Forgive? Maybe. Forget? Never!

When one attempts to talk about past incidents which have negatively affected one's life, one is sometimes likely to be told that one should "get over it" and "move on with one's life" and "forgive and forget." Such glib and uncompassionate advice, which I've heard from Christian pulpits from time to time, treats regrettable past events as if there is never any logically or morally defensible reason to want or need to discuss such incidents with others.

That is simply false. As the southern novelist William Faulkner once wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past"

Traumatic events sometimes cause deep wounds and scars which can take a lot of time to heal. Yes, there are instances in which God miraculously heals painful memories instantly, but it's both insulting and presumptuous to assume that such exceptional incidents are or ought to be the norm. Counselors who don't give wounded people adequate time in which to heal from such events ought to be regarded as professionally incompetent.

Furthermore, even when complete healing has been achieved, it doesn't follow from that fact that remembering past events serves no other valid purposes. Prevention of similar events in the future, for instance, is a particularly valid purpose.

What did Faulkner mean when he said that the past wasn't even past? I believe that he meant that present realities are inextricably connected to past events, and it's naive to think that one can adequately address existing problems without a willingness to honestly examine and discuss the events which caused or led to those problems in the first place. Ignorance may be bliss, but only in the short term. In the long term, ignorance can lead to enormous problems. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," said the philosopher George Santayana. If one is unable or unwilling to learn from past mistakes, how can progress ever be achieved? It is immature and idiotic to equate spiritual maturity with self-imposed amnesia.

It's important to discuss and remember horrific tragedies such as the Holocaust. That's why we have a United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Many people would like to just forget or deny that the Holocaust ever took place. But we need to be periodically and graphically reminded, so that such things will never happen again. We also need to be reminded of our great capacity for evil, so that we will better understand our moral depravity and our desperate need for God.

Writing about the Holocaust, Ellie Wiesenthal wrote, "For the survivor who chooses to testify, it is clear: his duty is to bear witness for the dead and the living. He has no right to deprive future generations of a past that belongs to our collective memory. To forget would be not only dangerous but offensive; to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time."

The same could be said about other large-scale tragedies, such as the terrorist attacks in 2001; and also to individual tragedies, such as the extreme child abuse to which author Dave Pelzer and many other children have been subjected.

If we took literally the advice of those who say that we should instantly forget the sins and crimes of the past, it would be impossible to seek justice in our nation's courts. Vicious predators would forever prey on innocent victims, and we would be partly to blame for subsequent crimes which they committed, on account of our moral cowardice. Remembering is essential if we want to be a society of laws, not anarchy.

I find it ironic that some Christians say that one ought not to ever "live in the past," inasmuch as the entirety of the Christian experience is based on a willingness to regularly remember and reflect upon incidents which took place more than two millenia ago. Jesus specifically told us, regarding the eucharist, to "take these in rememberance of me". Rememberance can be both good and necessary.

Yes, it's true that it can be unhealthy to continually wallow in sorrow, without making an effort to balance things out by thinking about positive things. But it's equally unhealthy to live in denial and to live a life which is devoid of authenticity and honesty. Pastors and other spiritual leaders who insist that the members of their congregation live in denial are guilty of abdicating their fundamental moral responsibilities towards the people in their care.

This is not a trivial matter. If our pastors insist on promoting simplistic ideas about forgiveness which make it impossible to adequately address problems or to hold people accountable for wrongdoing, then they are unworthy of our continual allegiance, no matter how many other good things we may be able to say about them.

Forgiveness and Community

At the Lifeway book store at Moody Bible Institute, I recently bought a book entitled Death by Church, by Mike Erre. Mike is a teaching pastor at Rock Harbor church.

There's a lot of quoteworthy material in the book, pertaining to various problems in the modern church. Here's a perceptive quote, from page 114, which I found particularly interesting:

Pastoral ministry has now been reduced to marketing and psychotherapy --- disciplines that both concentrate exclusively on the individual. The message of the gospel is treated the same way. The American gospel concerns itself solely with the inner, private world of people as they exist in relation to God. There is usually no talk of community, tradition or public accountability. (After all, who are you to stand between me and God?) Faith exists as a private exercise, a personal option, an individual choice.

The problem with the approach to ministry described in the preceding paragraph, is that such an approach does a poor job of resolving the myriad human problems which are relational in nature.

Ironically, the end result is that such an approach doesn't even work very well in terms of addressing problems concerned with individuals. The state of mind of an individual who has been harmed by the sins of others cannot be divorced from the larger context of the community in which that individual lives, if one wishes to accurately perceive the problems of that individual and the solutions to those problems.

I am thinking, in particular, of the way that many people define our obligations and relationships with one another in relation to the extremely important issue of forgiveness.

There are many Christians today who, based on the correct observation that God's love for mankind is unconditional, and based on erroneous interpretations of certain passages of scripture pertaining to forgiveness, have concluded that God's forgiveness of sinners is likewise unconditional, and that our forgiveness of others who have sinned against us should therefore also be unconditional.

This teaching (found in books such as Forgive and Forget by Lewis Smedes) contradicts the scriptures, which clearly teach that God's forgiveness of sinners is predicated on the willingness of such sinners to ask for forgiveness and to repent.

If forgiveness were unconditional, then defiant and unrepentant sinners would nevertheless go to heaven. There would be no hell. That's the gospel of wishful thinking (otherwise known as "universalism"), not the gospel of Jesus Christ which is found in the Bible.

From Forgiven to Forgiving, by Jay Adams, is a book which provides a welcome antidote to the fallacies advocated in such books. Here's a link to an interesting related blog post also written by that author.

In particular, some people seem to have missed the point with regard to the primary reason for forgiveness. They have taught that the primary function of forgiveness (or at least one of the primary functions) is to serve as "therapy" for the sake of the forgiver. (That's why I was reminded of this subject when reading the preceding quotation by Mike Erre.) In other words, people who teach this doctrine believe that the forgiver forgives for his or her own sake (e.g., to enable the forgiver to "find closure" and "get on with life"), not for the sake of the person being forgiven or for the sake of the relationship between the offender and the offended party.

On the face of it, that's nonsense. Tell me: Who is the primary beneficiary when God forgives a sinner? God? Or the sinner?

