Gen Z in the Workplace

A headline about a young woman bemoaning the fact that she has to work a 9-to-5 job in marketing recently caught my attention. In a TikTok video that has gone viral, Brielle Asero, 21, was in tears as she said, “I want to shower, eat my dinner and go to sleep. I don’t have time or energy to cook my dinner either. Like, I don’t have energy to work out, like that’s out the window. Like, I’m so upset. Nothing to do with my job at all, but just like the 9-to-5 schedule in general is crazy.” This inspired me to investigate Generation Z (also known as Gen Z, meaning those born between 1997 and 2012) behavior and attitudes in the workplace as well as managers’ perceptions of them. I believe this is related to the coddling they have received at universities; you can read more about that coddling here: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2021/10/06/coddling-in-american-universities-and-churches/

Here are some things I discovered while reading several different articles about this topic. The first two bullets are from an article by Dana Wilkie on shrm.org; the next three are from mckinsey.com; the final four are from a New York Post article by Rikki Schlott.

  • About one-third of Gen Zers demand a say over their work schedule. More than one-third say they won’t tolerate being forced to work when they don’t want to or being denied the vacation days they request.
  • In spite of prolific smartphone use, 75% of Gen Zers prefer face-to-face interactions when getting manager feedback, and more than one third prefer to communicate with colleagues face to face.
  • Of all generations, Generation Z is the most likely to be stressed about work and to report poor mental health.
  • Gen Zers are more likely than other generations to work multiple jobs and to be concerned about the stability of their employment. As a result, they are much less likely than other generations to expect to ever own a home.
  • On the other hand, Generation Z is more likely to think the economic future is “brighter” than Generation X and baby boomers; millennials have the “brightest” economic outlook.
  • 65% of managers said they have to fire Gen Z workers more often compared with other generations. In fact, 13% of managers said they have had to fire a Gen Z worker less than one week after their start date.
  • Many managers have reported that Gen Z employees are hard to deal with when it comes to language. One manager named Peter who refuses to give his last name says, “I don’t want to offend anyone or trigger someone. I always have it in the back of my mind that I’m going to get angry one day, and I’m going to get freaking canceled.” In a similar vein, another manager, Matt (also refusing to give his last name) reported that Gen Zers “dominated [workplace] culture with social justice fundamentalism.” Peter added that Gen Z employees had a hard time looking him in the eye during conversations.
  • Alexis McDonnell, a content creator who managed Gen Z employees at a tech company in Dallas, says that distractibility is an issue: “We would be on team calls, and you’d be able to tell that they were on their phones. If we called on them, it was like deer in the headlights, and you could tell that they hadn’t been paying attention.” Another comment regarding phone use comes from an anonymous (another one!) manager, who used the phrase “phone zombies” to refer to Gen Zers during breaks.
  • Inappropriate informality–using a manager’s first name early on, for example–was also reported as a Gen Z problem.

In summary, Gen Z employees are more likely to have a sense of entitlement than other generations; they are more easily offended, at least in terms of their expression of it; they are more easily distracted; and they are more likely to communicate inappropriately in the workplace. In a bizarre twist, some Gen Z subordinates seem to think they have the right to spout their social justice views, while their managers are walking on eggshells around them. All of these negatives make Gen Zers less likely to be long-term employees at a given job. Perhaps this helps explain why Generation Z is much more likely (51%) than other generations (36%) to work independently, which is defined as contract work, freelancing, and gig work.

The following statement (from mckinsey.com) may also shed some light on Gen Zers regarding their behavior in the workplace: “Gen Z respondents report alarming levels of negativity about themselves, their confidence in the future, and their ability to find contentment in American life.” I believe that a lot of this comes from their obsession with social media, which so readily invites comparison with other people. Admittedly, other generations can easily become obsessed with social media as well, but this obsession is very clearly on display with Gen Zers. One positive about this overall negative view that Gen Zers tend to have about themselves is that they are much more likely to seek help; this provides an opportunity for the church to step in.

What does the Bible have to say about our attitude toward work? Colossians 3:23-24 says, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.” As believers, this should be our mindset; the Lord knows how we are working, whether our boss does or not. I would hope that Gen Zers who are believers would have that focus.

