From Religion To Relationship
June 10th, 2010 | 
Author: I have been reading George Barna’s book, Revolution, which is about some major changes happening in the way believers are expressing and experiencing their faith and the means through which it is made real. Barna speaks of a growing number of Christians who are disenfranchised with the traditional church model.
They have no use for churches that play religious games, whether those games are worship services that drone on without the presence of God or ministry programs that bear no spiritual fruit. They refuse to follow people in ministry leadership who cast a personal vision rather than God’s, who seek popularity rather than proclamation of the truth in their public statements, or who are more concerned about their own legacy than that of Jesus Christ. They refuse to donate one more dollar to man-made monuments that mark their own achievements and guarantee their place in history.
Barna speaks of Christians who are frustrated at being “…mired in an agonizing revolving door of trial-and-error efforts in a disheartening and unfulfilling search for truth, integrity, meaning, wholeness, connection, passion, and inner peace.” He introduces a new class of “revolutionary” believers who are “…confidently returning to a first-century lifestyle based on faith, goodness, love, generosity, kindness, and simplicity…” I, nor George Barna, am saying there is anything inherently wrong with being involved in a local church. The traditional church in America many have come to cherish– the services, offices, programs, buildings, ceremonies– is neither biblical nor unbiblical; such an organization is not addressed in the Bible. It is not about the church, it is about the Church. It is not about going to church, it is about being the Church, and for many, like myself, a lifetime immersion in the institutional church has often resulted in more barriers than channels to an authentic relationship with God.
As I have traveled internationally I have witnessed many expressions of the local church. Africa, in particular, painted a common and unfortunate picture of man’s tendency toward religion over relationship. While traveling in remote areas of Zambia, Uganda, Mozambique, South Africa and Ghana, I noticed that the young, start-up churches in the villages mostly consisted of small groups of people, meeting under the shade of a tree or in someone’s home. The worship consisted of beautiful acapella singing in traditional, African rhythms and harmonies, sometimes with drums, always with dancing. The pastor would share a message during which discussion and interaction among the believers was encouraged. But then when I visited churches in the larger towns and cities, the picture dramatically changed. The meetings happened in large church buildings with blaring and distorted sound systems. The traditional singing was lost to “contemporary worship” imported from the West, complete with full bands of guitars and keyboards and drums sets. The sermon was delivered by the “senior pastor” with great fanfare and pomp. The contrast was alarming! I felt that the village church was intimate and relational while the big city church was religious and impersonal. I believe that something was lost in the “evolution” of the African church when the Western model of a formal organization and facility and technology was introduced, and it saddened my heart.
I have a local church which my family and I attend on occasion, and where we still find life-giving teaching and worship. But we have given up a sense of obligation to attend every Sunday in order to feel that we are right with God. We reject the co-dependency and exclusivity so often found in becoming a “member” of a local church. We are blessed with a large family, all of whom are actively believers, and we have found a small community of believers who are hungry for the same authentic pursuit of relationship with God and His people, with whom we meet a couple of times a week, sharing a common journey from religion to relationship.
Posted in 11 Responses to “From Religion To Relationship”
Leave a Reply
Evan…..
I SO appreciated your balanced, yet realistic observations on this subject. There is no place for judgment or even of comparison for the sake of competing for “rightness”. Your observations are gladly welcomed, especially by myself, and I’m sure by many others. It is NOT in bashing our past religious organizations that we’ve been involved with, but in authentically studying the results our choices and involvements have had in our lives that teaches us what is healthy and empowers each of us to discover and redirect the success of our own paths thoughtfully and purposefully!
I am so drawn to the ideas you’ve shared and want to experience MORE of the interactive, personal, relational gatherings like the small, village groups you spoke of. There is safety in the multitude of counselors…and it seems to me that that interactive setting gives a place for each individual’s wisdom to bring about a much more “complete” teaching and worship time. I really believe there is a great deal of value in promoting such a setting.
I sense fear in most of the “arguments” against promoting this form of worship and fellowship, and am concerned that there is a degree of control and certainly narrow mindedness in believing that “church” must look only one way to be “safe”. I really appreciated your differentiation between church and “The Church”….meaning the believers that make up the “body”….with all it’s various and equally valuable parts.
I find it fascinating to discover that the definitions we have been taught as “the only” are truly NOT the only one(s)….and am excited to continue my search for a broader and much more “free” Life of Truth!
Thank you for presenting us with yet another opportunity to think about these things more deeply and therefore provide ourselves with a deeper and more satisfying experience.
