Misconception Monday – Forgiving the Unrepentant

Misconception Monday on a Tuesday? Blasphemy! It’s my own fault for having written the whole outline to an article yesterday morning but failing to remember it was just an outline after all, and not a full post, so that when I went to publish it last night, I was disappointed. Since I had the day off yesterday anyway, today is basically Monday. Choose for yourself which of those excuses you find more forceful.

Today, I want to look at forgiveness. And fittingly, a misconception about it. I’ve never written an article in the form of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, but this whole topic works very well with the format. (If you are unfamiliar with it and have trouble following it, here’s a primer.)

Can we grant full forgiveness to someone who doesn’t repent?

Objection 1. It seems that we can forgive without demanding repentance, because people do it all the time. It is seen as a righteous act.

Objection 2. You need to be able to forgive those who you can’t see again (e.g. who are dead), so we must be able to forgive without demanding repentance.

Objection 3. Forgiveness helps the person wronged so they don’t hold a grudge, so it seems we should forgive even without repentance.

Objection 4. Jesus Himself says “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” So it seems we ought to forgive even without repentance.

On the contrary, God Himself demands repentance as a prerequisite for granting His forgiveness. “Unless you repent, you too will perish” (Luke 13:3)

I answer that there are multiple kinds of forgiveness. The sort of forgiveness which grants full restoration is called exoneration. This kind of forgiveness requires repentance. It simply cannot occur without both parties being fully involved, because it is a restoration of a relationship. A relationship cannot be restored if one party is unwilling to acknowledge a breach. At best, a relationship of this sort could be abusive.

It is also possible to ignore small offenses and especially those done unintentionally. A person can also have a forgiving attitude, such that at the moment of genuine repentance from the offending party, they are quick to genuinely forgive. This is how Christians ought to live. Dr. Stephen Marmer has a short presentation on Dennis Prager’s PragerU site that describes an approach consistent with ancient Judaism which breaks forgiveness into three types.

Since hatred can damage one’s own soul if directed at others (who are made in God’s image and thus His reflection), it is good to fight the temptation to hate those who do wrong to us. When evil is done to us, we deserve (through justice) some sort of restitution. However, giving up this demand and releasing the person who has wronged us from the responsibility of providing restitution can help us move past the wrong.

Reply to Objection 1. People who say they forgive those who don’t repent can’t possibly mean full forgiveness, but a lesser kind. They demonstrate a forgiving attitude, which is indeed righteous, and they are well-prepared to act rightly if repentance ever occurs. This is a way of loving one’s enemy, which is itself a righteous act.

Reply to Objection 2. The lesser sorts of forgiveness can be given to those who can’t receive full forgiveness (e.g. who are dead). Even if the person can never repent, they can be released of their duty to provide restitution and we can fight the urge to remember them with hatred.

Reply to Objection 3. Lesser forms of forgiveness and having a charitable attitude take the burden away from those who are wronged, even without repentance. But they aren’t full forgiveness. As has been discussed several times already in this article, there are many ways for the person wronged to avoid any further damage even if the other party refuses to repent.

Reply to Objection 4. Jesus also teaches that ““If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.” Clearly, he can’t mean both things at the same time in the same way, since they contradict. Jesus in His teaching is perfectly consistent: full forgiveness requires repentance, because full forgiveness is restoration. Without repentance, restoration is one-sided and incomplete. Jesus on the cross isn’t giving a thorough lesson in how forgiveness and repentance works. He’s demonstrating His love for a fallen world and those who don’t realize the gravity of what they’ve done. He demonstrates His love, not a process for forgiveness that trumps His far more thorough teaching during His ministry.

We are reassured of this because His apostles don’t transform this declaration of love into a new teaching on forgiveness. For the rest of their writing in the New Testament, they always make repentance a prerequisite for forgiveness. If we took His declaration on the cross as His standard for forgiveness, we are left with some massive theological problems. We must deliberately disobey Him in regard to forgiveness and we must set ourselves up as more forgiving than God Himself, who does require repentance. In matters where we aren’t completely sure of one interpretation or another, it’s always best to err on the side of some small confusion than on the side of total exegetical chaos. Life is messy; we ought not make it incomprehensible from our efforts at cleaning up the mess.

See this article by Wintery Knight for more information. And go follow his blog!

Life Organization Part 3 – Yearly Goals

Note: This is in a series of posts, and as the others are written, I’ll update a table of contents with links to the whole series here.

