UNDERSTANDING CHRISTIANITY 

A monthly forum on the third Saturday of each month from 6:30 to 7:30 or 8 P.M. following Evening Prayer at 6
Forums usually with Canon Richard T. Nolan
 retired philosophy & religion professor, editor of www.philosophy-religion.org
Saturday, October 20, 2007 

TOPIC: ARE THERE REQUIREMENTS FOR FORGIVENESS?
an exploration of
forgiveness among people and from God; forgiving oneself; reconciliation; penitence; "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing"; "....... as we forgive those who trespass against us"; the Crucifixion and forgiveness; forgiveness without penitence? 

A Prayer To Be Said In Unison

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who has committed to your holy Church the care and nurture of all the faithful; Enlighten with your wisdom those who teach and those who learn, that, rejoicing in the knowledge of your truth, they may worship and serve you from generation to generation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

I.  CONTEXT: SUMMARY OF THE LAW

The Summary of the Law: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." This declaration by Jesus is the moral absolute for all Christians, an absolute principle rooted in the Old Testament. 

By asserting "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets," Jesus provides an indisputable, liberating moral context for understanding all other commandments, rules, and ethical values. In so doing, he freed us from unswerving conformity to lesser, inflexible, imprisoning moral codes and regulations that too often inhibit, or even prevent, love of God, neighbor, and self.

II.    FORGIVENESS

[from VandenBos, Gary R. (ed.),  APA Dictionary of Psychology (American Psychological Association, 2007)]
-- willfully putting aside feelings of resentment toward an individual who has committed a wrong, been unfair or hurtful, or otherwise harmed one in some way. Forgiveness is not equated with reconciliation or excusing another, and it is not merely accepting what happened or ceasing to be angry. Rather, it involves a voluntary transformation of one's feelings, attitudes, and behavior toward the individual, so that one is not longer dominated by resentment and can express compassion, generosity, or the like, toward the individual. Forgiveness is often considered an important process in psychotherapy or counseling. 

[from An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference for Episcopalians, Don S. Armentrout and Robert Boak Slocum, editors] -- To forgive is to give up or absolve legitimate claims upon another, as when a debt is forgiven. In forgiveness, a relationship is restored or renewed. Central to Christian faith is the forgiveness of sins, understood as an action of God. God is understood to be forgiving, a God of love, mercy, and grace. 

 -- means letting go of the weight of resentment against the person who harmed you, and also of the dubious pleasures of revenge and retribution. It's a lot easier to do if the other person apologizes, but it's still something you can do on your own, without the other person ever having to know what you've done.

III. RECONCILIATION happens as persons or groups begin to shape their lives in positive relation to one another. It happens as people learn to deal with what separates them and as they find a bridge to new attitudes and practices that enable people to live in relation to one another, not in isolation from each other.  Basically, reconciliation is a reestablishment of friendship or harmony. 

[from http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2006/08/christian-practice-part-5.html]
true reconciliation needs all four of those components:
1. Truth: Acknowledgment, transparency, revelation, clarity, accountability, vulnerability
Unless the parties are open and honest with each other, true reconciliation cannot be had. Confession is a critical aspect of truth.
2. Mercy: Forgiveness, compassion, acceptance.
Mercy involves the idea of grace. But mercy alone is superficial. It needs, as its companion,...
3. Justice: Equality, right relationship, making things right, restitution, fairness
Without attempts to restore dignity and equality, the brokenness created by the conflict continues to fester.
4. Peace: Harmony, unity, well-being, security, respect
Peace is the prevailing atmosphere of security and respect between all parties. Without that atmosphere, suspicions and fears reemerge.