Chellee
I hear this type of criticism of organized religion a lot. I can understand it and I get what people are saying when they say Jesus didn’t come to establish a religion. That’s true… but they seem to ignore the fact that He did come to establish a Church (in part). He described His Church at several points in His ministry and appointed apostles to… See More be the spiritual leaders of this Church and He gave them the same authority to forgive sins that up until that point was considered an authority that only God had (John 20:21-23). And that Church was a visible organization. We know this because He told them that unresolved disputes must be brought to the Church for settlement (Matthew 18:17). How would that be possible without it being a visible organized group of believers with visible leaders? He also prayed that the Church would be one as He is one with the Father, united in one truth (John 17:17-21). So the Church, according to Jesus and the Bible, is supposed to be apostolic (as also confessed in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds), it is supposed to be a visible organization with visible leaders (who have the authority to forgive sins), and it is supposed to be united in one truth.
Could you comment on that Evan? I have never heard those points addressed by similar narratives.
Brian, thanks for sharing your perspective. You bring up some very valid points.
I think it is important to define the difference between what you and I recognize as the Church (with a capitol “C”) and the church (with a small “c”). We could both agree that the Church is the body of Christ, His bride made up of all believers.I would define the church (small “c”) as any number of cultural or social expressions of the Church, from the mega-church down to the home church in China. I would not be one of those who all-together condemns any of the expressions of the corporate gathering together of the Church, including the institutional church in America.
However, I have seen many times when Christians who are dedicated to the traditional church model of attending services in a church building with paid, professional pastors and leaders believe that anyone who does not attend a church regularly is not a part of the Church. This is what I would contest.
I have been recently meeting with a group of believers in an informal Bible study where, I believe, we are actively being the Church. All of the key components are present.
I would be interested in hearing more from you about how you would define a “visible organization with visible leaders”. Would you say that only “leaders” have the ability to forgive sin according to John 20:21-23?
Thanks for the conversation!
Hi Evan, Totally a side note, but I’m not sure if there’s a way to initialize a subscription function on the comments so that commentators can get a little email notice saying that someone has replied to their post. That’d be great if possible.
Wow, there’s so much we could discuss here that it’s hard to know where to start. Regarding the big ‘C’ definition of the Church. Yes, I would agree with that for the most part, but I feel like the definition is slightly inadequate. If the Church is composed of all believers as part of the Body with Christ being the Head OR with the body of believers composing the Bride with Christ as the Bridegroom, then there must be some defining characteristic that unites us to Christ in order for us all to be categorically part of the Body. In other words, there must be something that unites us with Him so that we could all be considered as part of the same grouping. I think most would say that the thing that unites us is Faith in Him. As long as we all confess that He is God, then we are part of the Body. The problem I have with that criteria is that it’s very easy for two people to accept Jesus as their Lord, but still have entirely different ideas about who He is. So at that point, the only thing that unites them is the word jesus and not the person Jesus.
Jesus own criteria for unity in John 17 was truth. Faith in my thinking must be dependent upon truth. Belief or acceptance of a creed must entail a clear definition of that creed, but denominalized Christianity doesn’t have that luxury because each local church has a slightly different interpretation of that creed.
This, to me, is why the organized structures of churches are important because the people attending them are doing more than just getting together in an organized institution. They are rallying around a confessed creed. The Baptists get together every Sunday and hear (and believe) something slightly different from the Lutherans down the street as compared to the Anglicans, the Pentecostals, etc. etc. And then of course we see further dividing lines in groups like the JW’s or the Mormons or even some extreme versions of fundamentalists who carry hateful signs persecuting what they have defined as sinners (which is everyone but them). Do you think that they are followers of Christ even though His name shows up on their signs? I don’t either, and yet, isn’t that a case of both of us labeling members of an organized group as not being part of the Body?
The organized structures represent the various discrepancies in denominational Christianity and according to Jesus own criteria for unity, it’s not present in those instances because truth is the thing that keeps us members of His body. We can confess his name all we want, but if we believe that He is someone He’s not and live our lives according to that confession, then I have to say that we are not part of that church/body/bride.
The visible divisions among various denominations are a more profound reality than simply meeting in different buildings. Those different buildings are a physical sign of a spiritual reality of division just as the incarnation is a physical sign of a spiritual reality of unity.