The answer is obvious: The sinner is the primary beneficiary. God needs no therapy. God is Lord of the universe.

I'm not denying that God's heart is broken (to put things in somewhat anthropomorphic and therefore inaccurate terms) when we sin against God. But there is a reason God's heart is broken by our sin, and the reason isn't that his feelings have been hurt. The reason is that God earnestly, even passionately desires intimate relationships with all of the people God has created. Sin makes such relationships impossible, because God is a holy God. Sin thwarts God's desire for fellowship with people. Therefore, God offers forgiveness, for the purpose of a restoration of the fellowship relationship between God and the forgiven sinner.

Notice that I said that God offers forgiveness to all sinners (which is within his power to do, without compromising his holiness, because of the atonement of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross). I didn't say that God grants forgiveness to all sinners.

It would be nonsensical to say that God had forgiven a person, but that God had sent that person to hell nevertheless. What would be the point of forgiveness if it did not alter one's eternal destiny in the slightest?

God is indeed an incredibly loving and merciful God, and he is willing to forgive us, if we will only call on the name of Jesus Christ and ask for forgiveness. But that "if" is all-important.

If we could be forgiven without repentance, where would be the incentive to repent? There would be none. The same principle is equally applicable to human relationships. Unconditional forgiveness has the effect, intentional or not, of encouraging people to continue in their self-centered patterns of behavior. Such forgiveness was correctly described as "cheap grace" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (and as "sloppy Agape" by others).

I have actually heard some Christians say that forgiveness is completely separate from the issue of reconciliation. They will tell you that one can forgive others, without the expectation that such forgiveness will result in reconciliation.

When one meditates on the fact that God's forgiveness of sinners is offered to us for the precise purpose of reconciling sinful man to a holy God, it boggles the mind to think that anyone would think that human forgiveness would be any different in that respect.

True reconciliation requires honesty, because the perpetuation of lies prevents the kind of emotional and spiritual intimacy which is the object of reconciliation. If one has to deceive one's self in order to believe that a level of trust has been restored in a particular relationship, then the so-called reconciliation is pointless.

Repentance does not offer any 100% guarantees (because even repentant people are fallible, and may yet sin again), but it does offer a foundation of understanding which makes eventual and total reconciliation possible. Without such a foundation, there is no logical reason for forgiveness.

It is an enormous disservice to Christians who have been harmed by other Christians or by others to essentially tell them to sweep all of the very real issues which hinder the process of reconcilliation under the rug and pretend that issues which have not been resolved have been resolved. Such false and irresponsible counsel constitutes an abdication of the moral responsibility which rests upon church leaders to hold Christians accountable for their actions. In the final analysis, it even constitutes an abdication of their responsibilities to offending parties, because failure to hold such people accountable hinders them from engaging in the acts which are necessary in order for them to experience the benefits of genuine forgiveness and reconciliation. The process of genuine spiritual and emotional growth is hindered when people are not held accountable for their actions.

In Mike Erre's book, he talks extensively about a "disparity between belief and behavior" which characterizes the lives of many professing Christians. That's easy to understand, when one considers the exceedingly harmful results of church practices based on a false understanding of forgiveness. Such a doctrine negates the possibility of the "public accountability" Erre talks about in his book.

True forgiveness which is offered to all, but which is actually granted only to those who meet the necessary condition of repentance, respects the needs of others in the community who might conceivably be hurt in the future by similarly hurtful acts. Unconditional forgiveness fails to respect those needs, inasmuch as it fails to uphold the common-sense principle that there is a connection between actions and consequences. Therefore, any definition of Christian discipleship which does not include the necessity of holding people accountable for their actions is a definition which is based on a failure to understand the idea that the kingdom of God has ramifications for communities, not just for self-centered individuals.

None of the aforementioned ideas negate the very real biblical responsibility of Christians to forgive others who sin against them and who then ask for forgiveness. The "seventy times seven" scripture still applies, because that scripture pertains to the infinite number of times we are required to forgive genuinely repentant people, not to the conditions under which people should be forgiven.

Wise Words Concerning Forgiveness

One of these days, I'm going to get around to writing a book or booklet entitled "Ten Sins of The Modern Church". (Or maybe another number. The number "ten" sounds good in a title, but it's rather arbitrary. There are so many sins which could be listed in such a book that it could conceivably grow considerably before the project is completed!)

One of the sins which I would list and discuss in the book consists of the teaching of the heresy which says that God's forgiveness, like God's love for mankind, is unconditional. That teaching, in my view, owes more to self-centered wishful thinking than it owes to the scriptures.

The best book which I've read on that subject would have to be a book, by Jay Adams, entitled From Forgiven to Forgiving. I highly recommend that you buy and read that book if you really care about dealing with the sins which others have committed against you (and with the sins which you have committed against others) in a godly and biblical manner.

Jay Adams is not the only one who took a strong stand against the aforementioned heresy. The 15th chapter of the book All of Grace by the famous evangelist Charles Spurgeon was entitled "Repentance Must Go With Forgiveness". In that chapter, he wrote the following:

Repentance must go with remission, and you will see that it is so if you think a little upon the matter. It cannot be that pardon of sin should be given to an impenitent sinner; this were to confirm him in his evil ways, and to teach him to think little of evil. If the Lord were to say, "You love sin, and live in it, and you are going on from bad to worse, but, all the same, I forgive you," this were to proclaim a horrible license for iniquity. The foundations of social order would be removed, and moral anarchy would follow. I cannot tell what innumerable mischiefs would certainly occur if you could divide repentance and forgiveness, and pass by the sin while the sinner remained as fond of it as ever. In the very nature of things, if we believe in the holiness of God, it must be so, that if we continue in our sin, and will not repent of it, we cannot be forgiven, but must reap the consequence of our obstinacy. According to the infinite goodness of God, we are promised that if we will forsake our sins, confessing them, and will, by faith, accept the grace which is provided in Christ Jesus, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. But, so long as God lives, there can be no promise of mercy to those who continue in their evil ways, and refuse to acknowledge their wrongdoing. Surely no rebel can expect the King to pardon his treason while he remains in open revolt. No one can be so foolish as to imagine that the Judge of all the earth will put away our sins if we refuse to put them away ourselves.

