If you want a forgiveness study, try out this case study.
The case: A man broken into a church. Later he was scared and convicted about what he had done. He returned what he stole. The church forgave him and he joined. (HT: Z). You can read the whole story here.
Discussion questions:
-
At what point should the church have forgiven the thief?
-
Should they have forgiven him as soon as they became aware of the crime?
-
Or, should they have waited until he returned the equipment?
-
Or, should they have waited until he joined?
-
-
Did the church do the right thing in not reporting him to the authorities?
-
Is there ever a time when you would forgive a thief and yet report him to the police?
-
Are there times when it would be wrong not to report the thief?
I’ll take a stab at these….
>>At what point should the church have forgiven the thief?
I’m afraid this is a trick question, but I’ll go with when they returned the loot. That’s when they found out the identity of the thugs, and you can’t forgive an anonymous person (can you? or did I fail that part of the book? I don’t remember ever thinking about forgiving anonymous people).
>>Did the church do the right thing in not reporting him to the authorities?
I think they did the right thing by hitting the streets and asking for their stuff back. I guess I would say it depends if the thief made restitution and gave credible evidence that he was reformed (which happens in probably 0.0003% of the cases). If their stuff didn’t get returned in 100% condition and/or his confession is just some neo-Jesus moment, I’d say it would be wrong not to report the incident, all things being equal, for the reason below.
>>Is there ever a time when you would forgive a thief and yet report him to the police?
Yes, for the sake of the public. In fact, I might go as far as saying that you’re sinning against your neighbor (who will get his stuff lifted next week by the same thug) by not reporting a thief.
>>Are there times when it would be wrong not to report the thief?
Most times. My gut reaction is to keep it on the down low only for young kids who have been appropriately dealt with already. But I will think about this some more.
I think I want to amend my answer to question #2 so that it is nuanced correctly. The goal of Christian ought to be that the gospel reaches a sinner, not to get his “loot” back or excise some justice. I think the answer is “it depends on what we think will most likely drive him to Christ”: a moment of grace like the scene in Les Miserables or some tough love. And I think the answer to that is most likely driven by variables.
OK, now I’m ready to hand in my test for a grade (I think!).
A+. Seriously.
This is a wonderful story as reported. But, we would want to stay away from any implication that forgiveness means the elimination of consequences or that the church should never report the matter.
Indeed, I agree that in most cases that it would be wrong not to report the matter.
Sorry about your goat, for the record.
But, we would want to stay away from any implication that forgiveness means the elimination of consequences or that the church should never report the matter.
One extreme example might be how many Amish deal with sexual predators. Verbal repentance is all that is required of a perpetrator in order to be restored into full fellowship. Authorities are not called and the perpetrator isn’t barred from having contact with his stereotypical victim, due to their understanding of forgiveness (while admirable in some respects, it isn’t thoroughly biblical).