Part 1: What is Life Organization? Why do it?
Part 2: Life Goals
Part 3: Yearly Goals

Having some long-term goals is important, but without a plan to achieve them, they always remain in the distance without moving closer. In the previous article in this series, we looked at the method I’ve used to lay out these larger goals. Now, we’ll break them down into more manageable chunks.

Why Yearly?

A lot of people come up with New Years resolutions for themselves, finding that changing over to a new year and coming back to work after some major holidays is a great point to set up new habits. It’s convenient, but not always effective. Many people who seem to have a lot of success with their resolutions in January have completely forgotten them by May.

Years are still a great length of time to plan. They are finite and fixed, but still long enough that you can get a lot done towards whatever longer term goals you have.

I recommend not waiting until New Years Day to decide what you want to do for the upcoming year, though it doesn’t hurt to read through your plans that day.

Creating Yearly Goals

There’s some overlap here with lifelong goals, as there probably ought to be. After all, if you are going to be accomplishing something, it needs to be accomplished at a particular point in time. To make part of a larger goal into a yearly goal isn’t to say you have all year to achieve it (though you may). It simply means that it will be accomplished at some point during the year. I’ll have some thoughts about how to help make this more likely in the next post on planning a year. For now, the focus is on the goals themselves.

The first step I take is to look at my lifelong goals. Are there any I can do this year? Are there any parts of a goal I could contribute to?

Once I have those things identified, I try to balance each of the seven categories (see the previous article) of goals for the year. After that, I break down the goals even further, trying to figure out what major steps need to be accomplished to get the whole thing completed. Sometimes this isn’t necessary. Other times it can’t be helped.

For example, one of my perennial goals is to be on time to and have a good attitude about all of my commitments with a good attitude. I made them, after all. There’s no point in breaking this down; it’s pretty straightforward and uncomplicated, even if difficult at times.

On the other hand, one of my lifelong goals is to learn new things. This is ambiguous, so I’ve broken it down even at a long-term level into categories like “learn Latin” and “learn Statistics”. I also want to consistently read (and truly understand) a lot of books. At a yearly level, this breaks down into a list of the books I actually want to read. This means the yearly goal might fluctuate a little bit as I discover new books or decide not to read a book in the end, but this is infrequent.

The Next Step

After you have all of your yearly goals listed out, you should find yourself with a list that looks a lot like your lifelong goals, but less grand in scale and less comprehensive. In the next article, we’ll look at what to do with this concrete set of goals and how to plan your year out to actually get them done.

Doom – Josh 2014 Megawad

The original Doom is a classic. I’ve played it almost since it came out in 1993, and it shows no signs of aging.

But Doom would have gotten boring a long time ago if not for custom maps and content. Even as a kid, I had more fun making levels than I did playing the game. At the time, I used a DOS base editor called, imaginatively, the “Doom Editor Utilities (DEU)”.

There are much better tools today, and a couple of years ago I decided to learn them and try again at the art of Doom level creation. It really is an art form, and not one that I’ve mastered. There are many considerations when making levels that are interesting, challenging, but rewarding.

Despite my lack of mastery, I created a handful of levels and put them into a “megawad” (which is literally just the term for a collection of levels). In the spirit of creativity that the creators of DEU engaged in, I named it Josh 2014. Enjoy.

Josh 2014 (12 downloads)


Can There Be a Truly Secular Government?

Can there be a truly secular government? It all depends on what we mean by the term secular, of course. The word comes from Latin saeculum, the span of time after which no one alive at present will still be living. Eventually, the church used it as a way of referring to worldly power, and this seems to have stuck. To be secular is to be distinguished from the church. On this older view, secular government is any that is not run by a clergyman. Clearly, these governments exist and have existed for millennia.

But this isn’t what most people mean by the phrase “secular government”. Usually, the idea is a government free from overt religious influence. It is this definition to which my question refers. This other conception of secular government includes the original definition but expands upon it.

The Wall

Lets look at the United States as a means to answering the question, since the United States and its constitution represent a major development in the modern notion of secular government. It has the quintessential “secular government”. I also live there.

The first amendment to the United States constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The common understanding of this amendment is that it provides for a wall of separation between religion and government. But this notion of a wall originated not with the constitution, but with a letter by Thomas Jefferson.

As Daniel Dreisbach writes:

Jefferson was inaugurated the third President of the United States on March 4, 1801, following one of the most bitterly contested elections in history. His religion, or the alleged lack thereof, was a critical issue in the campaign. His Federalist Party foes vilified him as an infidel and atheist.

