In a later interview with Laura Ingram the father in question somewhat clarified his earlier blanket forgiveness, thus making more clear what he had said earlier.
This is not the first time that we have seen this kind of blanket “forgiveness” by folks in the face of heinous crimes against their loved ones. In the past few years I remember another case in Indiana where a white man forgave the black murderers of his white wife.
Now, the way this “forgiveness” can come across, especially when offered in the context of this kind of horrid sin, is that the person forgiving is willing to let “bygones be bygones,” as if we are going to ignore the necessity to hate unrighteousness. However, the God who instructs us to forgive is the same God who commands us to “hate that which is evil,” and it it is no hatred of evil to come across as if one treats grievous sin lightly.
I think somewhere along the way the Christian church has done a disservice to its members by teaching them to respond to glaring evil with a seeming nonchalant “I forgive you for raping and murdering my wife,” or, “I forgive you for driving a knife into my son’s chest because he told you to go sit somewhere else.”
Allow me to suggest that our forgiving someone doesn’t mean that the consequences that sin brings are no longer in force. Horizontal forgiveness does not mean the offender gets repeated opportunities to do us harm. “I forgive you” is to release us from vindictiveness and bitterness but it does not mean we put ourselves again in the position to be offended against by the perp. In a realistic world the husband of the murdered wife in Indiana could have said in one breath; “Personally, I forgive you thus releasing my personal vengeance against you but I will do all that I can to see that you get the death penalty.” There is no inconsistency in this statement. Neither would it be inconsistent at that point to plead with the criminal by visiting them in jail repeatedly that they repent and trust Christ, all the while insisting that they be visited with capital punishment.
I may forgive a babysitter for doing something harmful to my children, but that person will never babysit my children again no matter how much they repent. Further, I will make it known to others that the abusive babysitter should not be brought into their homes to babysit. However, that doesn’t mean that I haven’t forgiven the abusive babysitter.
Forgiveness, in these kinds of cases, has to have not only in mind our relationship to the person who has violated us but it must also have in mind other people who will in the future have interaction with the perp. Do we really want to argue that my personal forgiveness of someone means that the perp should not be met with the full weight of the law? This kind of forgiveness would put others in the cross-hairs of future similar behavior. This kind of forgiveness – a forgiveness that would diminish the just penalty against public crime – would be a violation of the 6th commandment. Similarly, a kind of forgiveness that would divert from the awfulness of the crime could also be seen as not giving the 6th commandment its full weight.
Wilhelmus à Brakel’s in his systematic theology, “The Christian’s Reasonable Service” writes;
“To say, “I forgive you” when such is not warranted is a triumphant boasting of your kindness and will harden the offender in his sin.”
Vol. 3 — p. 565-566
I am not confident that the kind of forgiveness that we see in these kind of tragedies is really a biblical forgiveness.
Rev. Zach Garris pointed me to a quote here from the great Southern Presbyterian Benjamin Morgan Palmer which sustain what I have been teaching/preaching for some years. While insisting that Christians must forgive the perp, Palmer noted here;
“Forgiveness does not necessarily include restoration to full confidence, as before the offence,” as “the offence may disclose attributes of character.” So while we must forgive others, “it may be sometimes our duty to protest against a wrong which we heartily forgive, by the withdrawal of intercourse—not as an act of resentment, but as a judicial testimony against sin.”
Secondly, we must continue to plead with people to be realistic concerning the issue of race. It is no surprise that the perp who killed the white lad was black. This is not to say that all black people are murderers but it is to say that statistics overwhelmingly bear out that when it comes to violent crimes people of color are more likely to be the perps. Only in a brain dead world is it considered bad form to notice significant and repeatable patterns in various people groups.
Click to access Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf
Even Rev. Jesse Jackson confirmed my point when years ago he wrote;
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps… then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
If Jesse Jackson can recognize the reality that people of color are more likely to be perps in violent crimes than there should be no shame in agreeing with him by saying that when around non-white people in large numbers white people’s heads should be on a swivel looking out for danger.
Even God Himself could not indulge in cheap insta-forgiveness towards fallen Adam and Eve – that would have violated His total holiness. He had to start the whole grand providential scheme and wait until Christ had paid the divine blood sacrifice before full forgiveness was made available for us.
Because pagan religions do not have this Biblical problem of how to properly balance pure love and absolute holiness (Ps. 85:10), they can sometimes (at least on theoretical and mythical level) promote the ideal of very nonchalant insta-forgiveness:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/forum/the-academy/religion-and-mythology/88267-ancient-buddhist-sutra-preaching-modern-liberal-ethics?p=1834311#post1834311
“By accenting the central Buddhist notion that there was no self, the later Mahayana Buddhists transformed the notion of the Buddhist sage into a totally altruistic being.