IV. PENTENCE, PENITENT, PENANCE 

PENITENCE [from An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference for Episcopalians, Don S. Armentrout and Robert Boak Slocum, editors] -- Prayer in which we confess our sins and make restitution where possible, with the intention to amend our lives (BCP, p. 857). The Prayer Book Catechism identifies penitence as one of the seven principal kinds of prayer (p. 856). In the sacramental rite of Reconciliation of a Penitent, those who repent of their sins may confess them to God in the presence of a priest and receive the assurance of pardon and the grace of absolution (p. 861). The BCP provides two forms for the Reconciliation of a Penitent (pp. 447-452). The season of Lent is a penitential season of preparation for the Easter celebration of Jesus' resurrection. Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent. At the Ash Wednesday service, the celebrant invites the people to the observance of a holy Lent "by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God's holy Word" (pp. 264-265). The Ash Wednesday service includes a Litany of Penitence (pp. 267-269). Many Prayer Book liturgies also include a confession of sin. The confession of sin and absolution follow the prayers of the people and precede the peace at the eucharist (BCP, pp. 331, 360). Another option is for the eucharist to begin with a Penitential Order (pp. 319-321, 351-353). The Penitential Order includes an acclamation and the confession of sin and absolution. It may also include the decalogue and one or more appropriate sentences of scripture. Compline includes a confession of sin and prayer for absolution (BCP, pp. 127-128). Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer may include a confession of sin and absolution (pp. 41-42, 62-63, 79-80, 116-117). 

PENITENT [from An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference for Episcopalians, Don S. Armentrout and Robert Boak Slocum, editors] -- A person seeking the church's ministry of reconciliation by making a confession to a confessor. The Reconciliation of a Penitent is one of the sacramental rites of the Episcopal Church (BCP, p. 860). Through reconciliation, penitents are restored to full fellowship in the Christian community and may receive "the assurance of pardon and the grace of absolution" (BCP, p. 861). The BCP provides two forms for the Reconciliation of a Penitent (pp. 447-452). After the penitent has confessed all serious sins and given evidence of contrition, the priest gives counsel and encouragement and pronounces absolution. Prior to giving absolution, the priest may assign a penance which is to be said or done by the penitent as a sign of penitence and an act of thanksgiving for God's forgiveness (BCP, p. 446). For example, the penitent may be assigned a psalm, prayer, or hymn to say or an act of reparation to make. Sacramental reconciliation is available to all. Confessions may be heard at any appropriate time or place. The secrecy of a confession is morally absolute for the confessor (BCP, p. 446). 

PENANCE - Reconciliation of a Penitent [from An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference for Episcopalians, Don S. Armentrout and Robert Boak Slocum, editors] -- In the sacramental rite of Reconciliation of a Penitent, penance is a task assigned by the priest to the person who has confessed his or her sins. It is something to be said or done as a sign of penitence and an act of thanksgiving for God's forgiveness (BCP, p. 446). The penitent may be assigned a psalm, prayer, or hymn to say, or an act of reparation to make. It may be assigned in light of the sins confessed and their context in the life of the penitent. It is assigned to the penitent before the priest or bishop pronounces absolution. Although a penance is not required in the rite of Reconciliation of a Penitent, it may be assigned as part of the "advice and counsel" given by the priest after the penitent's confession (BCP, p. 446).

V. JESUS SAID, "FATHER, FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING." ^[e]
[e] Luke 23:34 Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence. 

[from The New Interpreter's Bible  Luke  23:34a ] -- In Luke's account, the first thing the crucified Jesus does is pray for those who have crucified him. Several difficult issues surround v. 34a. Who was Jesus praying for? Was the verse composed by Luke or inserted by a later scribe? If composed by Luke, why was it omitted in many early manuscripts?
            Although the presence of v. 34a makes the change of subject to the soldiers in the latter part of the verse rough, it fits well following the report of the crucifixion in the previous verse. The setting raises the question of who Jesus was praying for: the Romans, the Jewish leaders, or both? The immediate context of the prayer requires that Jesus was praying for the soldiers who carried out the execution—they are the easiest to fit under the category of ignorance of what they were doing. Throughout, however, Luke has emphasized the role of the Jewish leaders (22:1-6, 52, 66; 23:4, 10, 13), and in the end the people are swayed to join in calling for Jesus’ death (23:18). Moreover, through the speeches in Acts, Luke repeatedly maintains that the Jewish leaders acted out of ignorance (e.g., Acts 3:17; cf. 13:27). Thus Jesus’ prayer should be understood as asking forgiveness for all who were involved in his death.

