Posts Tagged ‘self-righteousness’

How much do you owe? Forgiveness and accountability

September 12, 2026

Pentecost 16 – 2026

Matthew 18:21-35

Marian Free

In the name of God who has compassion for God’s children, remembers that we are but dust, and removes our transgressions – as far as the east is from the west (Ps 103). Amen.

Recently a young man was murdered in Logan. In what was apparently a planned attack, he was set upon by six others during a party. All seven boys were members of the local Sudanese community.  The victim, Jon, was the son of an Anglican priest. In the midst of their pain and grief, the Jon’s parents were able to reach out to the parents of the other boys insisting that their friendship not be destroyed by the event. Jon’s grieving parents could see that anger and vengefulness had no place in their healing process and would not help the parents of the other boys who were no doubt hurting and confused. Instead of holding on to their pain as a badge of anguish and pain, they were able to see the suffering of the other  parents, and to have compassion for all the boys involved. 

It is interesting isn’t it, that Jon’s parents could be so gracious when other people hold onto big and to petty hurts and seem to take pleasure in nurturing their feelings of having been wronged, indeed make what they perceive as an unforgiveable wrong something that sets them apart from the world – special badly done by people. The consequences of holding grudges and of withholding forgiveness can be enormous. Those who hold on to their sense of being an injured party tend to become bitter and self-centred. They allow the wound to fester, and they become self-absorbed and self-righteous believing that in order for things to be put right the offender needs to experience their pain. Their lives become smaller, drawn in on themselves, and they can be eaten up by their obsession with what has happened and with what they think should happen to the one who has hurt them.

Jon’s parents exemplify what it means to forgive in the context of the Christian faith. Sadly this has often been misunderstood. 

When Jesus says Peter must forgive seventy times seven, he does not mean that an offender can simply repeat the same behaviour over and over without facing the consequences of their actions.  This is made clear in the verses that precede Peter’s question. Bad behaviour has to be addressed – especially within the believing community. Forgiveness without accountability is meaningless. In the past, the church has not always made this connection. As a consequence, child sexual abuse was not properly addressed, and women were sent home to abusive husbands with the instruction that they should forgive the violence perpetrated against them.

Peter’s question and the parable that Jesus tells about forgiveness cannot be separated from the chapter as a whole. Here Jesus addresses the believing community, instructing them how to live together. In order to fully understand what Jesus is saying about forgiveness, we have to look at what comes before and to understand that Jesus is very clear that the vulnerable are not to come to harm. In language that is harsh to the extreme Jesus condemns any behaviour that causes another to stumble, and he gives instruction about dealing with conflict in the community. In the same chapter, he tells the parable of the lost sheep and the shepherd who abandons the sheep who have remained with the flock and goes off on a wild good chase after the one who has gone astray. Causing harm is excluded, but so too is excluding the one who has caused harm.

God’s concern with the vulnerable and the lost, does not replace God’s desire for responsibility and accountability. The two go hand in hand. Compassion and understanding are extended to even the worst offenders but that does not mean that their offenses are simply overlooked. The sinner must take responsibility for the sin, must acknowledge the debt, before God can overlook the sin and forgive the debt.

All of which brings us to the parable.  We have to understand that slavery covered a wide variety of situations. There were slaves, like Joseph many centuries before, who had a great deal of responsibility and authority over the assets of their owners. Other slaves carried out menial tasks, had no power and very little income. According to the parable, the king (slave-owner) has decided to “settle his accounts”.  In the process he discovers that one slave owes a vast amount of money – the equivalent of twenty years’ wages an amount that can never be repaid. The only way to recoup the debt (or a portion of the debt) is to sell the slave, his family and all that he owns. However, when the slave begs for mercy, the king does the unthinkable – he forgives the debt – all $2,000,000 of it!

Why then does this same slave then demand that another slave pay him a mere $2,300 – $3,500? He doesn’t need it to repay his debt – that slate has been completely wiped clean. It seems that the richer of the two slaves has deluded himself into thinking that because the debt has been forgiven that he had done nothing wrong, that he was, after all, right to use the money. From this position of self-righteousness, he assumes that he is in a position to judge others. Because he didn’t see himself to be in the wrong, he has not accepted accountability and has been completely unable to grasp the significance of his being forgiven. Because he has no idea of the enormity of his offense or of the generosity of the king, he has remained unchanged – self-righteous and judgmental, unable to see himself for who he is – greedy and self-serving. (The result being that now he must face the consequences of his actions.)

In the gospels accountability and forgiveness go hand in hand. When we accept how far we fall short of the glory of God and how gracious God has been in overlooking our debts, it is almost impossible not to extend that same compassion and forgiveness to others. If we are blind to our own faults and believe that we deserve to have our slates swiped clean while others must pay their debts to the full, we have demonstrated that like the slave who owed 10,000 talents we have not understood what it means to belong to the kingdom of God.

