In the discussion of forgiveness, the
words we use can be confusing, especially those in older translations
of the Bible. Words like “trespass” make sense because we see
“Do Not Trespass” signs on property lines in the
countryside, giving us some current context for meaning.
Transgression becomes complicated because we rarely use
the term in our modern vernacular. It can refer to both a violation
of the law which is well-defined and understood, or it can refer to
the violation of a duty which may be vague.
In modern English, “offense” represents multiple words found in the original Biblical text:
- asham (Hebrew): to do wrong, to injure
- mikshowl (Hebrew): stumbling block
- scandalon (Greek): a trap or snare that causes another to stumble; something that causes another to sin (a term applied to Jesus who offended men in His divine holiness)
- paratoma (Greek): a lapse or deviation from truth (to fall to the side)
- proskomma (Greek): stumbling block
- proskope (Greek): to do something that causes one to stumble
- hamartia (Greek): a sin or a violation of the law (“missing the mark”)
Like the word “trespass,” the term
“offense” can refer to both a sin (determined by objective
standards) as well as something we do that makes it easier for
another person to sin as a “stumbling block” (a more subjective
matter affected by perspective). This
index of previous posts (in the Matthew 18 section) specifically
explores the issue of confronting others about sin. Stumbling block
issues also call for confrontation, but we must consider that they
are more related to motive and thought as opposed to sins that are
acted out.
Stumbling blocks are of special
interest in the context of spiritual abuse because manipulators use
their subjective nature to exploit ambiguity as a means of avoiding
scrutiny. High demand religion and group leaders focus on perfection
in a way that makes all matters seem like a cause for shame and
blame. In terms of what has been previously discussed about
forgiveness, this type of manipulation encourages people to
reinterpret stumbling blocks as no offense at all, consistent with
the Path
of Denial as David
Stoop has described it.
Humility and Love When “Offenses
Come”
The New Testament makes clear the
imperative of the Law of Love, showing
kindness and consideration to others which helps prevent offenses
from occurring in the first place. Jesus summed up the Law and the
Prophets in
the command to love one's neighbor as one's self, and as
discussed in previous posts on this broader topic, Paul
tells the Ephesians to avoid wrath and strife in favor of love
which manifests as a disposition that is patient, kind, and gracious.
The significance of the disposition of care and kindness that love
brings in our hearts should not be diminished. We are even called to
be known to those who don't follow the Christian faith for our
love and consideration for our fellow Christians.
That said, people still develop
expectations of one another which go unmet which can result in
disappointment, offense, and even bitterness. Again note that such
problems develop in the realm of the subjective, stemming from
personal perspective. Sometimes, the offending party has no clue that
they've even caused hurt or challenged another person, and many
offenses arise just because of personal preference having nothing to
do with morality or failing in some duty. Some people offend more
easily than others. While such situations may reveal true motives
and tell much about character, these situations do not constitute
sins, even though the Bible teaches us to handle the all offenses
owing from either sin or disappointment/disagreement by assertively
confronting one another with discretion and care.
Quite simply, we must be careful that
we don't hold people accountable for sinning against us when they may
have just disappointed us. Love combined with personal humility
should help us keep on track, preventing us from putting our personal
desires before then needs or even the limitations of others. When we
get too consumed with ourselves, we can magnify our personal pain and
upgrade offenses to the level of sins.
Addressing Offenses as a Positive Process
Addressing offenses can be considered a
very good and healthy process of fostering trust and bonding.
Keeping quiet about the internal discomfort we feel with others
divides us, but by addressing our pain and offenses, we remove those
impediments. We find new opportunities to love one another, and we
create opportunities to learn about ourselves and we do. By
confronting one another, we teach each other how to walk in love and
all that it entails. Denying offenses serves only to alienate us
from others and from God. And when we are approached with offenses,
even if they are just points of friction between us, the offending
party has the opportunity to practice humility. Assertive
confrontation maintains communication and encourages our maturity as
we grow in our abilities to be rightly joined together.
Love loves to forgive, and therein is
the power which allows us to frame confrontation as a positive
practice.
Twisting Love into a Trap of
Conformity in High Demand Religion
Aberrant groups use the Law of Love to
squelch honest criticism and conflict in an effort to maintain milieu
control as a function of spiritual abuse. Demanding perfection
of followers, high demand religion requires people to feign and
maintain a false sense of peace by shaming them into denying
conflict. Gothardism teaches that it is sinful to even
become offended with others because “love
covers a multitude of sins” (1
Peter 4:8). Reinforcing the idea that merely developing an
offense itself is shameful and sinful (as opposed to how we deal with
offense), Bill
Gothard teaches that individuals have no personal rights which
must be yielded to God by way of yielding to earthly authorities and
circumstances. He establishes yielded rights as a truism and
includes it as an element of his 49
Character Qualities.