As Spurgeon points out, the biggest problem with the teaching of the heresy of unconditional forgiveness is that it removes the primary disincentive which would otherwise inhibit people from committing sin.

Ironically, forgiving unrepentant sinners is very similar to a refusal to forgive those who choose to repent, in terms of how the two approaches affect the future actions of those who have sinned.
If we refuse to forgive those who repent, then they are likely to conclude that there is no point in repenting (since there are no conceivable benefits associated with repentance), and they are therefore likely to keep right on sinning.

If we forgive people regardless of whether they repent or not, then they are likewise extremely likely to conclude that there is no point in repenting (since they can obtain the benefits of repentance without actually repenting), and once again, they are likely to go right on sinning.

Therefore, either extreme serves the interests of the enemy (also known as Satan), not God. By definition, any approach to sin which encourages people to keep sinning and which discourages them from ceasing to do so is contrary to the moral will of God, and is therefore a form of sin in itself.

The scriptural pattern (which Jay Adams discusses at length) is that we are supposed to hold people accountable for the sins which they commit. But that's impossible if one defines forgiveness and our related obligations in such a way that the only appropriate response to sins is to sweep them under the rug and pretend they never occurred.

That's exactly how the Catholic church responded when it was made aware of the egregiously sinful sexual abuses committed by numerous Catholic priests. The hierarchy was more concerned with public relations than with restoring the purity and integrity of the priesthood, so bishops and cardinals swept those sins under the rug and hoped that they'd never be discovered. Of course, they were discovered anyway, and the public relations disaster was far more immense than anything which would have occurred if they'd simply taken their moral responsibilities seriously right from the beginning.

Have you ever wondered why the Mafia seems to be strongest in cultures (specifically, Italian and Irish cultures) where Catholicism is the dominant form of Christianity? There is very little doubt in my mind that there is a connection between the practices of the Catholic church and organized crime, in terms of how the Catholic church tends to handle sin. In the Catholic church, sins are confessed to a priest in a private confessional booth. Regardless of the gravity of the sins being confessed, they are never brought into the light of day so that those who have committed those sins are held accountable by the larger church community. Requiring that people say their "Hail Marys" after sinning is hardly a strong disincentive to commit similar sins in the future. When absolution from sins as egregious as murder is available to all who would perform the simple rituals prescribed by their priests, it should hardly be a surprise that lawlessness prevails.

I am by no means saying that all Catholics are gangsters, or even that all Catholics support criminal activity. What I'm saying, though, is that I think that there's something about the Catholic confessional which, rather than encouraging people to strive to live holy lives, inadvertently gives those who fear genuine repentance a good excuse for continuing to sin.

What I think is particularly telling is the number of Mafia lords who have continued to regularly attend mass and to act as if they think they're good Catholics. For example, "My Jesus Mercy" is the phrase engraved on Al Capone's headstone. Al Capone had better hope that Jesus shows him a lot of mercy on Judgment Day, because Capone certainly didn't show much mercy to his enemies here on earth! Nor did his lifestyle even remotely qualify as a Christian lifestyle. Of course, I'm not discounting the possibility that he might have genuinely repented at some late stage in his life. However, there doesn't seem to be any serious historical evidence to suggest that he did so.

Catholics are hardly the only people who are guilty of promoting the heresy of unconditional forgiveness. In The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer spoke out forcefully against what he called "cheap grace". Wikipedia contains the following summary of his arguments:

One of the most important parts of the book deals with the distinction which Bonhoeffer makes between "cheap" and "costly" grace. But what is "cheap" grace? In Bonhoeffer's words: "cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ." Or, to put it even more clearly, it is to hear the gospel preached as follows: "Of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven, so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness." The main defect of such a proclamation is that it contains no demand for discipleship.

In contrast to this is costly grace: "costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. It is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." "

Bonhoeffer argues that as Christianity spread, the Church became more "secularized", accommodating the demands of obedience to Jesus to the requirements of society. In this way, "the world was Christianized, and grace became its common property." But the hazard of this was that the gospel was cheapened, and obedience to the living Christ was gradually lost beneath formula and ritual, so that in the end, grace could literally be sold for monetary gain.

"Accommodating the demands of obedience to Jesus to the requirements of society" could be described as "syncretism" (defined as "the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion"). Syncretism can be seen in its extreme forms in the blending of Christianity and pagan religions, creating weird and unbiblical hybrid religions such as Santeria. I distinctly remember the news headlines pertaining to ritual human sacrifices, committed in the eighties by the devotees of an offshoot of Santeria. (Buried Secrets is the title of a book which discusses those murders, committed by Adolfo Costanzo and his followers.)

Costanzo's murders were committed in the Spring of 1989. A year later, I attended the Music In The Rockies, sponsored by the GMA (Gospel Music Association). I'd looked forward to that event with great anticipation, but it ended up being one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life as a Christian.

One of the people I met at that seminar was an overrated Christian musician named Don Francisco. During the seminar, I attended one of Don's classes. During that class, Don talked about the negative aspects of the Christian music industry, saying that a lot of Christian musicians had been hurt and burned as a result of their experiences with that industry (and, by implication, with the Church).

Naturally, I thought that this meant that Don would be somewhat sympathetic when I told him about some of my own negative experiences, specifically in relation to a pastor who had slandered me from the pulpit and falsely accused me of just being involved in music ministry for the money. (At some later time, I will very likely post an article which will discuss that incident in greater detail, but doing so in the context of this article would only be a distraction.)

When I spoke with Don Francisco about the matter, my intention was not to engage in unbiblical and destructive gossip. My intention was simply to share my perspective with regard to a problem which Don had acknowledged and addressed earlier that day.

The reaction I got from him was nothing like what I'd expected to get. Don looked at me and pronounced, "You've got a problem with forgiveness!" Did he say this in a calm, gentle and loving manner? Not on your life! I've seldom seen someone whose eyes burned with such anger --- one might even say hate --- as he spoke to me.

Now, maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that the whole point of being a forgiving person is to love others as Christ has loved us. Therefore, preaching forgiveness with hatred burning from one's eyes strikes me as a contradiction, to put it mildly. I wanted to reply, "Maybe, but you clearly have a problem with loving your brothers and sisters in Christ, among whom I am one."