I am retired now, but I was recently reflecting with my wife about two summers when I was in my early 20s. I worked from 8 to 5 (with breaks) at an azalea nursery, and sometimes, a farming friend of mine would need help in the evening baling hay, so another guy from the nursery and I would head out to the farm. It was exhilarating out there in the field, tossing bales of hay on a wagon and bantering with each other while my friend’s dad drove the tractor at the perfect speed. After we had gathered all of the bales, we’d head to the barn, throw the bales onto a hay “elevator,” and stack them in the haymow. And then to top it all off: we’d head into the farmhouse, where my buddy’s mom would have sloppy joes ready.

I have a hard time understanding the crying 9-to-5 girl that I mentioned at the outset; those days when I was her age and sometimes working 12-hour days are wonderful memories. There are many reasons for this contrast. I think that one prominent reason has to do with relationships, both the ones I had at the nursery and the ones with the guys I baled hay with. Admittedly, the COVID lockdowns had a lot to do with making people feel even more socially isolated, but as I mentioned before, this is where we as the church have the opportunity to step in. There are preteens, teens, and young adults who are hungry for authentic relationships; some of them are already part of our churches, and some are not. And on the most fundamental level of all, they need a relationship with the Lord Himself.

Our Innate Spiritual Condition and Default Destination

Not all individuals and cultures have the same belief about our innate spiritual condition. Some say we are born good; some say bad; some say neutral. A few decades ago, the belief about this didn’t seem to be much in dispute, at least not in American churches. However, that has changed, at least judging by things that I have read and heard over the past 30 years or so. This matter is not academic; there are consequences for what we believe about it.

We will look at what the Bible has to say about our condition, but I want to start by asking you to think about it from experience. For those of you who are parents, think back with me to when your children were babies. My wife and I went to a Third World country to teach English when we were still newlyweds. The following year, our son was born in a city where the conditions were not the most comfortable, at least not by American standards. Our apartment floor was made of wood, and it wasn’t exactly what you would call a very smooth surface; in fact, between some wooden planks, there were small gaps. On the other hand, we had a rug covering a large portion of the floor. When our son began to crawl at nine months, we confined that activity to the carpeted area in the main room. He understood very well that we did not want him to crawl off the carpet, as evidenced by the fact that one day, he crawled up to the edge, looked back at us and smiled, and then literally came back from the edge. We picked him up, hugged him, and told him what a good boy he was! Naturally, he wanted to crawl some more. A bit later, he crawled again to the edge, looked at us and grinned (rather mischievously), and went “over” the edge. My wife quickly picked him up and gave him his first spanking. We wanted to make sure he understood that he needed to obey us!

In that same Third World country, I got into a discussion one day after class with some of my students. They had the belief that children are essentially born neutral, a tabula rasa (clean slate). I posed the following situation to them: Suppose that you have two very young children but only one cookie; what’s going to happen? Most of them started to smile. Then I asked if they thought the kids would share the cookie, and they all started laughing. One of them conceded that the kids would not share it, but that was because they had already been affected (infected?!) by society. I replied that actually, the kids would share if they had been taught or encouraged to do so, especially by example.

I think it has always been true, but especially in our current age, it’s usually not hard to see which kids are being taught to be “good.” Just look around you the next time you’re in a public place with kids around! When parents have the right understanding of their kids’ innate condition, they are better equipped to raise them.

The Bible speaks very clearly to this question of our innate spiritual condition, including in Psalm 51:5: “Surely I [King David] was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Notice that: sinful even before birth! And here is a portion of Genesis 8:21: “Never again will I [the Lord] curse the ground because of man, for every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.” Notice “from childhood.” There are plenty of other verses in the Bible that speak to our spiritual condition as well. For example, Romans 3:10-11 says, “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.”

One thing I want to add is this: even though both experience and Scripture tell us what our innate spiritual condition is, I believe that children who die before they are old enough to understand spiritual truth will go to heaven. The Bible gives an example of this; after King David committed adultery and murder, the baby that was born out of that adultery died. Here’s what King David said in 2 Samuel 12:23: “But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” Notice “I will go to him.” In other words, King David would one day join his infant son in heaven. What a comfort to those believers who have lost a young child!