When I came to this realization early in my faith I was confronted with a disturbing choice. The Bible and early Church writings describe an organized and apostolic church (with apostolic succession [Bishops, laying of hands, etc]), one with Presbyters or Elders who were specifically ordained and distinct from the rest of the visible body of believers and who assisted the Bishops as shepherds, one in which those with Apostolic authority had the actual authority of God and the ability to forgive sins and administer sacraments, one that broke bread often (which Paul describes as something much more than casual dinner meetings in Corinthians 11:29), one that was visibly organized so that believers could come to it for judgments regarding disputes, one that gathered to resolve doctrines and disciplines of the Church in councils as seen in Acts. 15 in which James makes the final binding decision based on advice from Peter), and one that is united in Truth which can be translated into doctrine. When I first became Christian I saw no visible Church today that represented that reality except for the Catholic Church. In fact, no church even claimed to have this kind of authority (except the LDS). That is why I eventually converted to Catholicism.
If I were still a non-catholic believer, I would take the same issue as you do regarding the practice of Christianity and find little difference in the gathering of a few for a Bible study vs. a Sunday service. But my point is that, this is not the practice of Church as described in the Didache, the early church father’s writings, or the Bible. In my practice of Christianity, there is a major difference between my Bible study group and Sunday Mass in which the breaking of bread takes place, ancient prayers are sung as they were in the first century, believers are absolved of their sins by God’s presbyters, and the body of believers literally becomes united to Jesus as his Body in communion (which is a physical sign of a spiritual reality of unity).
Brian, thanks for the note about the subscription option. I will check in to that.
I don’t disagree with you on most of what you’ve said. And, by the way, I am very impressed with your ability to vocalize your views. You are an excellent communicator!
I might take issue with you regarding your suggestion that a small gathering of believers in an informal setting is not a valid reflection of the New Testament Church and therefore can not “forgive sins and administer sacraments”. I would contend that the majority of the churches of that day followed this very model. The terms “Presbyters or Bishops” are not found in the Bible that I have seen. The extent of the Church “structure” of that time was apostles (gifted as such at the discretion of the Holy Spirit) and elders (respected, mature men who were chosen by the Church to lead) overseeing and resolving disputes. There were no formal institutions or organizations at that time to “ordain”. The function of apostle and elder requires nothing more than for believers to acknowledge God’s anointing and agree or decree (the definition of ordain) them as such.
I believe that all distinctions (Baptist, Catholic, pentecostal, etc.) are man-made religions where, often “…their teachings are but rules taught by men”(Mark 7:7) and the pitfalls of which Jesus warned us about in Matthew 23. Only to the degree that they create avenues to an authentic relationship with God and other believers are they functioning as the Church, and those avenues can be found outside of organized religion as easily.
My intention here is not to condemn others for attending an institutional church, but to establish that participating in the discipleship model of relating to God and others that Jesus modeled during His time on Earth does not require membership in or commitment to organized religion.
Hi Evan, Thanks for your kind words. I think we do agree on quite a bit and again, I really do sympathize with your convictions because if I were not Catholic, I would find no difference in a Sunday service and small group study because spiritually there really isn’t.
To address the point about Presbyters and Bishops, we need to examine the etymology of those words a little to find out if they are in the Bible. Just as Trinity or Bible are not found in the Bible, we still believe in their implicit validity. The words in question here are in fact in the Bible depending on what translation you’re using. In any event, synonyms for both words that establish the same meaning as the words in question are in the Bible. The words are used interchangeably with words such as overseer, elders, priests, and episcopes (which is the Greek word that translates into Bishop in English and which the office of the episcopate is derived from).
Here are some passages to consider not only for the use of their words but for what they describe. Clearly a Church with visible leaders who govern in an organized fashion for which the rest of the body of believers are subject to.
Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
[the word ‘bishops’ replaced with ‘overseers’ in the KJV and in the U.S. bishops’ New American Bible (NAB)].
Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ; to all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.
[Some translations use the word ‘overseers’ instead of bishops]. This one is also important because it establishes a distinction between bishops and deacons which some argue are the same role but are clearly distinct in this passage.
1 Timothy 3:1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1 Timothy 3:2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:
1 Peter 2:25 For you were as sheep going astray; but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.
In the original Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, there are three words that are translated into the word priest.
Presbyter is a word from the Greek word presbyteros that is commonly translated into ‘elder’ in English. This word shows up in several places in the New Testament.
Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas ordained elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.
Acts 11:30 The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea.
Acts 15:1-35 (at the council of Jerusalem which I mentioned earlier as evidence of an organized hierarchy gathering to settle doctrinal disputes)
Verse 2: This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
Verse 4: When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
Verse 6: The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
Verse 22: Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
Verse 23 (making a clear distinction between believers and offices of authority): With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.
Acts 16:4 (another good example of the nature of authority of some to which others were subject to obedience) As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.