VI. THE LORD's PRAYER - from LUKE 11:1-4,
And forgive us our sins,                                                                   
     for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
   And do not bring us to the time of trial.’*
*Or - us into temptation. 

Prayer Book: "And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us."
COMMENTARY [from The New Interpreter's Bible]
11:4. Luke has changed the metaphorical language of Matthew (“debts” [ojfeilh"mata opheilemata ]) to theological language, “sins” (aJmarti"ai hamartiai). Forgiveness was one of the expected blessings of the day of salvation (Jer 31:34; Ezek 36:25-32; Isa 40:2; 55:6-7), and the sixth of the eighteen benedictions was a prayer for forgiveness. The alternation of tenses continues. The aorist was used in the two “thy” petitions, the present in the bread petition, and now the aorist is used in the request for forgiveness and the present in the justifying clause “for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.” As surely and desperately as we need bread, we need forgiveness. Jewish teachings, moreover, had already linked the necessity of forgiving others to one's ability to receive forgiveness: “Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done,/ and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray” (Sir 28:2). One who will not forgive cannot receive forgiveness; mercy flows through the same channel, whether being given or received.

VII. FORGIVE, FORGIVENESS  [from A Theological Word Book of the Bible - ed. Canon Alan Richardson] 

In the OT there are three words which are translated by 'pardon' and 'forgiveness' in the proportion of one to three, and with approximately the same relative frequency. From this we may judge that there is little difference between the meaning of the two words in EVV. The actual three Heb. words are kipper (probably meaning 'cover', once rendered 'pardon' and thrice 'forgiveness'), nasa' ('lift   up, carry away', 4 and 13), and salach (possibly 'let go', but actually of wholly uncertain derivation, 13 and 35).

All three words are metaphors for the removal of sin. It is covered, so that it no longer obtrudes itself between man and God; it is carried away, so that it ceases to form a barrier; it is forgiven, so that there is no resentment or anger in the mind of the injured party. The first and the last of these three words are used only of God's forgiveness, e.g. for the first, Il Chron. 30.18 and Deut. 21.8, Ps. 78.38, Jer. 18.23. The second word is used of forgiveness generally, whether of God to man, or between man and man. The more usual translation of the root kipper is 'atone' (q.v.).

Forgiveness is throughout conditional upon repentance, a word which quite clearly in its OT and NT equivalents involves a change of mind and intention. Its result is a restoration of the original relationship of good favour with its accompanying blessings. The sacrificial system provided a system of offerings (sin and guilt offerings) by which the taking away of sin involved in the forgiveness which follows repentance was symbolically set forth, the original 'magical' significance of the rite being doubtless spiritualized. Further, the giving of the gift was a token of the amends which the repentant sinner purposed to make. The prophets were insistent that no sacrifice of any type was of the slightest avail unless it was accompanied by sound ethical and humanitarian conduct, and to this, beyond question, the best of the priests would willingly subscribe. The prophets insisted, in season and out of season, on turning back again to God and a definite change of attitude.

In the NT there are three Gk. words translated 'forgiveness'; the word 'pardon' not being found in the NT of the EVV. These three words are apoluo ('loose away', twice only and both in Luke 6.37), charizomai ('be gracious', 11 times), and aphiemi ('send away', verb and noun 56 times). The last of these words belongs almost entirely to the Gospels and Acts, and the second is Pauline, being connected etymo-logically with his word for grace (charis). For Paul the idea of forgiveness is involved in his term 'justification' (q.v.), which includes all those elements which are concerned with a man coming into the right relationship with God.

