made the point that dealing with a power imbalance is NOT about taking power away from one individual/group and giving it to another individual/group, but rather about acknowledging that each has a common set of human responsibilities and each should be given the opportunity to fulfill these. So "taking" power away from someone would mean that one individual (stronger) takes responsibility for another (weaker) to such an extent that the "weaker" one is not encouraged or allowed to exercise their human responsibility to think, speak, plan, act and create - to express a legitimate range of emotion, will and intellect. If power was "taken" and then "given" to another, the 'stronger' would become the 'weaker' and the 'weaker' could restrict the exercise of mutual human responsibilities. The problem of a power imbalance would not be addressed but simply reversed.
3. Generally people are 'given' the power to take power away from others through structural forms that are in place. For example, some workplaces are caught up with union struggles that seek to 'take' power away from management and give it to the worker. This option of 'taking' power away is sometimes favored over facilitated processes/mediation which seeks to address a preceived power imbalance by focusing the mutual responsibilities of each party. http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com
The same thing can happen in some churches where leaders handle most of the church responsibilities and those in the pew have little responsibility for what happens in the church on a day to day basis. Sometimes church members feel disempowered and will try to find illegitimate ways to 'take' the power away from the leaders and 'give' it to lay members. This is not the same as working to find a legitimate balance of mutuality and respect for both leaders and laity.
4. Both leaders/pastors and individual members have been 'forced' to leave churches through various means. When the leader. pastor and/or member would have preferred to stay and work together with the church they are part of, but are treated as no longer welcome, or dismissed, the move to leave can feel like it was involuntary.
Lorne, you also asked what I meant by the current address of the power dynamics between Western churches and indigenous churches. There are some articles about this at http://www.christianityinchina.org |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Jun 30, 2009; 10:10 am |
|
Wow, RR, on the issue of "power imbalance" in the church it seems like I was thinking you meant something WAY different than what you are now describing. I think the reason I was thinking along a different line is that your first post spoke of a group of leaders in the church who wronged you, and it was out of that that you suggested we explore the power imbalance in the church.
You now write: We can think, speak, plan, act, and create. We possess and express a wide range of emotion, will and intellect. We have the power to reproduce children, values, and cultures. There are many other powers that humans share (i.e. the five senses) and that can be legitimately exercised within the church communities.
So in this paragraph you are using "power" to describe what I would call "abilities" or "faculties" and not at all power in the sense of authority or "lording it over" another. Now certainly if one were lording it over another he could be using some of these common abilities we all have in different measure. But you surely cannot mean that we have to "take" some ability from one person and give it to another in order to correct some kind of "ability imbalance?" If you have the power to reproduce (as one point of power you mentioned) and have 4 kids and I am unable to have any, should you have to give me one of yours to address the imbalance? To pose such a question is to answer it. If you have a superior ability to think and speak, should you "tone it down" in the church so as not to create an imbalance? Should we not rather encourage everyone to exercise every God-given ability they have to the maximum. Does not scripture teach us that God gives us different gifts as he wills? Is the diversity of gifts and abilities not a major strength of the church?
Maybe I am still not understanding you, but to think of being obliged to balance these normal human abilities gives me the mental image of the recent idea that everyone who participates in a race at school gets the same ribbon. There is no gold, siver or bronze. This is bogus. The kids all know who came in first. Those who trained hard and excelled get no encouragement for their effort and the slackers get the same "recognition" which eventually makes it meaningless. I am not saying people in the church should get gold medals, but I am saying each person should be encouraged and given opportuinty to exercise his or her abitlites to the maximum, for that benefits each other and the kingdom. Since we all have differing abilities, that may emphasize the diversity, but to me that is a good thing. We recognize that there are many different needs, so many different people are needed to meet them. Everyone gets encouraged to maximize his specific ability. This rather than some kind of "dumbing down" to the lowest common denominator. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| using our human abilities |
Posted Jun 30, 2009; 10:29 am |
|
Hello Lorne,
When I introduced this topic, I was referring to the idea that, as human beings, we have the human power, faculty, and ability to do good and to do evil.
The focus for this topic of discussion was not about 'wrongdoing' per se, but rather about the human ability to forgive when wrong has been done. Forgiveness is the human ability to "undo" the wrong that has been done to us. This power to forgive is immense since it can reach back into the past and restore what has been made wrong.
The range of human emotion I was referring to includes the option of harboring bitterness which is not helpful or good, but can rather lead to more wrongdoing. Similarly shame is a human response that can be 'undone' through loving actions of reconciliation and restoration.
All in all, I am hoping to encourage a conversation about the nature of the Christian community that can exercise accountability, confession, apologies, and forgiveness within an atmosphere that is loving, gracious and merciful. In response to David Wiebe's article, from my perspective good and positive surrender is only possible under these conditions.
God, as a good, merciful and gracious God, provides such an environment for all of us. God welcomes us to surrender to Him, to be accountable for our actions, to confess our sins and wrongdoings, to offer good apologies and to accept and extend forgiveness. May we, as recipients of God's good grace and love find that we have the power to do likewise through the gift and power of the Holy Spirit who is able to do immeasureably more than we can imagine, ask or think. Blessed be the Lord our God who gives us all good things.
By the way - on the matter of this topic - I have found through the course of this topic discussion that I have been able to "let go" of the residual bitterness and shame I was feeling. I think having an open discussion about what was concerning me was helpful. I believe that ultimately it is at the feet of Christ that I lay down my bitterness and shame, and I believe and trust that Christ makes all things new again.
I am deeply thankful for our Lord Jesus Christ who can to take our sins upon himself, in complete surrender to God, our Father, and can offer us forgiveness - even as we struggle to do good and end up 'fallin short of the glory of God'. Ultimately we all need to hear and accept: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Moderator's note |
Posted Jul 3, 2009; 12:37 pm |
|
I've started a new Thread called Servant Leadership / Spiritual Authority - found under Discuss Christianity.
I've moved several recent posts from the present thread (Forgiveness) which relate to leadership structure, power, etc. Anyone wanting to continue to post about forgiveness / surrender on this Thread - please do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