…
The bodhisattva, like the good utilitarian, is concerned for all persons equally. The bodhisattva “must educate his mind that he may feel in each case the same affection for all creatures that naturally centres in his son, or in himself.”[clvi] There is no privileging of the bodhisattva’s personal sorrows or personal concerns over the concerns of other people. “Another’s sorrow is to be destroyed by me because it is sorrow like my own sorrow… Since a neighbor and I are equal in desiring happiness, what is the unique quality of the ‘self’ which requires an effort for happiness?”[clvii]
…
Not only should the bodhisattva accept torture from humans in a loving manner, he should also accept painful treatment from animals. For if he is attacked and eaten by wild animals “he should react with the thought: ‘If these wild beasts should devour me, then just that will be my gift to them.”[clxvii]”
Viisaus,
I find this correlation with Buddhism to be fascinating. Thank you for adding so much here.
R.L. Dabney, the granddaddy of modern Kinist theologians, already noted the “inhuman” ideal of total altruism that Buddhism was preaching (and failing to practice):
https://archive.org/details/DiscussionsOfRobertLewisDabneyVol.4Secular/page/n573/mode/2up?view=theater
“That is to say: the Buddhist saint, in order to be perfect, must make himself a cold, inhuman villain, recreant to every social duty. Such, indeed, their own history makes their chief “hero of the faith,” Prince Gautama, who begins his saintship by absconding like a coward, and forsaking all his duties to his wife, his son, his concubines, his parents, and his subjects. But they say he afterward showed sublime altruism by offering his body to be eaten by a hungry tigress, which had not succeeded in torturing and devouring enough antelopes to make milk for her cubs. Bah! methinks he would have done better to care for his own deserted human cub!
Once more, the scheme founds itself on an impossibility. Man can not by his volition expunge native appetencies, because these furnish the only springs of volitions. Can the child be its own father? Eating results in dyspepsia; therefore, not only cease eating absolutely, but cease being hungry. That is the recipe for the distress of dyspepsia! But first, it is impossible; second, were it done, all mankind would be destroyed in a few weeks. Common sense says that when a man goes to professing the impossible he begins to be a cheat. And this is the practical trait of Buddhism.”
So – even though we should not too eagerly listen to our fallen, fleshly hearts that might loudly shout out for vengeance in cases like this, neither should we entirely ignore what our hearts have to say either. After all, “grace build upon nature,” and God has given us our natural instincts for a reason; they might be tainted, but they are not totally erroneous either. Therefore, a serious Christian believer who looks at a case like this, and might sincerely disagree with the simplistic call to “just lynch that nigger,” still finds in his heart a stubborn sense that somehow it was just WRONG for a father to give such an easy absolution for his son’s killer.
And when we begin to use our God-given logos, or reason, and approach this question theologically, or in a theocentric manner, we come to see that ultimately, “cheap forgiveness” or “cheap grace” dishonors the cross of Christ, by making the satisfaction of sins seem such an effortless matter, and sin itself no big deal.
A simple child might ask: “Why can’t God just forgive sinners?” Or, why could not God just let Adam and Eve off with a warning in Genesis 3? The easy-forgiveness crowd cannot answer such queries very well. Thus our deeper thinking confirms and justifies those suspicions our first impressions or natural instincts first gave us.
Like in the “Midwit” meme, the deep thinker comes to adopt much the same position that the simple-minded, instinct-driven man had, but which the “sophisticated” midwit person dismissed in favor of some convoluted explanation:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/iq-bell-curve-midwit
Yes, forgiveness as a word has multiple meanings and gives an excuse to those looking for one to mock the Christian faith. That won’t work out well.
Growing up, I thought it meant not holding a person to just consequences but I wasn’t raised in a Biblical focused house.
I’m still waiting to see if any big info comes out about the facts of the fight. For example, if Metcalf used the n word, then I think most good-whites will be glad he was murdered.
What fascinates me about it is the black community was so quick to develop rumors about what happened and apparently believe them. I read of the rumors in the NY Post yesterday, but already forgot what they were unfortunately. Such damaging gullibility seems almost like a spiritual issue rather than intellectual. Reminds me of a very conservative mature Christian who in 2016 was convinced Trump was going to take away the right to vote from black people. I couldn’t get through to him.
Kurt… you’re not saying that the murder would be justified if Metcalf called Karmelo a nig are you?
No, I am not. I am guessing that a lot of support the Metcalf family has now would decrease if that happened. Just as important, it could sway a jury in Anthony’s favor too. “Good-white” is a pejorative for emotionally driven whites who refuse to admit to documented truths about race.
I see the Nashville tranny shooter changed her target school because she was fearful of being called a racist due to the higher minority count at her original choice. She’s a good-white. She is okay to murder kids, but don’t call her a racist.
Hello Kurt
Thanks for clarifying.
I’ll keep that “good whites” phrase in my repertoire.
In regards to Kurt’s statement: “For example, if Metcalf used the n word, then I think most good-whites will be glad he was murdered”. Whoa.
First, I doubt that most White folk would think it justified to kill a person because of name calling, specifically for using the original Latin pronunciation of the word “negro” as stated in Webster’s 1828. Next, if some Whites do think an ethnonym authorizes the murder of Metcalf, then they are by definition *NOT* good Whites, but theological idiots and enemies of their kin.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/negro
Joe…. Kurt explained his comment above. I understand what he was saying.