One pocket of support for the Jeffersonian Republicans in Federalist New England existed among the Baptists.

The Baptists had written the President a “fan” letter … chastizing those who had criticized him “as an enemy of religion[,] Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.”

In a carefully crafted reply, Jefferson endorsed the persecuted Baptists’ aspirations for religious liberty:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.””

Although today Jefferson’s Danbury letter is thought of as a principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state, it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion…

Jefferson, as president, clearly did not intend to mean what is often said of him.

Jefferson endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians.

The rest of the article is fascinating and highly recommended. But this is enough to make the point. The “wall of separation”, often used as though it has both constitutional power and refers to the modern notion of secular government, is a myth. We must also keep in mind that many of the states which ratified the constitution had their own state denominations. Clearly, the founders didn’t build a wall.

So what does the first amendment really mean?

A Christian Nation

Joseph Story was a supreme court justice in the 19th century. He was nominated for the role by James Madison, a man hailed as the “Father of the Constitution”. Joseph Story was both a scholar and someone with personal access to the authors of the constitution. Who better to author comprehensive commentaries on the document and its amendments?

His commentaries, not known by many today, paint an entirely different picture of the first amendment than we commonly see it today:

The real object of the [first] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity [atheism], by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.

In other words, when reading the first amendment we should see the word denomination in the place of religion. It would give us a more accurate understanding.

This makes a lot of sense. The constitution is a document heavily influenced by the Christian religion, a fact we simply can’t get away from. The presumptions it makes about the value of human life, the fact we have something called rights (a topic I plan to study soon and write some articles about), and the sorts of rights we have all stem from Christianity. The concept of religious liberty is also a Christian idea.

Given all of this, the first amendment’s context becomes clear. It isn’t designed to provide for a pluralistic, relativistic society. Instead, it protects Christians from being pressured to join other denominations so that the Christianity in the hallway (to borrow CS Lewis’ metaphor) can be a unifying foundation for the entire nation.

Our House Divided

Can there be a truly secular government? Not in the modern sense, and the founders knew it.

Every law, every guiding principle of jurisprudence, every court ruling, every decision by a representative, judge, or executive is done on the basis of a worldview. Everyone has one. The alternative to politicians acting in accordance with their consciences is to have them act against what they believe is right, something I think we should all be concerned with should we ever see it.

This is not a simplistic view. A judge may act against his own intuitions when rendering a verdict because he wants to remain faithful to the law. But this isn’t an act of the judge violating his own worldview, because his worldview is the thing which holds the law higher than his own opinion.

What’s needed is a unifying force. Something which will keep everyone on the same page. It can’t be a constitution, because constitutions can be ignored. They’re just pieces of paper. It can’t be a sentiment, because sentiments change. It can’t be an army, because armies can’t change minds; they often can’t even change outward actions. It can’t be law, because while laws may cause behavior, they themselves are caused by something else.

A truly secular government, in the modern sense, is one which is free of overt religious influence. But everyone has a religion; everyone has a worldview. Everyone has beliefs about the world, about human nature, about the nature of the whole universe. These beliefs constitute his religion, and these beliefs are not private. There isn’t anyone alive who could participate in a truly secular government; he’d bring too much “baggage”. And if he decided to leave the baggage behind, he’d have nothing to base his decisions on.

The unifying force in America is Christianity. It always has been. When you understand the historical context into which America was born, you can see it clear as day. The founding documents are full of Christian assumptions. The guiding principles are Christian in character.

Religious liberty, protecting the weak and innocent, valuing life, learning of objective beauty, truth, and virtue; all of these things were based on the same Christian worldview that our constitution was. Is it any wonder, as we have drifted into aimless pluralism that all of these things have been lost along with the force of the constitution?

Without this force, we lose our national soul. I suspect it is already lost. We have nothing on which we can all agree as Americans, because our very fundamental assumptions about the world are completely divided.

Caesar III – Super Easy Map

I’ve been meaning to put some content in the “gaming” category of the site for a while, and since I have limited time this evening, it seems like a great chance to start.

Caesar III is a great city-building game. One of my favorite games of all time, in fact. And despite the fact I understand it well and have no problems playing it, I decided to create a map that is so incredibly easy to play that there’s no challenge whatsoever.

It’s mostly a sandbox with the most defensible position you can imagine, in case you want to irritate Caesar until he sends army after army at you to give yourself a challenge.

Caesar III - Super Easy Map (7 downloads)