We're hosting a mid-week small group in our home, and this week the topic was on forgiveness. Talk turned to the MeToo movement and what part forgiveness plays. It seems that many are more bent on destruction than forgiveness. It appears that some use the movement as a political, positional maneuver, putting their own agenda ahead of any concern that might be possible for the person whom they condemn.While there has certainly been some good coming from the movement, there are many shards that rip and ruin along the way. One of those slaughterous shards is that it assumes guilt until proven innocent. The burden of proof is placed on the accused, with the accuser simply believed because the words flow off the tongue or the ink spills from the pen. A striking characteristic of the movement is that some are reaching so far back that there is little memory of those days to prove innocence. Neither can guilt be proven in some cases, but character has been attacked and reputations ruined. For many, the goal is accomplished and much of it due to a vengeful spirit.
So, back to our group's question--what part does forgiveness play? The prerequisite question: Is the accuser willing to forgive? Reconciliation is the goal of forgiveness. Is this the goal of the accuser? Does the accuser seek reconciliation or ruination? Or is it all couched in 'justice'? And what about when we're on the side of the justice scale that tips toward our own guilt in a different area? Are we just as willing for justice then? Or is justice demanded only for the sins against us, not by us?
What is the goal of the accuser?
Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? (James 3:11)
Painting ~ Chatting, Eugen von Blaas, 1905
public domain via Wikimedia