Do I have a problem with forgiveness? It depends on whether or not one agrees with the proposition that Christians are obligated for forgive people unconditionally, even though it's clear from the scriptures that Christ does not forgive us unconditionally.

The Lord's Prayer says, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." Now, to me, that word "as" means "in the same manner, and to the same extent, as".

In other words, God will only forgive us when we ask for God's forgiveness if we are equally willing to forgive all of those who ask for our forgiveness.

If I unconditionally forgive everyone who has ever sinned against me, will that obligate God to forgive me even though I remain equally unrepentant of my own sins? Of course not.

The scriptures make it clear that God's forgiveness is conditional. There are no exceptions to that principle. If there were exceptions, then that would mean that heaven would be populated, in part, by unrepentant and therefore rebellious sinners.

If God's forgiveness was unconditional, your next door neighbor in the afterlife might conceivably be an unrepentant Adolph Hitler, an unrepentant Pol Pot, an unrepentant Josef Stalin. I don't know about you, but that sounds more like hell than heaven to me.

Some people have naively asked how a loving God could send anyone to hell. I ask how a loving God could do otherwise. To refrain from punishing evil people would be to spit in the faces of all who have suffered unfairly as a result of the evil acts of such people. It would make a mockery of justice. Yes, God is a loving God, but He is also a just God. The two qualities are not at odds with each other. On the contrary, true love (for the victims of injustice) demands true justice.

The truth is that God is under no obligation to forgive any of us. The fact that God offers forgiveness to those who are willing to repent is a testimony to God's generous spirit.

God's conditions for forgiveness are very easy to meet, and can in no way be considered to be tantamount to earning one's salvation by means of good works, but that doesn't change the fact that there are conditions. We must humble ourselves, acknowledge our unworthiness, and ask for God's forgiveness! If feasible, we must demonstrate that our contrition is genuine by making restitution, and by doing everything we can to abstain from such sins in the future. That's not a whole lot for God to ask of us.

There is a clear parallel between the manner in which God forgives us and the manner in which he expects us to forgive those who have sinned against us.

God is always ready and willing to forgive all of those who ask for His forgiveness, so we should likewise be ready and willing to forgive all of those who ask us for forgiveness. But it seems both unreasonable and unscriptural to argue that we are obligated to do what even God himself is unwilling to do. If God himself refuses to forgive those who do not repent, then why should we feel an obligation to do so?

In fact, the end result of such unconditional forgiveness would be to condone the very sins which have caused us harm (and, in the process, to maximize the likelihood that others will be harmed in a similar manner by those who have not been held accountable for their actions). To effectively condone sin in the name of fulfilling our scriptural obligations would be to pervert and distort the gospel beyond recognition.

When Forgiveness Is Morally Reprehensible

Imagine that you've just been the victim of a horrendous crime. Perhaps you were raped. Perhaps you were carjacked, and the carjacker drove off with your child in the back seat, and you never saw your child again. Perhaps you were sitting in the classroom when a crazed gunman came into the room and opened fire, wounding you and killing many of your fellow classmates. Tragically, these are just a few of the real life scenarios some people have faced.

Now let's say that the police or the prosecuting attorneys come to you and ask you to talk about your experiences in detail, in the hope of catching and punishing the perpetrator. Or perhaps apprehension and conviction is no longer an issue, thanks to the fact that the perpetrator ended up killing himself. Nevertheless, the authorities are going to need for you to go over the event in painstaking detail, in order to help them to prevent similar events in the future.

If you have ever been traumatized by such an event, chances are good that you would just like to forget the whole thing and pretend that it never happened. You would much prefer that life could return to normalcy. But whether you like it or not, that is not an option. What's done has been done. Your assistance is vital in order to insure justice and in order to prevent other innocent people from being victimized.

But what about forgiveness? Didn't Jesus teach us all to forgive? Yes, he did. But there are people in this world who have drawn overly simplistic conclusions from that fact. They have concluded that being a forgiving person means staying silent in the face of evil. They have defined forgiveness in such a way that it makes it impossible to hold wrongdoers accountable for their despicable acts.

The trouble with that is that people who have committed crimes against others, or who have sinned against others, are seldom likely to stop after having committed such crimes or sins just once. Their acts are indicative of a lack of moral character on their part. If they are not held accountable for their past crimes and sins, they are very likely to commit more acts of a similar nature in the future.

To neglect one's responsibilities to the community by failing to hold wrongdoers responsible for their acts is to aid and abet such wrongdoers, and to share in their guilt to some extent.

There is no question about the fact that forgiveness is important in the life of every Christian believer. If it were not for God's willingness to forgive, our prospects for the future would be dim indeed. Jesus made it plain that God's willingness to forgive us imposed certain responsibilities on us as well. He made it clear that we could not expect God's forgiveness of our own sins if we were not willing to forgive others.

But I do not believe that Jesus meant that we ought to try to sweep all offenses under the rug and pretend that they never happened. I do not believe that he meant that wrongdoers should not be held accountable. Actions have consequences in this life, or at least, they ought to. Sometimes there is a fine line between justice and vengeance, but the line does exist.

It's morally reprehensible to define forgiveness in such a simplistic way that it prevents people from taking the steps which are necessary in order to prevent people from being harmed or sinned against in the future.

We sometimes make mistakes when attempting to hold people accountable. Some people are wrongfully accused, wrongfully arrested, wrongfully convicted and wrongfully punished. That is regrettable, and we ought to do everything in our power to prevent such occurrences. But the fact that such injustices sometimes occur in the name of justice ought not to be used as an excuse for abandoning the entire enterprise and allowing criminals and sinners to get by with harming other people.

There are differences between sins which are also crimes, and sins which remain immune to prosecution from the law because they pertain to things which ought not to be regulated by the state. But the basic principles discussed in this article are equally applicable to both categories of wrongdoing. It ought to be clear, from a thorough reading of scriptures, that there are remedies within the church for acts of wrongdoing which do not technically violate any manmade laws. Lying, for instance, is only punishable by law in extreme circumstances (such as perjury). But lying is a sin, regardless of whether or not it is punishable by law. Just because a particular sin is exempt from legal prosecution does not mean that it is not harmful to others.

The Church loses credibility when it uses forgiveness as an excuse for turning a blind eye to sins which harm others. We Christians have a moral responsibility to care for hurting people. We cannot claim with any credibility to care for hurting people if we neglect our responsibility to hold people accountable when they sin against one another.