For Jesus Christ, and therefore for the Christian, there is no limit to forgiveness, assuming always that there is true repentance on the part of the forgiven one. The rule is 'not once, nor seven times, but seventy times seven' (Matt. 18.20f.). This latter is a Rabbinic phrase for 'without limit'. There is another Rabbinic phrase used in connexion with forgiveness—namely, 'hath not forgiveness for ever'. It is used in the Talmud (Jer. B. Qam., 6c) in a discussion concerning slander. This phrase lies at the root of the difficult sayings in Matt. 12.31f., in Mark 3.28-30, and in Luke 12.10, which is in part a repetition of the Matthean passage. The Mark passage, which looks like the original, is almost exactly the equivalent of the Rabbinic saying, and, as R. Travers Herford pointed out many years ago (Pharisaism, Its Aim and Method, 1912), the context is one of slander in that they said (Mark 3.30) that Jesus had an unclean spirit. This slander involved blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because it asserted that Jesus cast out devils by the prince of devils and not by the Holy Spirit. If the analogy with the Rabbinic saying is sound, then Jesus actually was talking about a human offence, and he meant that such slander was hardest of all to forgive. In this case, the idea of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit being the unforgivable sin is due to a misconception of the significance of the saying, for it is plain enough elsewhere that, given true repentance, there is no limit whatever to forgiveness. The 'sin to death' of I John 5.16 refers to that persistence in sin which so deadens the sensibility of a man that he cannot repent. It is therefore 'to death' because there can never be forgiveness without repentance.

The condition attached to forgiveness in the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6.12, Luke 11.4) is that unless we ourselves forgive, then we have no hope of forgiveness from God. This is enforced vividly by the parable of Matt. 18.21-35, where the servant who would not forgive his fellow servant a trifling debt is delivered to the tormentors till he shall have paid the enormous debt he was owing to his master. The moral is that he who does not forgive cannot repent (cf. also Mark 11.25f.).

The modern attitude tends to suggest that the restoration to full fellowship which is involved in the idea of forgiveness is a direct consequence of human repentance. This is part of that modern tendency which seeks to find rational and this-worldly reasons for the sequence of events, and so makes the restoration of fellowship automatic upon human action rather than upon the actual and personal immediate work of God. The Bible here, as elsewhere, regards God as actively busy in this matter in that he definitely and personally forgives every penitent, and this as a deliberate and separate act. N. H. SNAITH

VIII. ATONEMENT [from An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference for Episcopalians, Don S. Armentrout and Robert Boak Slocum, editors]
            The term (literally, "at + one + ment") has been applied since the earliest English translations of the Bible to the sacrificial ceremonies in the Hebrew temple on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). It has come to be applied universally to God's reconciling work accomplished by the death of Christ. This is supported by the treatment of Jesus' death in the epistle to the Hebrews as the fulfillment of the temple sacrifices. There is widespread agreement among contemporary theologians that God's reconciling work includes Christ's life as well as his death. 

[from http://www.philosophy-religion.org/catechism/unit4.htm/] Various Christians have understood the meaning of Jesus' suffering and death in different ways. Its impact on one's understanding of the Atonement will vary considerably. “Atonement (‘at-onement,’ a sixteenth century coinage) is the reconciliation of sinners with God, especially through the cross, as communicated through the gospel and sacraments. The cross is proclaimed as somehow resolving the human predicament; but the predicament and its resolution can be understood in quite different ways.” Here are some interpretations of the Crucifixion, a few of which (e.g., statements h, j and l) are related to formulations of doctrines of Atonement.

