I would not recommend this book to anyone. Two reasons:
A) Adams’ definition of forgiveness is: a promise to never bring up the offender’s sin again, to him, to yourself, or to other people. However, contradicting Adams, there are examples in scripture of referring to others’ past sins that have been forgiven: Gal 2:11, I Cor. 6:9-11, Colossians 3:5-7, Ephesians 2:1-3, Matthew 18:32-34.
I believe a more biblical, Christ-centered definition of forgiveness is this: releasing an offender from the debt they owe you for the hurt their sin has caused you, and taking that debt upon yourself. Ie. returning evil with good.
This means that you will not exercise any kind of vengeance on them, including anger, slander, or malice. As my brother in law says, “you know you’ve forgiven someone when they can pass through your mind unharmed.”
B) Adams claims that forgiveness is conditional, and that Mark 11:25 means that we must have a willingness to forgive, but cannot actually forgive because of his understanding that forgiveness is a promise made to another person.
This does not square with Mark 2, where Jesus sees the faith of the paralyzed man and his friends and says, “your sins are forgiven you.” The paralyzed man did not ask for forgiveness. Also, Jesus speaks to the prostitute, and says, “your sins are forgiven.” (Luke 7) There is no record of her asking for his forgiveness. According to Adams’ definition of forgiveness, then, Jesus should not have said what he did.
My understanding of Scripture is that forgiveness is unconditional, but reconciliation is conditional.
My husband wrote the following helpful explanation that fills out the picture more:
Taking “forgiveness” back from the Devil.
It’s inescapably clear that Christians have to forgive if they are going to walk in obedience to Jesus.
Jesus was very direct: If we don’t forgive, we won’t be forgiven.
But what is forgiveness? Satan’s strategy has been to twist our idea of forgiveness, so that forgiveness, wrongly defined, can actually become a tool in his hand.
It seems there are two opposite errors the enemy forces us into:
First, that forgiveness should be unconditional: we must forgive everyone from the heart regardless of whether the offender repents or not.
Up to this point, I think this is true, but Satan adds a poisonous twist: forgiveness is refusing to speak of this again, or acting like the sin never happened.
When defined this way, forgiveness can open the door to ongoing abuse and remove the opportunity to confront the person doing offending.
Is forgiveness turning a blind eye to sin and overlooking toxic behaviour?
Hopefully not! Scripture calls us to lovingly confront those entangled in sin, and to let our brother know when he has offended us. We are called to avoid those who are unrepentant in causing division and offence.
The second error comes when Christians seek to counter this wrong view of forgiveness = overlooking sin and injustice by proposing a conditional view of forgiveness.
They want to keep the idea that forgiveness means forgetting and refusing to speak of the forgiven sin, but they add the idea that, if this is what forgiveness means, we should only offer forgiveness if the offender genuinely repents.
This view solves the problem of being unable to confront sin. However, it opens the door to a problematic situation for the person who has been hurt but where the offender has not repented.
Is the person who has been hurt justified in with holding forgiveness until the offender repents? If so, what does this period of unforgiveness look like?
Here are some considerations:
With the strong and repeated warnings in Scripture about the dangers and consequences of not forgiving, I would be very leery of any theology that counsels a time of withholding forgiveness for any length.
In Mark 11:25 Jesus commands, “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”
There is no exception made in this passage about waiting for the offender to repent.
Paul gives us multiple commands to forgive, but never counsels a time where it is appropriate for us to withhold forgiveness.
Some may counter that “we are to forgive like God, and God does not forgive unconditionally. He only forgives once we repent.”
There are a couple problems I have with that idea.
One, for those in Christ, God does forgive us unconditionally. If I have put myself under the blood of Jesus, if I die with sins I have not repented of, they are still forgiven, being paid for by the death of Jesus.
Secondly, God, as the judge of the Earth, has prerogatives that we do not have. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.”
Not forgiving can be a form of vengeance. Part of the reason it is wrong for us to act as judge by withholding forgiveness is that we can be blinded by anger and misinterpretations and faulty memories.
We make terrible judges, which is why we must forgive and leave the gavel in God’s hand, knowing that perfect justice is coming.
So I believe forgiveness should be unconditional for the believer and not depend on the repentance of the offender.
But does forgiveness mean that we can no longer seek justice?
Is our forgiveness sending the message that abuse and offense no longer matter?
If we forgive, are we supposed to act like nothing ever happened?
I don’t think so. God talks a lot about confronting the oppressor, and helping free people who are entangled in destructive patterns of sin.
I believe that after we have forgiven a person, there is room for boundaries, and confrontation, and rebuke, and even warning other people.
The difference is that now all these actions are motivated by love for the offender rather than a selfish desire for revenge.
Forgiveness is the cancelling of a debt. When we are wronged, we have a desire to repay in kind, and make the person who has wronged us suffer consequences for their sin.
Some of these desires are righteous. When a woman is raped, her desire that the rapist be brought to justice and be prevented from raping other women is a godly desire and not necessarily a sign of unforgiveness.
However, when we don’t forgive and cancel the personal debt, our sense of what is appropriate punishment becomes all out of whack.
A desire to repay hurt by selfish retaliation only perpetuates evil. Cycles of revenge have caused untold bloodshed and misery throughout the centuries.
God calls us to follow Christ’s example, and painfully swallow the debt of personal vengeance.
We need to take our hurt to Jesus and let him heal us rather than seek to feel better about our pain because we have made the other person suffer.
This act of cancelling the personal debt is painful in the short term, but it is so freeing in the long term.
To try to bring about our own vengeance is to carry the terrible toxic burden of revenge.
Unforgiveness has been described as drinking poison, hoping someone else will die.
Unforgiveness can mutate into hate and bitterness and consume us.
But once we have cancelled the personal debt, can we still care about justice?
Yes, but now we care about God’s standard of justice, not our own.
We are free to testify if God is calling us to, and free to trust God will bring ultimate justice if our voice is taken from us.
I think when we look at Scripture as a whole, we need to acknowledge that forgiveness is really two stages. Tim Keller explains this in his recent book, Forgive.
Stage one is the attitude of forgiveness.
We do this from the heart unconditionally.
In this stage, we cancel the personal debt.
We replace hate with love.
We let go of a desire for revenge and place the outcome in God’s hand.
We let go of all rage, malice, and slander.
We replace thoughts of curses with prayers of blessing towards that person.
We desire what is best for him or her.
But Jesus’s heart is also for believers to reconcile relationships where they can.
There is a second stage of forgiveness that is transactional in nature. Here reconciliation can take place, and trust may be gradually restored.
This stage, however, is dependent on genuine repentance.
The Bible is clear that our relationships are to be marked by speaking the truth in love.
This means that sometimes we need to, in love, confront our brother when we see him caught in destructive patterns.
We forgive him from the heart, but we don’t suddenly act as though he is not still caught in sin.
Sometimes the most loving thing to do is help people feel the consequences of their sins; otherwise we enable them to continue in harmful ruin.
Conclusion:
We need to seek justice. God hates abuse.
But in our attempts to pursue justice and rescue sinners, we continually need our hearts purified by forgiveness.
We need to give our pain to Jesus and realize afresh how much we have been forgiven.
We need to feel his deep relentless love for us, so that we can love those who persecute and attack us.
We need to be on guard against the seeds of hate that cause our hearts to die a painful death.
We need to trust that ultimate justice is coming, and let this awareness create a healthy fear of God and bring repentance to our own hearts for the way we have hurt those precious to Jesus.