If a person has no rights (including a lack of personal boundaries), they have no right to be offended. These kinds of presumptions about rights predispose people to the Path of Denial. Though Gothard teaches this formally, I think that the same kind of logical conclusion develops for many Christians who are well outside of unhealthy, cultic religion. Anyone who feels guilt over their personal needs (which are God-given which require that degree of self-love that Jesus spoke of), believing that they really should have none, will likely struggle with admitting to offenses. And honestly, no Christian enjoys acknowledging their own lack of love -- resulting in disappointment in ourselves.
If a person has no rights (including a lack of personal boundaries), they have no right to be offended. These kinds of presumptions about rights predispose people to the Path of Denial. Though Gothard teaches this formally, I think that the same kind of logical conclusion develops for many Christians who are well outside of unhealthy, cultic religion. Anyone who feels guilt over their personal needs (which are God-given which require that degree of self-love that Jesus spoke of), believing that they really should have none, will likely struggle with admitting to offenses. And honestly, no Christian enjoys acknowledging their own lack of love -- resulting in disappointment in ourselves.
Much like my own tendency and example,
like many Christians, I have learned through certain social pressures
and expectations an impression that even getting offended is a sin.
As Christians, if we are truly doing what we're supposed to be doing,
we will walk in perfect love, seemingly without a great deal of
difficultly. 1 Corinthians 13 says that love is slow to anger and
doesn't keep track of wrongs. But note that the passage says that it
is not easily offended. It doesn't eliminate the possibility of
offense altogether.
In high demand groups, the concept can
be taken to another extreme by requiring followers to suffer abuse.
By misinterpreting the concept of authority and chain of command as a
military-like hierarchy, authoritarian groups often tell those who
suffer abuse to resign themselves to abusive situations in the name
of love. Not only must they deny a host of offenses as such, they
are required to ignore sin deliberately. The concept of a loving
disposition as the mechanism by which people can avoid offense
becomes a mandate to tolerate all manner of sinful behavior against
them. Their love for the offender should blot out sin, and suffering
for ignoring sin which is repeated just banks up points of favor with
God. The concept wrongly equates all rights and assertiveness as a
type of sinful pride.
The concept also blackmails Christians
into keeping quiet in the name of preserving unity. Such groups will
overfocus upon and distort any verse of Scripture which speaks of
unity and mutual care to avoid “discord
among the brethren.” Groups use fear to force a highly
controlled conformity, mistaking it for unity within diversity. The
concept throws wounded people “under the bus,” and legitimizes
sin in many cases. Such systems treat victims as the true and
greater offenders for “sowing discord,” the sin that cannot be
pardoned. All must fall on the sword in order to preserve the
illusion of unity and peace.
The Doctrine of Taking Up Offenses
While on the subject of offenses in the
context of spiritual abuse, the doctrine of “taking up offenses”
deserves honorable mention. Avoiding confrontation by talking to
everyone but your offender about the offense they caused is clearly
wrong. Matthew Chapters 5 and 18 teach that an offended person
should go directly to the those who offended them to privately to
address their concerns. However, gossip should be strongly
distinguished from this means of manipulation which deters critical
thinking and open communication.
In a high demand or cultic system,
tight control of communication keeps people from stimulating one
another to think about natural doubts and problems within the group.
“Taking
up offenses” serves as just one of the buzz phrases of loaded
language in groups like Gothardism. By tightly controlling and limiting communication among members, the doctrine is interpreted in ways that discourage and
punish warranted dissent and reasonable, spontaneous thought by denying people the right to feel offended, even though offense is inevitable. If someone wounds one of our loved ones, particularly those for whom we are responsible (e.g., children), we should be offended. Love should never hide sin, minimize the truth of the harm done to others, or condone evil. In spiritually abusive settings, love is used to condone evil and requires subordinates to suffer as a religious duty.
Proverbs
3:30 states that we should not “strive
with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.”
But the verse does not also say that we should ignore strife when
there is a notable cause, nor does it say that we should not be
concerned with one another. It does not instruct us to ignore harm
that is done to others, nor or that we should ignore what goes on
around us. Our love for one another calls for justice to be established, therefore, legitimate offense serves love by providing for safety and care.