            a. Mankind is shown that Jesus was totally loyal to God even though his loyalty resulted in his conviction for treason, in torture, and in death.
            b. The Cross is an example of the extent to which human beings can hate a non-conforming, loving person.
            c. Jesus' death puts our sufferings into perspective; few others will ever have to undergo such an ordeal.
            d. The Cross shows us how far God lets humans use their freedom.
            e. The Cross expresses and reveals the power, hatefulness, and worst consequences of humanity's broken relationships with God and each other: killing the Innocent.
            f. The Cross is a symbol that Jesus asks nothing of us that he has not demonstrated.
            g. Jesus' death was the point where the world's alienation from God came into focus and showed both its reality and power.
            h. Jesus sacrificed himself; he offered himself fully to God. He gave himself for his fellow human beings so that he could represent to them the reality of their separation from God; he also represented to God the human condition: the capacity to love as he “lived love” and the reality of evil as evil was done to him.
            i. The Cross is humanity's "no" to God.
            j. Jesus' sacrifice of his life is the oblation (offering) of a perfect life that we cannot offer. Alone he has fulfilled the intention of God for human life, and God accepts the offering of that life. Our imperfect offerings are now acceptable when joined with his one perfect sacrifice.
            k. Jesus died "for us and for all persons" in the sense that all humanity is affected by his total self-offering, and all people are called to believe, to trust, his word.
            l. Because of long-standing human sinfulness, the very fabric of the universe had become corrupted; the sacrifice of Christ to God brought about redemption (restoration) of all created reality.

IX. FORGIVENESS [from Gardiner Day*, The Apostle's Creed (pp. 147-150)] 

What do we mean by forgiveness? Let us first consider forgiveness in human relations and then we will be better able to understand God's forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness is the will to friendship or love in the face of wrong or injury to one's self, and the effect of forgiving love in practice is the restoration of friendship or intimacy between the forgiven and the forgiver, between the offender and the offended. Let us consider an example. Suppose someone whom you believe to be a good friend injures you severely. He knifes you in the back by preventing you from getting a certain position that you want by saying false things about your character and about your abilities. Later you learn about it. Immediately that friendship is broken. Where mutual trust hitherto existed, it can no longer exist. Instead you are filled with resentment and hate, and your natural impulse is to desire revenge. The only way of restoring the friendship that is broken is the path of forgiveness. The offending individual, the man who has betrayed you, should repent and not only assure you that he is sorry, but that he is determined not to injure you again. Then you forgive him and your friendship is restored. .....

To avoid misunderstanding, we must bear in mind that the forgiveness of sins does not mean the cancellation of the effect of sin. It is sometimes believed that forgiveness changes or eradicates the results of sin but this is not the case. The natural consequences of sin are not cancelled but roll on irrespective of forgiveness.  ....

Again the forgiveness of sins does not mean condoning sin or excusing it. It does not mean making light of it, saying “After all, it really does not matter.” That would be immoral. It would be saying in effect that you do not believe in any moral standards. It would encourage the sinner to continue to sin. Above all it would degrade him to a position lower than the animals for we would at least punish an animal. Nor does the forgiveness of sins mean ignoring sin. That would have the same effect as condoning sin. Indeed part of our penance for sin appears to lie in the fact that severe sins can seldom, if ever, be erased from the memory of the person committing them.

One question that almost always arises in a discussion of the forgiveness of sins is: Are there sins that can never be forgiven? What did Jesus mean by the sin against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29; Matt. 12:32; Luke 12:10): “And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32) ?

Admittedly this is one of the sayings of Jesus which perplex even the New Testament scholars—first, because the saying differs so completely from our expectation of what Jesus would say on the basis of the rest of his teaching, and, second, because the context does not make clear the specific meaning of it. Many scholars, however, believe that Jesus here refers to those absolutely unrepentant sinners who in willful blindness persist in proclaiming to be false what they know to be true and in declaring what they recognize to be good works to be evil and demon-inspired.

The father in the familiar parable was deeply hurt by the sins of his son but no matter how forgiving the father was, his forgiveness was not effective—could not reach his son—until the son repented. Had the son never “come to himself” but persisted in being unrepentant, he could never have received his father's forgiving love. Similarly if we are adamantly unrepentant and so spurn God's forgiving love, which is always available to those who turn to Him, we remain unforgiven. By resisting the Holy Spirit, we refuse to accept God's forgiveness and so we condemn ourselves. We misuse our most precious possession, our God- given freedom, by our decision to live in darkness rather than in light. 

