In a recent interview with Laura Kuenssberg, the former Archbishop of Canterbury – Justin Welby – was asked a simple question: does he forgive John Smyth? Smyth was a serial abuser, whose abuse was covered up within the Church of England and the links to which led to the Archbishop’s resignation. Welby answered simply and straightforwardly: yes, he does forgive Smyth. You can watch the relevant clip here:
I have, for quite some time, found this sort of treatment of forgiveness both facile and damaging.
In a post I wrote back in 2020 – which you can read here – I argued the Bible does not call us to unilateral forgiveness when there has been no repentance. This is not the way that God forgives and it seems odd to consider our forgiveness more forgiving than his. Nor does this seems to be the way forgiveness operates in either the Lord’s Prayer nor in Jesus’ comments to both the church and then directly to Peter in response to his question in Matthew 18. I similarly note the relevance (and the specific biblical answer to) Jesus’ calling on the Father to forgive those crucifying him. You can read that previous post to see how I understand the scriptures speak about this issue. Suffice to say, as I note in that post:
The concept of unilateral forgiveness for the unrepentant, as far as I can see, simply isn’t in the Bible. It isn’t how God confers forgiveness and there is no example of it happening in scripture. Forgiveness requires repentance. To simply say, ‘I forgive you’ when there has been no repentance does very little indeed other than cheapen the idea of forgiveness itself.
For all the caveats and nuances you might be hoping for, what I am and am not specifically saying, I would encourage you to read the OP in full here.
It might be worth noting what forgiveness is before we go on. Happily, I have done that in another post here. In short, ‘forgiveness is to say that I count this sin against you no longer. That is, I will not hold it against you and I will not seek further redress for the issue if your repentance is genuine.’ I go on to note, ‘forgiveness is fundamentally about not holding sin against somebody anymore and considering whatever debt there was to have been cancelled.’
When we understand forgiveness this way, it brings into sharper focus why it is unhelpful and unkind to forgive an unrepentant person. Somebody who is unrepentant must still be held accountable for their sin. A repentant person may be forgiven by the victim of their sin – they will no longer seek redress – but in serious cases, such as in criminal matters, a truly repentant person will submit themselves to justice. A mark of genuine repentance is a submitting ourselves to justice and seeking to redress what we have done wrong. A victim can forgive such a person because they will show themselves properly repentant by admitting their guilt and willingly submitting to the consequences such that the victim has no need to pursue further justice or by righting the wrong in some way. The example of Zacchaeus is instructive in this regard.
Which brings me back to Justin Welby’s unilateral forgiveness of John Smyth. His very specific answer to a direct question. That yes, he does indeed forgive Smyth. Let me say a few things here.
First, Smyth never repented and showed no evidence of repentance. For Welby to announce that he forgives him is to say, despite what he has done, I cancel the debt against you. Despite your lack of care, your refusal to admit wrong, your continued acts of wrongdoing of the same order, I no longer seek redress and reckon the debt to be cancelled. To say I forgive under such circumstances is as crass as it sounds.
Second, Smyth has died in unrepentance making forgiveness impossible for us. Smyth can and will only be judged by God. The Lord is very clear, repentance is not an option as we stand before the judgement seat. We have the duration of our lifetime to repent of our sin and, as Hebrews puts it, after that comes judgement. If Smyth never repented of his sin, it will be judged by Jesus. If Christ has not unilaterally forgiven Smyth, I am unclear in what world any of us think we can do so. We either make out that we are more forgiving than Jesus – which would be both crass and blasphemous – or we are using the term ‘forgiveness’ to mean something altogether different to what it actually is.
Third, it seems particularly crass for Justin Welby to offer his forgiveness when, in fact, he personally failed to bring Smyth to justice. This is to re-traumatise the victims all over again. He has failed to uphold the justice he was tasked to deliver – being made to resign over this failure – and he again fails to uphold justice by unilaterally forgiving a man who showed no sign of repentance for his sin. It is a bold man who suggests he is any position to forgive, implying it is the morally appropriate thing to do (presumably for victims also), when it is apparent one’s understanding of what is just and equitable has been specifically called into question.
Fourth, it seems all too easy to say ‘I forgive’ a man who has since died. There is simply no call to do anything about that forgiveness. It is, in essence, nothing more than words. If Smyth were still alive, it would be inappropriate to forgive him where there is no repentance because there would be no justice for victims if we take that forgiveness at all seriously. If there were repentance, to forgive would then require something of us. It seems all too easy to say ‘I forgive’ when there is no ability or need to do anything at all about it. It is just words and hard to avoid the conclusion it makes forgiveness cheap.
Finally, I think it is the victims of Smyth – and who were subsequently appallingly let down by Justin Welby – who have the far better and clearer understanding of forgiveness. In an article by the BBC, one of Smyth’s victims had this to say:
One of Smyth’s victims, known as Graham – who made the 2013 complaint – told the BBC he would not forgive Welby.
He said: “I’ve said before that, if in 2017 he had contacted us, said ‘I will come and apologise to you personally, I am sorry, I messed up’, I would have forgiven him immediately – but he never has in those terms.”
Asked if he could ever forgive Welby, Graham said: “Not if he continues to blank us and refuses to tell us the truth. We’re the victims, we deserve to know what happened and we don’t yet.”
Here we have somebody saying that he would forgive Justin Welby’s behaviour if there was an acknowledgement of it and meaningful repentance. Namely, a direct and unequivocal apology, acknowledging failure. This is not forgiveness without repentance, it is not forgiveness without cost, but forgiveness that mirrors that of the Lord Jesus. A readiness to forgive, a willingness to forgive, but when repentance has come and when that repentance is evidenced by meaningful action, not just cheap and meaningless words.
Perpetrators of abuse are responsible for their actions and are the ones who are called on to meaningfully repent. A truly repentant perpetrator will submit themselves to justice. It is not the job of victims, and nobody should expect victims, to unilaterally forgive their abusers when there has been no meaningful repentance. Victims are called to not allow bitterness to overtake them; they are responsible for their own heart. They are called by Jesus to forgive a truly repentant perpetrator, but such a repentant person will be evidenced by submitting themselves to justice and freeing the victim from having to pursue anything at all because they see the need for justice to be done. But victims owe nothing to unrepentant abusers and have every right to continue to hold their sin against them and pursue redress. Biblical justice nigh on demands it.