Regarding the authority to forgive sins, the verse I quoted seems clear to me that this authority of God was handed to a few and not every believer, but we can also look to early church writings as an indication to what the early church practiced regarding this sacrament.
Hippolytus Writes:
“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
Origen Writes:
“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage Writes:
“The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).
There are lots of other quotes to support the claim of this practice throughout the history of Christianity, but this post is long enough.
One last thing regarding man-made religions. The Church as seen in early writings of church fathers and the Bible is an organized group with visible leaders. I think the above quotations are pretty undeniable to support that. This Church, Jesus promised, would last forever and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18 I think). So if I am to believe in the claims of Christianity and the promise of Jesus himself regarding the establishment and preservation of an organized visible Church with apostolic succession and the authority to forgive sins, I must presume that this Church still exists and can be found today. Only one resembles these qualities in the least and it reflects qualities that existed in the early Church and carried through the centuries today. The Catholic Church didn’t start at a distinct point in contrast to the early Church the way the Lutheran, Anglican, Anabaptists or others did. They are all breakaways from the original which still exists, that in fact do hold man made doctrines (like sola scriptura which isn’t even found in the Bible). I think the onus to say that the Catholic church is a man made religion is on those who make that claim. You must show how it contrasts to the early Church and the one described in the Bible. To me, it appears to line up perfectly showing that it is the Church that Jesus established himself united in one baptism and one confession of faith.
Wow Brian, I could never accuse you of not backing up your views with hard data! lol
The title you or I use in reference to the roles of leadership within the Church is not as important to me as the idea that one does not have to be ordained by an institution as a paid, professional clergy to fulfill that role. In the early Church, elders and deacons were fishermen and blue collar workers who had wisdom and maturity and were looked to for leadership within the Church. We have never needed any other mediator between us and God than Jesus.
I am curious to know your views on a few basic questions:
Do you have to go to a “Presbyter or Bishop” to get forgiveness for your sins, or can you go directly to God in prayer and claim the finished work of the cross and the redemption from sin that was bought for us when Christ died for those sins?
If you desired, could you share communion in the privacy of your own home with your family, or is the administration of sacraments reserved for official clergy?
Based on your religious traditions, if you lived in a remote area of Africa and had no church nearby, could you still experience a full, intimate relationship with God, and if so, what would be required?
Those are some really great and thought provoking questions! I agree that the titles or words we use are secondary to the reality that they represent. I feel a lot of what you are objecting to are the mere semantics of a group of people being organized. For example, the Bible clearly describes a distinction between roles of leadership in the Church and those of the rest of the faithful. As in the case of the first council of Jerusalem. We see a binding decision made by Apostles and elders which was distributed for the rest of the faithful to observe and obey. This is a governmental process in action that the Bible describes. The bible doesn’t really comment on whether or not the elders and apostles were paid to function in that role, but that’s kind of irrelevant to me. I think a good argument could be made to say that they were actively engaged in their roles on a full time basis and thus, some sort of income must have been provided for them by the church. You mentioned that they were blue collar workers and the implication I get from that is that you think that they carried on with their full time jobs and just stepped away to perform their functions as leaders in the Church (sorry if I’m assuming too much there). Based on what the Bible describes, I think that this would be a wrong assumption on your part. For starters, the way Paul’s ministry is described is one of constant travel, preaching, and active ministry. I highly doubt he had some other job that he performed to provide and income with. The alternative would have been that he was compensated for by the wider community of believers (or the church). When Jesus called many of His apostles the stories describe them in their actual roles before they were called to be His apostles. For example, Peter and the rest were fishing. But the story records that they left that all behind to begin formation as His apostles and then active ministry has He sent them out with authority to preach and heal. There are several times that the community’s “purse” is mentioned which again implies that they were cared for by some sort of church income.
Regarding the mediator point you made I agree, but I think I need to clarify my belief on this. This is a common statement to object to the idea of a priest acting as a mediator. The reality is, a Catholic priest as an administrator of sacraments is not an added mediator but functions as a part Christ himself. The reality is, the Church is Christ’s Body, so when we the Church plays an active role in the forgiveness of sins, it is Jesus Himself that is using His Church, His Body to perform this function. This is a profound reality made possible by the incarnation in which the physical and divine come together. The mystical Body is referred to as a Body because it has a material component. It is visible, real, and undivided. It is also mysterious and extremely difficult to describe for an average layman like myself.