                The Rev. Dr. Gardiner M. Day was rector of Christ Episcopal Church, Cambridge, MA. from 1941 until 1965, when he retired. Previously, he had been rector of St. John's Church in Williamstown, Mass., and St. Stephen's Church in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Died at 81 in 1981.
                He was a former member of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Massachusetts and had been vice president of the Massachusetts Council of Churches. He was also a former fellow of the Corporation of Yale University and member of the board of Union Theological Seminary in New York. He also wrote several books about religion, including The Apostles Creed: An Interpretation for Today published by Scribner's in 1963.
                Mr. Day was reared in Summit, N.J. He was graduated from Yale University in 1922 and from the Episcopal Theological School, now the Episcopal Divinity School, in Cambridge, in 1926. – adapted from The New York Times July 21, 1981

X. [from a 1995 sermon (RTN)]

Forgiveness is another aspect of our lives that should entail substance rather than mere form. Some of us have been told that we have a duty to automatically forgive others, regardless of their attitudes toward their transgressions. Our Christian duty, some would say, is to excuse and absolve, whether or not the wrongdoer is contrite. Even if one does not feel genuinely forgiving, we should stick to form, and declare, "I forgive you." Allowing for some unique situations, I believe that the automatic, lightly given, impersonal dispensation of forgiveness is superficial and inadequate. That one is doomed to interior festering, if one does not quickly (or eventually) forgive is not true; one can let go of those emotions. Furthermore, a trivial form of forgiveness fails to take seriously the wrongdoer's deliberate choice. As one New Testament commentator observes, "Man's forgiveness is not expected any more than God's to be based on an overlooking of evil. ... A wrong-doer must repent of his wrong before he can expect reconciliation." I would add that mechanical forgiveness is a cowardly cover-up; it is an evasion by those who prefer not to face unpleasant realities and awkward confrontations. If I have wronged you, and your hasty response is, "I forgive you," you have robbed me of my responsibility and accountability. A pretense of peace at the price of facing up to what has happened is delusional. Mere words of pardon without the anguish of sorrow and, where fitting, an attempt at restitution is cheap "niceness," not a true healing process.

In today's Gospel Jesus forgave a sinful woman who, uninvited, came to a dinner party. Facing the realities of whatever idolatries had poisoned her relationships with God and others, she grieved, full of faith in the Word of God whose feet she humbly bathed. Although some of the words in this Gospel are puzzling to me, I am struck by her remorse, by her repentance accompanied by Christ's declaration of forgiveness. I am also aware that if she sinned again seventy times seven and was sincerely repentant as often, Jesus would assure her of forgiveness. In the context of real penitence, we often pray, "...forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

 Some of us were taught to go to weekly, private Confession, list our sins of the week, say a memorized "Act of Contrition" and a few other prayers, and receive absolution. We learned well the words and the postures. However, I do not recall an emphasis on the substance of Confession, which would certainly include felt, not merely uttered, sorrow. How different from the grace-filled contrition of the forgiven woman in the Gospel!

When we think about it, every aspect of our lives can be reduced to mere form with little or no substance. In our worship we Episcopalians can get caught up easily in wonderful words and splendid music, the proper rubrics and grand form of it all, but go no deeper. In all things sacred and secular, as we go through satisfying motions, we might ignore their deeper dimensions, including our love for God and for each other.

Perhaps today's image of the woman washing Jesus' feet with her tears will at the very least remind us of this truth: In all we do - in our worship, in our family roles, as forgiven and forgiving - mere form is insufficient. Instead, you and I are called in every instance to embrace a fitting substance that is deeper, more profound, more graceful, and more godly than a teenager's discernment of "just a lot of words."