From One Jerk To Another

Yesterday morning, I attended Willow Chicago (the downtown Chicago branch of Willow Creek Community Church) for the second time.

After the worship service, Willow Chicago held a fellowship reception in the Windsor Room at the nearby Congress Hotel, since their contract with The Auditorium (where their Sunday worship services are held) apparently doesn’t include access to meeting rooms for such events.

As I approached the Congress Hotel, I looked into the window of the hotel’s gift shop. I saw what appeared to be a line of humorous bumper stickers.

However, the captions on some of those bumper stickers would not necessarily strike everyone as amusing. For example, the first bumper sticker I noticed had the following caption:

“Jesus Loves You. Everyone else thinks you’re a jerk.”

Alright, I made part of that up. “Jerk” wasn’t actually the word the bumper sticker used. It actually used a harsher word which rhymes with the phrase “brass pole” and which could be roughly paraphrased as “anal aperture”. But this is a family-friendly Christian blog, so I thought I’d try to keep things “clean” for the sake of the many Christians who think that certain words should be completely off limits.

I thought it was a bit ironic that I saw that message when I was on the way to a church event being held in that same hotel.

Putting aside the issue of the bumper sticker’s mild profanity, and putting aside the fact that it was obviously an attempt at humor on the part of the writer, I thought it was an interesting message which raised equally interesting questions.

In essence, the message on the bumper sticker seemed to imply that Jesus loves jerks because he is too naïve to recognize a jerk when he sees one. It implied that loving a person and recognizing that the person is a jerk are mutually exclusive.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody knows us better than God. If any of us really are jerks, you can be sure that God knows that better than anyone else.

I have been known, from time to time, to characterize some particularly unkind people (including some of my fellow Christians) as jerks. I’ve even used the other word that was actually on that bumper sticker, when people have really made me angry by treating me badly.

However, in my more reflective moments, I suspect that God thinks that we’re all jerks, not just some of us.

Admittedly, some of us are bigger jerks than others, but the Bible makes it clear: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

We have all acted in self-centered ways from time to time. Intentionally or unintentionally, most of us have hurt one another on occasions. And even if some of us as individuals have not ever hurt other people, we have certainly hurt God when we have insulted God by implying by word or deed that we were better qualified than God to know how we ought to live our lives.

The Bible talks about two kinds of righteousness. One kind of righteousness is what might be described as “relative righteousness”. To be relatively righteous is to be more righteous than most other people. Job, for example, met that criterion. That’s why the Bible described Job as a “righteous man”.

Provided that it is tempered by humility, relative righteousness has value. It’s good to strive to be a relatively righteous person. In fact, God expects us to do so.

However, there’s also another kind of righteousness: Perfect or absolute righteousness. We ought to strive for that higher level of righteousness as well, but the Bible makes it clear that no one other than Christ has ever lived a perfectly righteous life here on earth. Compared with the perfect righteousness of Christ, our relative righteousness begins to look pretty sad and pathetic.

A lot of people think that because they’re relatively righteous, in comparison with other people, that means that they are qualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. Not long ago, I spoke with someone I care for deeply. He said that he knew he was going to go to heaven because he’d been a relatively good person who had “never murdered anybody”.

Such a statement is common in our society, but it shows a real lack of understanding, for two reasons. First, it implies that all one has to do in order to qualify for entry into heaven is to abstain from the most grievious sins such as murder. Second, it implies that murderers and others who have committed the worst sins have no hope of entering the kingdom of God. Neither one of those things is true.

God doesn't merely want us to be relatively righteous people. God’s standards are uncompromising. God requires perfection. Anything less than perfection makes a person unqualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. In terms of salvation, the extent to which you miss the mark is irrelevant. If you miss it by even a little bit, you’ve missed it.

It’s like being a deer hunter. You can miss the deer by an inch or a mile. Either way, you go home hungry, and the deer lives to see another day. What good is it that you almost hit the deer you were shooting at? When you're hungry for venison, "almost" doesn't cut it.

When it comes to pleasing God, we’ve all missed the mark. Some by a little, some by a lot, but we’ve all missed it. We all have a spiritual hunger that cannot be satisfied on the basis of our own inadequate efforts.

However, heaven would be a mighty empty place if God had not made any provisions for sinners to enter heaven. That’s why Jesus died on the cross for us. He knew that on some level, we were all rebellious jerks who didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Yet, Jesus inexplicably loved us anyway. That’s why it’s called “amazing grace”!

Jesus wants to spend eternity with us, despite our obvious and not so obvious flaws. Because Jesus was the only perfect person to ever live, Jesus was the only one qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on our behalf. He had no obligation to do so, but he did so anyway.

None of this ought to be used, as some immature Christians do, as an excuse to act like jerks. God’s grace and mercy can cover and forgive a multitude of sins, but we still have a moral obligation to make a conscientious effort to avoid sin. We still have an obligation to hold one another accountable for sins we may commit.

As much as possible, I try not to act like a jerk. Relative to a lot of other people, I think that I’ve done a pretty good job of living a morally admirable life.

Nevertheless, nobody but God is more aware of my shortcomings than I am. Consequently, I’m indescribably glad and grateful that Jesus has loved and forgiven me even when I have miserably failed to meet God’s standards.

Regarding what other people think of me or don’t think of me, I do want others to think well of me, but there is a sense in which it really doesn’t matter what other people think about me, just as there is a sense in which it doesn’t really matter what I think about others or about you.

Your judgments are impure. My judgments are impure. God’s judgments are perfect and unimpeachable.

In the final analysis (which is coming sooner than you may think), what God thinks about me and you is the only thing that really matters.

Don’t be caught unprepared for Judgment Day. Instead, I would suggest that you pray the following prayer, or something similar to it:

Dear God,

I’ve known a lot of jerks in my life. Sadly, I have to admit that I have sometimes been one of them. I have chosen my own way and not yours. I have rejected your wisdom and counsel. I have hurt you, and it's quite likely that I have hurt others. I have strayed from the path that leads to eternal life.

Please forgive me. Please set my feet back onto the righteous path once again. Please help me to help others so that they, too, can receive the glorious forgiveness you have generously offered to all who will humbly ask for forgiveness.

