At the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, the public had become a bit jaded about the matter of repentance/forgiveness. A governor had openly confessed his habit of going to prostitutes, resigned his office, and sought to mend his marriage. The issue of sexual deviation even touched the White House and the American president. An eminent golfer confessed ill conduct to the society of the world. Even priests and ministers were also found out, and some made public, tearful confessions. (Little was communicated about the responses of individual priests in child abuses, except in the regrets of church authorities.) Abuses and confessions were found in business, in religion, in entertainment, and nearly every social group that touched public life. At first many citizens expected sincere apologies for violations of trust in the moral strength of persons engaged in the life of society. After a short period those persons were rather well received in public life. Doubt arose that some confessions seemed too contrived to be sincere. They were formal in the hope that the violators could move on with their lives, and the matters in question forgotten, dying in time. Perhaps there appeared too little contrition. Repentance possesses marvelous direction toward rehabilitation and restoration. Restitution is not repentance, although it accompanies repentance.
One of the little known (perhaps unknown) reasons for the decline in public belief in the efficacy of apology (repentance) was that the apology (sorrow for acts) was not made, in its initial concern, to God. God is the source of our life, and all our life is meant to be, under God. That life is guided by morality, personal and biblical. When wrong occurs, the solution is to go to the creator to seek forgiveness for fouling God’s gifts. Restoration by God and our humble seeking for the rightful context of our lives is precursor to effective adjustment by those near to us, or in society at large. King David’s recovery from sin in ancient Israel was related to God’s forgiveness, upon David’s request, and the acceptance of his repentance by the people. David was able to resume his position and get on with life when the procedure was followed fully in sincerity. David sinned against Bathsheba, as she to him, but the first offense is to God, giving meaning to all other offense. With God’s standard alone offering values, and mankind’s violation by nature (depravity), and by acts, the main offense is to God, and from God to forgiveness for persons in the piece.
We wonder about repentance when it is to humanity only. Was it sincere, or is there an omnipotent God in Jesus Christ invited to do what only he can do to form righteous persons – to protect and/or restore dignity and integrity to the society as well as to themselves? Repentance, no matter how sincere, made only to mankind is something of a band-aid – temporary for that made into a wound. We can, as imperfect persons make apology to imperfect persons – and gain forgiveness (acceptance) or have the apology rejected (unaccepted). Repentance to God goes to the cause that makes repentance effective for all wounds. God changes things – even persons. It has been well said: I am not what I was, and I am not what I will be, but I am on my way. Christians, following Scripture and the meaning of forgiveness, can understand how the genuine and full process succeeds in life. Repentance/forgiveness is a problem-solver. When genuine it improves us. We need to remember that sinning against mankind is taken as sinning against God.
There have been so many violations of righteous (right) conduct, and so many apologies that the public is becoming jaded relative to requests for forgiveness. Even media have discussed attitudes of penitents, and the responses of the affected persons and entities – in the use of apology to get out of wounded opinion to conduct. Yesterday’s paper told the story of a congressman who had not paid his taxes, had not declared income, and used the influence of his office for personal and illegal benefit. He had been arrogant in earlier review, but with the evidence so obvious, he wept and begged for understanding that he had not kept good books. The lame excuse removed him from the integrity of a lawmaker. The ethics committee would hear none of it, and his tears became a part of his wrongdoing. Were he to admit his wrong, first to God, and then to the body of society he violated, and launch future improved conduct, he might find genuine forgiveness. For effectiveness, repentance begins with humility before God. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020