Friday Night Theology

Burmese Morality and Coronation Street

28 September 2007

Fans of Coronation Street have been struggling with forgiveness this week. A young man called David almost killed his 7 year old relative by hiding some ecstasy tablets in her doll. David's mum, Gail, has refused to forgive him and has thrown him out of the family home. However, she is clearly struggling with the decision. Her heart says forgive her son, but her head says she must protect the young in her family.

This storyline highlights the fundamental tension we experience with forgiveness. On the one hand, we know the Scriptures command us to forgive totally. Yet on the other, we don't really think it would be sensible to let the rapist or murderer escape prison just because they are repentant. So, what should we do?

In Matthew 18, there are two passages next to each other that address this issue. In the first (vv15-20), Jesus makes it clear that if the guilty party will not listen to correction, then some form of church discipline is appropriate. In the second (vv21-35), we are commanded to "forgive from our hearts" whoever has wronged us, however great their crime. The very fact that these two passages are side by side indicate that Matthew thought we needed both to get a full picture of how forgiveness works - at least as we exercise it in this life towards one another.

The sense seems to be that at the personal level, the command is to remove any bitterness or resentment towards the one who has wronged us (see Ephesians 4:31,32; Colossians 3:13). But at the level of the church or community, this does not mean that we pretend they haven't done what they've done. Some form of discipline or sanction is still necessary. Such an approach places necessary limits on both the individual - who must not seek personal vengeance - and the community - which bears a responsibility to protect the weak and vulnerable in particular.

However, such community sanctions only work if they are based on a shared sense of public morality, that is, the community agreeing on what is right, and what is wrong, and what the appropriate punishments should be. Yet, it is here that we run into problems. For if we take God out of the equation, then such shared morality can at best be merely what the majority think, or at worst what the powerful consider to be right.

 In Burma this week, we have seen the disastrous result of the latter approach where an elite minority have been dictating how the rest of the population live. In our own country, though, the former approach is increasingly making headway with legislation by opinion poll becoming the norm. The problem with this approach is that under the influence of charismatic leaders it can easily ignore the plight of the weak and vulnerable - the very groups a public morality are meant to protect. We must never forget that Nazism was a popular movement. Hence, for society to function, we absolutely need some sense of a shared morality, but at the same time any attempt we make to define that morality is doomed to disaster. Our only hope, then, is a morality not of our own making.

And the only source I know for that is God. We may not think that the events of Burma could ever be replicated here - but the reality is that as soon as humans assume for themselves that they get to decide what is right, and what is wrong, then our ability to protect all is in serious jeopardy.

Justin Thacker, Head of Theology