I thank you that you sent your son Jesus to die on my behalf. I thank you that you can be trusted to honor this request for forgiveness. I praise and glorify your holy name, for you alone are worthy of such praise.

In Jesus’ Blessed Name,

Amen

If you’ve just prayed the above prayer for the first time, or if you’ve just prayed something similar (possibly because the above prayer was not tailored perfectly to your own situation), please write to me and let me know that you’ve decided to follow Christ.

It would really make my day to know that I helped to play a role in leading you to make the most important decision that you will ever make.

Sincerely,

Mark Pettigrew
mark_w_pettigrew[at]hotmail[dot]com

Ted Haggard: A Christian Perspective

If you've read or watched or listened to the news recently, you already know about the scandal pertaining to Ted Haggard. There's not much point in repeating it here, other than to sum up the matter by saying that Haggard was head of the National Association of Evangelicals until he was forced to step down from that position in response to allegations that Haggard had paid a male prostitute for sex, during which Haggard allegedly used illegal drugs.

From what I gather, Ted Haggard hasn't admitted guilt in terms of actually having gay sex or using methamphetamines, but it now appears that he has admitted buying meth (and being tempted to use it), and he's admitted that he contacted the gay prostitute who made the accusations against him.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I would not presume to know whether or not Haggard is guilty as charged. But I do believe in the fundamental American principle of "innocent until proven guilty", despite the fact that there seem to be a number of people who are all too willing to suspend their appreciation of that principle where Haggard is concerned.

Regardless of Ted Haggard's guilt or innocence, I do believe that he's a brother in Christ. And that, to my way of thinking, means that members of the Body of Christ, such as myself, have certain obligations towards him.

If the accusations which have been leveled against Ted Haggard are false, then I pray that he will be vindicated and that his accuser will be punished for what will have amounted to slander.

On the other hand, if indeed Ted Haggard has been guilty of some serious sins, then I pray that he'll genuinely repent of those sins, learn from the experience and become a better person as a result of the experience.

If Ted is guilty and repentant, then I pray that the church will demonstrate the love and forgiveness Christ requires us to demonstrate, knowing that there isn't a single one of us who has not ever sinned in some way against the Lord.

However, if Ted is guilty and unrepentant (or unpersuasive when claiming to be repentant), then I pray that his church and the larger evangelical Christian community will both love him and hold him accountable for his sins. (Contrary to the false teachings of some Christians who have perverted doctrines pertaining to forgiveness, the two things are not mutually exclusive. Love should be unconditional, but forgiveness should not be unconditional. We should always be willing to forgive, just as God is always willing to forgive us. But God's forgiveness is not unconditional, nor should ours be, lest we equate forgiveness with condonation.)

By the way, I've read some recent blog posts suggesting that conservative Christians have a double standard when it comes to how sinning Christians are treated. Those posts have unfavorably compared the recent reaction of the Christian community to Ted Haggard's sin to the Christian community's earlier harsh reaction to Bill Clinton's sin.

I have two responses:

1. I'm getting pretty tired of saying this, but I guess I have to say it again, because a lot of liberals seem to be incapable of grasping the concept: The uproar over Clinton's sin was not just about his sexual sin. That was just a part of it, and a relatively small part at that. The bigger issue, which led to an attempt to impeach Clinton, was that he had committed perjury. When Ted Haggard likewise commits perjury while serving as a political leader who has sworn to uphold the law of the land, then and only then will I consider the two situations to be comparable.
2. As the above paragraphs ought to make clear, I do believe that Ted Haggard should be held accountable for any sins he may have committed, even if he and I are both political conservatives. I totally agree that double standards ought to be discouraged. For my part, I do the best I can to avoid such double standards.

Beyond questions pertaining to Ted Haggard himself, and pertaining to questions about how the church ought to treat Ted Haggard, it seems to me that we ought not to be naive about the larger spiritual and social realities pertaining to this incident. What really concerns me about this incident is the manner in which this news story is being used by people who are transparently hostile towards conservative Christians in order to try to discredit all of us.

Visit recent blogs which comment on the issue, and you'll quickly discover that there is a palpable sense of glee among those who never much liked what Ted publicly stood for to begin with. All of which makes me wonder about the objectivity of news reporters covering the story, given the well-documented fact that there are disproportionately large numbers of political liberals working as journalists.

Like it or not, the Christian church today is involved in what have rightfully been described as "culture wars". To be a particularly prominent and successful Christian leader is to invite derision, false allegations and all kinds of other forms of negativity from people who are dedicated to agendas which are contrary to Christian values and teachings.

There are a lot of people in the world with serious axes to grind against the church and its leaders. Such people will sometimes say or do just about anything in order to try to neutralize the effectiveness of those of us who are doing our best to spread God's word and bring spiritual light into a world of darkness.

If such people can find genuine instances of hypocrisy among Christians, then so much the better for them. But let's not be naive. Such people are not above lying through their teeth, if necessary, in order to score points.

The same thing is true in the political arena, especially in an election year in which liberals are visibly salivating at the prospect of recovering from losses in previous elections.

The well-known relationship between Ted Haggard and George Bush has a lot of political liberals thinking that this latest scandal will virtually guarantee that they will succeed in driving most Republicans out of office.

Never mind that Ted Haggard's sins, whatever they might be, are Ted's sins and his alone. Never mind that it's utterly illogical to blame all conservative Christians for the sins of one of our leaders. To some people, this incident just confirms their bigoted and ignorant assumptions to the effect that all conservative Christians are hypocrites.

I'd be the last person to claim that Christian leaders are perfect. Over the years, I've had my own personal encounters with hypocritical pastors and other leaders with feet of clay.

Years ago, my own father (who served for two consecutive 3-year terms as a Methodist lay minister when I was in grade school) committed adultery and subsequently divorced my mother as a result of his adulterous affair. Since that time, I've seen a number of other instances of hypocrisy in the church. As a result, I developed a healthy skepticism of people who claimed immunity from criticism on account of their leadership roles in the church.

So I acknowledge that some Christian leaders are hypocrites. However, people who think that demonstrating the existence of hypocrisy in the church disproves the legitimacy of Christianity itself (or that it disproves the legitimacy of teachings promoted by the more conservative branches of the church) are way off base.