[from a 1990 RTN sermon]

In the spirit of today's Gospel, let me sketch for your consideration some reflections on Christian forgiveness as our response: First, forgiveness is not an automatic, impersonal dispensation lightly given or received; words of pardon uttered impulsively or to be" nice" avoids truly facing what has occurred. Second, forgiveness is an opportunity for another fresh start; a relationship can be realigned. Third, forgiveness is an unlimited ("seventy times seventy") goal in all relationships, so that self-destructive anger, bitterness, vindictiveness, grudges, and guilt can be purged from one's life. Fourth, whether one is to offer or receive forgiveness, some real effort might be necessary to plan concrete settings where true forgiveness can be initiated. Fifth, repentance (and where possible, appropriate restitution) is normally a condition for forgiveness. And sixth, merciful and compassionate forgiveness without repentance is possible for those not sufficiently aware or competent to express remorse - for those "who know not what they do."

XI. EXCOMMUNICATION [from An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference for Episcopalians, Don S. Armentrout and Robert Boak Slocum, editors]

            The disciplinary exclusion of a person from receiving communion by competent religious authority. It represents exclusion from the corporate life of the church. Excommunication was intended to encourage repentance and not meant to be a punishment. The Prayer Book Disciplinary Rubrics for the Holy Eucharist provide that if the priest "knows that a person who is living a notoriously evil life intends to come to Communion," the priest shall tell the person not to come to communion until the person "has given clear proof of repentance and amendment of life." Similarly, the priest shall not allow those who have wronged their neighbors and are a scandal to the other members of the congregation to receive communion "until they have made restitution for the wrong they have done, or have at least promised to do so." When there is hatred between members of the congregation, the priest shall deny communion to those who refuse to forgive. If one side is open to forgiveness and the other refuses forgiveness, the priest shall allow those who "desire and promise to make up for their faults" to receive communion. The priest shall refuse to allow "those who are stubborn" (BCP, p. 409). These rubrics are a modern language version of disciplinary rubrics in the 1549 Prayer Book. The 1662 BCP added the requirement that the Bishop be notified within 14 days of an excommunication. This safeguard against unwarranted excommunication is continued in the 1979 BCP. It states that in all cases of excommunication the priest must notify the bishop within 14 days, "giving the reasons for refusing Communion." In pastoral practice, the disciplinary rubric for excommunication is rarely used. Penitent persons at the point of death may not be refused communion.

POST-FORUM ADDENDUM 

            The forum discussion included reflections on the statement “That one is doomed to interior festering, if one does not quickly (or eventually) forgive is not true; one can let go of those emotions.” from Section X. [from a 1995 sermon (RTN)].

            There was a general consensus that it has become fashionable to believe “festering (inner, consuming turmoil) is inevitable when forgiveness does not take place.” Yet, it was agreed that for some circumstances one can indeed not offer forgiveness and yet develop dispassionate thoughts and feelings which are not deleterious. 

            “Forgiveness without reconciliation” was considered, and there were shades of difference among forum participants. 

            Subsequently, the following 5 resources were discovered: 

            1. Forgiveness without reconciliation? It's a stretch, I admit, but for the moment, it's where I sit on this issue. I may come to understand, later, that this was just another justification for keeping a grudge. Today, of course, I say not. In fact, as I've written on this essay, searched through the anger and feelings of failure that compelled me to write about forgiveness, I have to say that in at least the one incident I vaguely outlined at the first, I wish no ill will for the person. In fact, I've come to realize that I truly do want some good things for that person. I think I have come to a point of forgiveness in that situation.
            Have we come to a point of reconciliation? I don't believe so. I still don't trust the person in question. I still think there are destructive behavioral patterns that need to be discussed before reconciliation of any true depth can be achieved. What coming to this point of forgiveness has done for me, however, is given me a place of more peace where I can approach the situation with some greater measure of love and sympathy.
http://www.whosoever.net/v4i1/forgiveneil.html 

            2. How the concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation relate to each other is a further debate implicit within the articles in this issue. Enright (2001), referring to interpersonal forgiveness, argued that reconciliation is the act of two people coming together following separation; forgiveness is more moral in nature and starts as a private

act. He contended that “one may forgive and not reconcile, but one never truly reconciles without some form of forgiving taking place” (p. 31). Others share this view that forgiveness is the forerunner to reconciliation (McLernon, Cairns, Lewis, & Hewstone, 2003) but point out that there is a debate whether there can be reconciliation without forgiveness or forgiveness without reconciliation.
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10781910701226626?cookieSet=1 