Who is lost? Do we really want them to come home?

September 13, 2025

Pentecost 14 – 2025

Luke 15:1-10

Marian Free

In the name of God who seeks the lost and is not content until they are safely home. Amen.

In her book Dead Man Walking, Sister Helen Prejean tells the story of her relationship with Elmo Patrick Sonnier, a man who is on death row in Louisiana State Penitentiary. Sonnier has been sentenced to death for his part in the kidnapping and murder of two young people and the rape of the young woman. Sonnier is not a particularly attractive individual. He is sullen and defensive, and he refuses to take any responsibility for his actions. Prejean in no way condones the young man’s behaviour, but she does see behind the tough exterior a vulnerable human being who loves his mother and his younger brother.

Prejean’s visits to Sonnier and her increasingly vocal opposition to the death penalty do not make her popular and are a source of pain and confusion for the parents of the murdered youths. They simply cannot understand how a good Christian woman can give Sonnier the time of day, let alone show him some kindness. They want her to join them in calling down God’s judgement on him. They want him to pay for what he has done, and they firmly believe that God’s fury should be poured out on him. It is beyond them to comprehend that anyone could have sympathy for a person who has committed such evil acts. 

Prejean persists in her friendship, consistently urging Sonnier to admit to and take responsibility for the crime. It is only when Sonnier is within hours of facing the executioner that he finally acknowledges that he took part in the murder and that he raped the girl. He was still executed – not as someone who was still lost, but as someone who, through the love of God regained his humanity and was redeemed.

Who is the most loathsome person you can think of? Hitler or Idi Amin might come to mind, or perhaps those who attacked Camp Sovereignty in recent weeks[1]. Top of your list might be those members of Hamas whose murderous rampage on October 7, 2023 began the current war in Gaza.  It could be that the perpetrators of domestic violence or chid sex offenders might cause you the greatest sense of revulsion. To be honest, having put my mind to it, I can see that there are many categories of people whose actions put them beyond the pale and who, because of those actions seem to be out of the reach of forgiveness or redemption. Even to think about the perpetrators of such horrendous crimes causes such disquiet that their removal from society seems to be the only way to create a safer more harmonious world.

Can you even begin to imagine that God might love Sonnier, or Rowan Baxter who incinerated his wife and three children in their car? Can you envisage God’s loving the murderers, the sex offenders, the terrorists, the oppressive dictators so much that God’s heart is breaking for them until God can bring them back to Godself.  It is a shocking, horrifying thought – that God should love the reprehensible, the destructive, and the violent. Doesn’t God constantly call us to obey the law – love our neighbours as ourselves and so on? Are we not right in expecting God to rain down judgement on all those who go against God’s laws? Aren’t we justifiably affronted when an evil person apparently gets away with the evil they have committed?

Is it not an insult to ourselves, but more particularly to the victims and their families that one day a murderer will be set free when they themselves will have to live with grief and absence for a lifetime or even that a murderer will live when one whom they have loved will not?

In the light of such thoughts, can you imagine then how confrontational the parable of the lost sheep would have been to Jesus’ listeners?  What on earth is the shepherd doing going off after the foolish sheep that has got itself separated from the folk – the one that has wandered off, the one that was unable to conform to the standards expected? What self-respecting shepherd would abandon a flock (or 99% of a flock) – to wolves, to thieves – for the sake of one percent – the rapists, the extremists, the violent offenders, those who defraud? 

We have lost the offense of this parable by associating ourselves with the one lost sheep instead of understanding that the lost sheep is the rank outsider, the one who has made choices that put its life and the lives of the others at risk. Jesus tells the parable in response to the Pharisees and scribes who are disgruntled because Jesus welcomes and eats with sinners. Jesus tells the parable to make explicit God’s love for and desire to save all people – especially the sinners. Those who are already saved – the law-abiding, the church-going – have no need to be sought out and brought home. They are already at home.

It is the self-righteous indignation of the 99 (the scribes and the Pharisees, the “saved”) that is expressed by the elder brother in the third parable of the lost – the forgiving father. The 99, the good, the well-behaved, those who already have everything that salvation has to offer have not need to be sought out by God. 

Today’s parables tell us of the lengths God will go to ensure that absolutely everyone – the good, the bad and even the ugly – know the warmth of God’s love. If that offends us we have not grasped the nature of God’s all-inclusive, unconditional love for all God’s creation and nor have we grasped just how blessed we are that we are recipients of that love.

If we are truly secure in God’s love, rather than in our own sense of self-righteousness, we too will want the whole world to know the warmth of God’s embrace.


[1] The site of an Indigenous ceremonial place and burial ground on which a number of indigenous people camp and which was attacked following a “March for Australia” leaving four people injured, two with severe head wounds.