It is as nonsensical and illogical to claim that the existence of hypocrisy in the church and among some leaders of the church disproves Christianity as it is to claim that the existence of hypocrisy among some law enforcement officers or public school teachers means that neither law and order nor education are desirable things.

While it's true that sincere believers in Christ do aspire to be perfect, or that they ought to aspire to be perfect, the true message of Christianity is not, and never has been, that being a Christian instantly makes one perfect. Our salvation is not something which we have earned, nor is it something which we could ever hope to earn. It's a free gift, paid for by Christ on the cross and given to all who will humbly admit their failures and ask for God's forgiveness.

Most of us understand that forgiveness through God's grace and mercy is no excuse for not doing our best to meet God's standards of behavior. Most of us understand that we ought to seek to grow in wisdom, self control and righteousness. But we also understand, if we're realistic and honest with ourselves, that very few of us will attain those lofty goals in our lifetimes.

Therefore, seeking and finding instances of imperfection among Christians in an effort to discredit Christianity itself amounts to shadow boxing, in the sense that it's an attempt to refute a claim that most serious Christians never make about the Christian faith in the first place.

Only the naive and the ignorant see incidents such as this latest incident involving Ted Haggard as a victory for people who oppose Christianity. True Christians do not worship or serve Ted Haggard or any of the other prominent but fallible human leaders who have guided or led the church in the past or who will do so in the future. It is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone to whom we look for ultimate inspiration, guidance and salvation.

--------

NOTE: This is a slightly updated version of an older blog post here which has been (or will be) deleted now that this newer version has been posted.

Fillet of Soul, Anyone?

Kizoku is a sushi restaurant and lounge in Chicago, not very far from where I live. (I could probably walk there in a half hour.) Judging from the photos on the restaurant's website (http://www.kizokusushi.com), they have a very upscale decor.

But it isn't the decor, the prices or the food which have been getting a lot of press. It's the fact that they have a rather unusual way of presenting their food. One web site I visited referred to the practice as "“nyotaimori”, which apparently is a fancy way of saying that they serve sushi on the body of a naked (or nearly naked) woman. As if sushi wasn't already raw enough!

Kizoku charges a steep price ($500 for a dinner for four) for the privilege of eating dinner in a manner which would have pleased Caligula.

Of course, you won't find any pictures of "naked sushi" on the restaurant's website. After all, it's a "classy" establishment. You'll have to search the web via Google or Yahoo in order to find photos of one of their human serving trays with raw fish perched precariously on her breasts and other body parts.

At www.wtmx.com, in a blog entry by Kathy of the Eric and Kathy Show, we read the following:

Kudos to Tabitha. She's done more than 50 dinners and has gotten to be quite the pro. She prepares by not eating or drinking much beforehand and other than the occasional itch she's unable to scratch, has no problems for the 60-90 minutes she is laying there nearly still.

Yeah, she's quite a "pro". She's not only good at suppressing the urge to scratch when she itches, she's good at suppressing the urgings of her conscience as well. Kind of like a whore who learns to deal with the dehumanizing aspects of prostitution by living in denial about the depravity of her (or his) lifestyle.

Earlier, I wrote a blog in which I criticized the city of New Orleans on account of its well-earned reputation for carnality and the public celebration of the same. I even implied that the tragedy caused by Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent flood might have been an act of divine judgment. Well, all I can say is that it's a good thing for Chicago that our city isn't in the hurricane zone, because we seem to be headed in the same direction morally. We haven't reached rock bottom, yet, but we're headed in that direction.

No doubt, there are those who would call me "prudish" and "intolerant" for suggesting such a thing. There are those who would say that I'm "hung up" about sex. Well, folks, I've seen pictures of naked women, and I think they're pretty pleasant to behold. Sex is a wonderful thing. After all, God invented it, and when he did so, he called it good. There's not a person on the planet who doesn't owe his or her existence to an act of sexual intercourse.

Nevertheless, I've never experienced sexual intercourse for myself, since I believe in keeping God's commandments, which prohibit fornication and adultery.

Judging by the movie trailers I've seen, the "40 Year Old Virgin" of movie fame couldn't "get laid" even though he kept trying. Hence, he was rightfully regarded as a failure. But virginity isn't a failure if it's the result of a deliberate commitment to obey God.

In any event, regardless of whether or not you agree with the idea that people should wait until marriage before having sex, the "naked sushi" controversy is not about being ashamed of sex. It's about whether or not there are legitimate societal taboos pertaining to public acts, whether those taboos pertain to things of a sexual nature or to nonsexual things like farting or spitting on the carpet.

Inhibitions have gotten a bad rap. A society without inhibitions is a society in which people are indifferent to the effects of their actions on their fellow human beings, and that's just plain rude.

It seems to me that it's just a short step from serving raw fish on topless women to having sexual orgies in public. In fact, I read not long ago that there are actually bars, in Chicago, for people who go there specifically to have sexual orgies with one another. It's called "the lifestyle", thanks to the 1999 movie which celebrated what used to be called "swinging". So far, I've managed to avoid going into such an establishment, and I hope to keep it that way.

Now, some would argue that no one has to eat naked sushi, or visit a "swinger's bar", unless he or she chooses to do so. Therefore, they would argue, it's a "private" matter, and I should mind my own business.

That argument, it seems to me, is as ridiculous as saying that since most acts of prostitution only occur behind closed doors, society should exhibit an interest in such acts only if and when they spill out onto the streets. The trouble with both arguments is that they ignore the intrinsic social dimension of sex.

Acts of sex which take place in the context of the institution of marriage strengthen society (all other things being equal), because marriage affirms that sex is just one dimension of a rich, multifaceted relationship.

But there is an opposing dynamic, one which would weaken the family (thereby hurting children) by creating a mindset in which sex is just one more form of recreation, comparable to going to the movies or riding the rollercoaster at Six Flags. When sex becomes "just another business", it negatively affects the stability of families, which results in the need for a host of costly social programs which wouldn't have been necessary if people had just taken God's commands seriously. And that, my friend, is everyone's business.

Now, whether or not it is everyone's business to the extent that it should become a matter of law is debatable. I do recognize that we don't live in a theocracy, and I recognize that there are legitimate limits, in a pluralistic society, to the imposition of moral values on those who don't agree with those values. But even if this is a case where the law ought to "butt out", it seems to me, at the very least, that my civil liberties as a citizen include the right to speak out against what I consider to be harmful practices and trends.