            3. This doesn’t mean that one needs automatically to trust an offender again, putting him or her in a position where re-offense is possible, in order to truly forgive. An obvious illustration might be the habitual cycle of abuse that occurs in domestic violence cases. Through divine love, a victim can authentically forgive the person who has been abusive without reconciliation.
            If someone harms my kids, I may be empowered by Christ to forgive, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to let them hang out with my kids again. In such cases, certainly a person must prove himself to be repentant over time before responsibility in the relationship is returned, if it is ever returned, or before trust is regained. Trust is earned. Yet authentic forgiveness strives for the mutual knowledge that defines love, and for spiritual reconciliation.
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/issue-40/learning-forgiveness-in-narnia 

            4. Unfortunately, this item could not be accessed without a subscription:
            This article explores two questions: "Are forgiveness and reconciliation synonymous?" and "Are both forgiveness and reconciliation necessary for psychological healing?" The questions are discussed in the context of abuse. A process model of forgiveness is described and relevant research is summarized. A process model of forgiveness is described and relevant research is summarized. The author concludes that forgiveness and reconciliation are not synonymous and, therefore, abuse victims may benefit from choosing to forgive even without reconciling with their abusers.
            Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Healing  This view, that forgiveness may bring healing even without reconciliation,. has been documented by both empirical research and clinical observations...
www.haworthpress.com/store/E-Text/View_EText.asp?a=3&fn=J154v04n04_08&i=4&s=J154&v=4 

            5. Forgiveness and reconciliation. There is disagreement concerning the relationship between forgiveness and reconciliation. Enright (Enright et al., 1994; Enright & Zell, 1989) argues that it is possible to forgive without reconciliation, and maintains that the process of forgiveness does not involve any predictable gains on the victim’s part (such as restored relationship/reconciliation). This implies that forgiveness should not be thought about, or calculated, in terms of equity or reciprocity. Rather, an unconditional process of forgiveness frees the victim from the control of the transgressor. A less positive implication of this notion of unconditional forgiveness is that the burden or responsibility of forgiveness seems to be placed solely on the victim, who may already be carrying a heavy load due to the infliction of a severe transgression. Power (1994), in contrast, regards any act of forgiveness that does not point in the direction of reconciliation as incomplete. Including the concept of reconciliation in the process of forgiveness implies a shared responsibility for forgiveness between the wronged party and the offender. What is perhaps most often debated is whether there can be reconciliation without forgiveness and/or forgiveness without reconciliation (see Worthington, 1998).
http://www.princeton.edu/~uchv/whatsnew/PEPA310-2.pdf

ANOTHER ADDENDUM from:
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/fcd/vprograms/fcelessons/fcepdffiles/FCD04-001 Forgiveness Leader Guide.pdf

SUPERFICIAL/PSEUDO FORGIVENESS 

What passes for “forgiveness” among us much of the time really isn’t forgiveness at all. At best, it is a social convention used to smooth ruffled feathers. At worst, it is something that buries the hurt even deeper inside us.
Here are some examples:
• Absolving the offender. We make excuses for the person’s behavior and decide there is nothing to forgive.
• Shaming the offender. For example, saying “I forgive you” and then essentially nullifying what we said by adding “I realize you are still too immature to understand what you did.”
• Asserting self-righteous moral superiority or playing God. You call the offender and say, “I have forgiven you, I absolve you.”
• Guilting the offender. You forgive in such a way that it makes the offender feel awful. “I forgive you….even though you’ve forever changed my life.”
• Neglecting the offender by withdrawing love and caring.
• Apologizing. “I know you didn’t mean it the way I took it. If only I could get over my sensitivity about things like that.” I end up apologizing to you for hurting me.
As a general rule, if what we say and do makes the other person feel bad, it’s probably not genuine forgiveness.