Author: Wick

Yesterday I was driving in the usual “to work” traffic. It was raining and cloudy, which made it just dangerous enough that we were all going a bit slower than normal. I could see behind me, there was one individual who was weaving their way from lane to lane, making small advances in the line of cars. Sure enough, he came up behind me, weaved over, sped up, and weaved back over what seemed like inches from my front bumper.

I confess my initial thoughts toward this person were not loving.

But it set the stage for an easy location for a difficult dialogue on forgiveness to take place.

Would it be possible for me to forgive this person, even without them asking for forgiveness? The nature of the word “forgive” (being a gift, unconditional, full of grace, not part of an “economy”, based in love and no other motive but itself) would lean towards it being a perfect example of where the gift of forgiveness can take place.

I can live towards this offensive driver as if they’d never offended me, but at the same time their offense has not been annulled or obliterated, but transformed by the act of forgiveness.

Some might even say, if the driver pulled over and apologized immediately after it happened, I would no longer be able to offer a truly unconditional forgiveness. I would simply be responding to an offer for reconciliation. Which is still very important, and needed in our communities. But it is not the same as forgiveness. Reconciliation takes place in the realm of economy. Of offer and acceptance. Even if sometimes the offers are lopsided, which may require an amount of forgiveness to “level the field”.

“While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Jesus didn’t cause a stir because he came proclaiming that sinners could be forgiven. Even the most devout Jews understood/believed/hoped towards this. Jesus was unpopular among we religious for proclaiming that sinners ARE forgiven already. It is a gift of love. It doesn’t come with stipulations for how to earn such forgiveness, but at the same time offers an undeniable call when such forgiveness is realized…for how life can begin anew.

May we live as people who offer true forgiveness wherever possible in our lives. Even/especially in the areas that go much deeper than being cut off on the way to work in the morning. God help us….

There’s been a section in the book I’m reading lately (like over the past several months….silly dense books that require way too much time to read but are still ridiculously good so we continue to plow through them) about Peter Damian and some of his writings. Yes, he wrote specifically against the sin of homosexuality and it being found among the religious leaders of their day. But he also branched out from that into over-arching issues. It’s amazing to me that a thousand years ago, people were writing and posing such wonderfully complex questions, and many of them are approached by new people today as if they’ve never been thought of.

Damian did a lot of thinking/writing in the realm of forgiveness. Putting it in the realm of virginity (since most sins can be seen as a loss of “innocence” in whatever area they are in), when one is forgiven, can God go back in time and make something that has happened as if it never happened?

The response is a bit humorous.

There was a large focus in their day (and still today, even if we don’t talk about it or give name to it) on this aspect of “being” (ousia). Damian believed that God could do anything that was good (in God’s nature), not to be limited by any aspect of ousia (space/time/matter/etc.). That the goodness of God stands outside of being….not bound by it and whatever that all means.

But because “ousia” is something that is brought into existence by God, that means for something to have “being” it must be something good, for that is the nature of God. So if something has previously happened that is not good (i.e. “evil”), that thing that has happened has a sort of “non-being”, since it obviously did not come from God, source of all ousia. It doesn’t actually have “ousia”. Damian’s initial response, therefore, would be something like “why would God have to undo something that isn’t?”.

But Damian would eventually concede in a way that, although focusing on God’s superhero omnipotence, still offfers us something helpful in our thinking of God. He would say that because God could have stopped Rome from becoming Rome (before it happened), God still can today. This follows the logic of God being not bound by the realms of time. He talks a bit about the most faithful way of speaking about God is ALWAYS in the present tense. (Gotta love that. If we take away nothing else, to remind ourselves to speak of God always in present tense. Not so much “could do”, or “will do”, but “is doing”. 🙂 ) So even though something evil that has happened lacks “ousia”, and doesn’t actually “exist” as most things do, God can go back and alter that future just as much as He could have stopped it before it happened.

Which begs the question (by logic, not necessarily because I’m anxious for an answer), that I’ve not read Damian’s response to, “Why not, then?”

Guess I’ll have to keep reading….

Last week I was involved in some training going on in the Free Methodist Church in the Midwest area. It’s something you may have heard of in other business or ministry contexts. It’s the art of “Coaching”. Based on a book called “Coaching 101“, we each began a relationship with a coach a few months ago, who is going to guide us through the process of becoming a coach ourselves.

I have to be honest, I was a bit cynical at first. I think mainly because it sounded very much like the kind of “development” found in my sales experience between managers and salespeople under them who they wanted to develop through discovering their goals, and what it might take to achieve them.

Even when I began reading the book, and at points during the class itself…it sounded like something that rubbed me the wrong way. It felt like we were forcing a system and technique onto something Christ said should be motivated by love – not a desire for “successfully multiplying our discipleship efforts”.

I still believe it can be something that’s approached in the wrong way, and with the wrong motivations. But the experiences and heart shared throughout the week, and throughout coaching sessions have definitely given new light to the possibilities for God to work through these efforts. It offers something incredibly counter cultural – a conversation environment where a “coach” is purposefully turning it towards the other, and towards the other discovering what the Other is guiding them towards.

It’s a great pattern of conversationing to follow: to come along side someone you care about and help them discover what God is doing in their life, simply by taking the time to have someone reflect back/flesh out in words what has been/is/could be happening in their life. To establish what actions can help move in that direction, and accountability to see it through.

But it’s also been/being a great reminder for everyday conversations with family, friends, and those who simply need to be talked to in a way that’s different from how most people in their day talk with them. Which is such a simple concept, you would think someone who spends a lot of time thinking about Jesus would have made the connection to his conversational relating areas of life. But nope. I’m generally horrible at it. I like to talk, and I like to add my 2 cents to things, finishing people’s sentences and taking spotlights.

I pray that I can talk to people I care for differently on a more consistent basis.