Sex is wonderful precisely because it involves bonding with another human being to whom you are committed, and with whom you are willing to work hard in order to create a loving family. A committed relationship will endure long after the shortlived ecstasy of orgasm is a distant memory.

But we Americans tend to see things solely through the rose-colored glasses of consumerism, and we are increasingly oblivious to the necessity and wisdom of self-restraint. Hence, anything which stands to make a buck is tolerated, even encouraged. Who cares if those ignorant yahoos from the Bible belt are offended? For that matter, who cares if God is offended? Live for today, live for yourself, ignore little matters like morality and Judgment Day, and maybe, if you're lucky, they'll go away.

But they won't go away. God's laws are eternal. What's transient (and ultimately unsatisfying) is the pleasure which comes from disobedience to him.

How do I know? Because I have done my own thing more than once, and I've lived to regret it. Fortunately, I've discovered that the God who judges is also the God who forgives, provided that we are willing to humble ourselves and acknowledge that we need his forgiveness.

Many decades ago, in a culture in which some form of Christianity was generally taken for granted, it didn't take much courage to take a stand for Christ and for righteousness. But that is no longer the culture in which we live.

If you lack moral courage, and if you want to blend in with the crowd, then capitulate to the latest immoral fad, even if it means eating raw fish off the body of a naked woman. But there will come a time when you will pay a price for your self-indulgence and shortsightedness. Don't say I didn't tell you so.

When Bad is Called Good

"It's Good To Be Bad," proclaims a bus-bench advertisement for The Alley, a Chicago store (on Clark and Belmont) which sells clothing, shoes and jewelry for people into the punk lifestyle. Think leather jackets, metal studs and the like. The image accompanying the ad shows a woman, down on her hands and knees (like an animal awaiting copulation), wearing a shiny black jumpsuit and an ugly hairdo reminiscent of what one might have expected to see on a guard in a Nazi concentration camp.

Not surprisingly, The Alley is endorsed, in Chicago, by an organization called the Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame. This particular blog entry is not the place for me to give an in-depth explanation of the reasons for my opposition to the agenda of the substantial number of Americans who now embrace gay and lesbian lifestyles, but you can safely surmise that I believe that the gay agenda is immoral and irrational, as are the foundational beliefs which enable gays to promote their agenda. I will write more about that subject at a later time.

If you've read my profile in the sidebar of this blog, you already know that I am politically conservative, so you probably aren't surprised by my opposition to homosexuality. However, if you are one of the many liberals who seek to characterize political conservatives as wide-eyed, intolerant lunatics, you may be surprised to learn that I currently attend a Lutheran church (on Belmont, just east of Ashland and Lincoln) which is led by a pastor who clearly disagrees with me about that subject. I would be pleased if he and I could agree about everything. Yet, despite our differences of opinion about that matter, I am still able to fellowship with those who attend and lead that church. Treating them hatefully because I believe them to be wrong would serve no godly purpose, and might even obstruct the work of the Holy Spirit. I haven't yet discussed the subject of homosexuality with that pastor. However, in the future, I hope that I will be able to influence him to reconsider the wisdom of his endorsement (or, at the very least, his acceptance) of a licentious lifestyle which, in my view, is clearly condemned in scriptures such as Romans 1:26-27.

When people seek to justify the unjustifiable, they tend to make statements which are transparently nonsensical. For example, saying that it's good to be bad makes about as much sense as saying that up is down, or that black is white, or that the Devil is God. Words lose their meaning when people claim that they are synonyms for their antonyms.

In Isaiah 5:20, the Bible says this about such people: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Now, when the Bible says "woe" to someone, that isn't something to take lightly. It's an old-fashioned way of saying, "Listen, buddy, God is seriously ticked off about your rejection of his wise advice, and if you don't change your ways, you're going to regret it."

Gay punks (and those who profit by selling products to them) aren't the only people to twist the meaning of words. The word "bad" has often been used as a compliment in the black community, particularly the segment of that community consisting of people who like to think of themselves as "cool" and "hip".

It seems that some people think it's incredibly clever to thumb one's nose at the Almighty. That's about as smart as playing chicken with an 18-wheel truck when you're riding on your bicycle. Perhaps, after such people have spent a few years frying in Hell, they'll come to realize that bad really is bad!

Not that I want to sound flippant about the prospect of anyone going to Hell. It would be wonderful if everyone could accept Christ as Savior, thereby escaping eternal damnation. However, the scriptures offer a reality check for the delusional people who argue that all roads lead to Heaven. Matthew 7:13-14 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." There's a reason why cheap, slutty women are called "easy", and it isn't just that it's easy for men to persuade them to have sex. It's also because they have chosen the easy way, not the right way.

It is common for liberals to accuse conservative Christians who believe in moral absolutes of being "narrow minded". We should take that as a compliment, for Jesus tells us that it is the narrow-minded who will inherit paradise. Godless people who lack humility and moral discernment will be destroyed. Don't cite your opinion polls, because the popular consensus is wrong. I didn't say that, Jesus did. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Him, if you dare!

Some people ask how a loving God could send anyone to Hell. I ask how a loving God could deny justice to those who have been victimized by people who have rejected God's plan for their lives.

Tell me this: If you discovered, upon arriving in Heaven, that your next-door neighbor throughout eternity would be an unrepentant Adolph Hitler or an unrepentant Jeffrey Dahmer, would you feel that Heaven was very heavenly? Or wouldn't that feel more like Hell?

God excludes people from Heaven, not because he hates them, but because he hates their capacity for ruining the perfect eternal heavenly kingdom he is preparing for those of us who have submitted to his will. God sends some people to Hell because they have arrogantly rejected his mercy, not because they are less than perfect. If perfection were the criterion for admission to Heaven, none but Christ could enter. (And that helps to explain why I can still find common ground with Christians who, in my opinion, are seriously wrong about some things.)

What about you? Do you call good "bad" and bad "good"? Are your ideas about right and wrong based on the latest opinion polls? Or have you submitted to the will of God? Let him forgive your transgressions so that you can be assured of a place in his heavenly, eternal kingdom.