I think the fundamental thing to consider is this: If Jesus established His Church in such a way that included specifically distinct spiritual leaders who carried His unique authority to forgive sins, then there should be no concern regarding competing forms of mediation because we are conforming to Christ’s own vision for His Church which, in turn, means we are being obedient to Him. On the contrary, if He did establish His Church in this way and we refuse to conform to it, we are in fact following man made doctrines. I’ve given historical and biblical evidence that strongly suggest that Jesus passed on the authority to forgive sins to a distinct group of spiritual leaders in His Church.
Regarding your great questions:
To have your sins forgiven it’s not an either or scenario as in the case of: Can I go directly to God or do I need to confess them to a priest. The reality is, it’s a both and scenario but there’s a lot to unwrap here. In Catholic theology, there are, generally, two categories of sin. What’s called venial and mortal. Venial sins are failures to observe the moral law in a less sever sense and these types of sins can be forgiven directly in prayer to God but it can also be helpful to bring them to the sacrament of confession in order to find help, accountability, and advice. Mortal sins are of such a particularly rebellious nature that they can only be forgiven through the sacrament with the absolution of a priest. I realize that venial and mortal sins are extremely foreign concepts to non-catholics, but they are described in the Bible (1 John 5:16-17). I think it would help if I explained what Mortal sin is. In order for a sin to be considered Mortal, it must fulfill three criteria. It must be a grave offense (that is a serious sin. Breaking any of the ten commandments are a good general guideline), it must be with full knowledge that the act is a sin and committed anyways, and it must be committed with full consent of the will. That is, the transgressor cannot be coerced into committing it or be addicted to the act (for example). The difference in certain types of sin and the gravity attached to them is illustrated in these verses as well:
Luke 12:47-48: “And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.” (cf. Lev. 5:17, Lk. 23:34)
John 19:11: “‘. . . he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.’”
Acts 17:30: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,” (cf. Rom. 3:25)
1 Timothy 1:13: “though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief.”
Hebrews 10:26: “For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,”
The Bible also refers to (mortal) sins which – if not repented of – will exclude one from heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 1:8; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:16; Rev. 22:15).
Regarding your second question, the answer is no. Only a validly ordained priest can perform the ritual of the mass. The reason for this is because Catholic believe that this ritual is fundamentally different from the protestant Christianity. First, we believe the sacrament of communion was instituted by Jesus and passed exclusively to his apostles in the upper room. Only they have the authority to perform the ritual. Secondly, we believe that the bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Jesus. I know that’s a shocker and we could get into a discussion on that, but that’s going to get us way off track.
Last question; this is a complicated question and for much of the clarity I’d like to be able to convey to you, I, instead have to content myself with an ‘I don’t know’. Much in the same way when someone is asked what happens to all the people that never get the chance to hear the Gospel and form a relationship with Jesus in this life. Is it possible for them to be save? Truly, I don’t know, but I believe in a merciful God who has gone to great lengths to have a relationship with each of us and I believe He has a plan for them as well.
Brian, I so appreciate the education in Catholicism. You are truly a scholar!
You are correct that I may find it difficult to understand, coming from a non-catholic background, and, although I find it hard to justify many of your views and practices based on my own Biblical worldview, it is clear that you share my passionate pursuit of God.
Thank you, also, for “getting” what I am about on this blog as I seek to separate religion from authentic relationship in my own experience.
I have greatly enjoyed this conversation and would love to meet you in person someday.
It’s definitely a pleasure engaging in this type of dialogue. Far too many times I’ve been in scenarios where people respond in anger over a difference in beliefs (and it’s something I’ve been guilty of too).
If I could offer one closing remark that I think sums up my own difficulty sorting through competing ideas it would be this: If Jesus gave authority to forgive sins to His disciples and also the authority to retain them, that is deny absolution and forgiveness, why isn’t that practiced anywhere outside of the Catholic Church (granting that it is also practiced in isolated cases in Lutheranism, Anglicanism and East Orthodox)? There may be instances where people express God’s forgiveness to one another, but have you ever heard anyone say to someone, “your sins are not forgiven by the authority that is passed to me”? And yet, Jesus said, who’s sins your retain, they are retained.
Thanks again Evan. If you’re ever in Alberta, look me up.
Brian, I believe forgiveness, or lack thereof, is a serious issue among Christians. However, I have never interpreted John 20:23 to mean that if I refuse to forgive someone else an offense against me, that God will refuse them forgiveness as well if they were to confess that sin to Him and ask for forgiveness.
I can’t imagine God giving that kind of power to man to deny absolution and forgiveness to each other if it means forgiveness is denied by heaven as well.
I do know that it is possible to risk denial of your own requests for forgiveness if you deny others forgiveness for offenses against you (Matt 6:14,15). I think the word “retain” in this instance, means on the part of man, not God.