As I mentioned at the outset, I don’t think that the belief about our innate spiritual condition is academic; let me explain. When another believer tells me that a loved one has died, I always express my empathy; I have certainly had my own share of grief over the past three years, especially, having lost three siblings. However, I usually ask if that loved one was a believer. Many times, the answer is a very firm yes; in fact, the believer enjoys talking about evidence for it in that person’s life. Other times, however, I have gotten an answer something like, “Well, I think so; they lived a moral life, worked hard, and went to church occasionally.” I don’t argue with the believer, but my heart sinks; I’m not saying I know where that deceased person will spend eternity, but there is a tendency among some to believe that our default destination is heaven. I had a related experience with someone in my extended family who believed that her husband was a Christian because a few decades ago, he had asked her for prayer in a time of crisis; however, over the ensuing decades, he had often said that he believed Jesus was a good moral teacher, but not the Son of God. One consequence of his wife’s belief (hope?) about him is that she didn’t feel the need to talk to him about the Lord. However, thankfully, someone else did; that man came to saving faith at the age of 91 and is now with the Lord.

Here’s another example of this tendency among some to believe that our default eternal destination is heaven. Several years ago, a brother in Christ told the rest of us in our men’s group about a young guy who had accidentally killed himself while engaging in autoerotic asphyxiation. (I’d rather not try to describe that, but you can google it.) More than one man in our group said something indicating that they thought that young guy was probably now in heaven; I think one reason is because his parents were Christians. Given the strong emotions of some in the room, I remained silent. However, I think that the reaction of some who spoke is another indication of the desire to believe that our default destination is heaven; that young man died while committing a sinful, dangerous act, and there didn’t seem to be anything in particular about his life up to that point indicating he was a Christian. My response would have been, and now is: we don’t know where he is now, so let’s not be so quick to jump to that conclusion. And much more importantly, while our loved ones are still alive, let’s not be hesitant to talk with them about the Lord.

Given that our innate spiritual condition is sinful, it means our default destination is not heaven, but the other place, which people don’t like to talk about: hell. Thanks be to God, when we put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ, our eternal destination changes from hell to heaven. If you have not yet done that, I pray that this will be the day!

Changing Priorities Regarding Safety

I was born into a large family in a small town in 1960, and when I was four, my family moved to another small town in another state. This was at a time (and in places) when kids, including me, spent a large portion of our non-school time outdoors. Any concerns about our physical safety seemed to center around occasional scrapes and bruises, and in some cases more serious injuries, like broken bones. My father was a pastor, and it seemed like most people back then went to church, where people’s spiritual safety was the focus. Admittedly, a lot of the preaching seemed to be focused on “don’ts,” such as those found in the ten commandments. However, even though I didn’t become a Christian until I was twenty, I think that even when I was a young boy, I had a vague understanding that these commandments promoted spiritual as well as physical safety–including avoiding physical punishment if I said taboo words! Looking back, it seems that spiritual safety was regarded by church leadership as at least equal to, if not greater than, physical safety.

Jumping ahead a couple of decades to the early ’90s: when my wife and I came back to the U.S., toddler in tow, after teaching English for a few years in a Third World country, it seemed that the landscape of American culture had changed in some ways. One thing we noticed was that there were not a lot of kids “roaming” the neighborhood, at least not compared to my experience growing up. Admittedly, we were not in a small town, but my wife, who had grown up in a good-sized city, noticed the difference as well. As time went on, I began to wonder what some reasons might be for this change. I vaguely recalled hearing a horrible story about a boy who had been “snatched” and murdered several years before; his name was Adam Walsh, and it happened in 1981. Digging a little deeper, I found that there were other child abductions in the 1980s as well. As a result of these, faces of missing children began to appear on milk cartons in 1985, and after Amber Hagerman’s abduction and murder in 1996, the first Amber Alert was made.

I came to believe that these child abductions were one factor in causing parents to be more careful about their children’s safety, and understandably so. I came across a quote that supports this idea: Richard Moran, criminologist at Mount Holyoke College, said a few years ago, “The Adam Walsh case created a nation of petrified kids and paranoid parents. Kids used to be able to go out and organize a stickball game, and now all playdates and the social lives of children are arranged and controlled by the parents.” This is in spite of the fact that abductions by strangers are rare and have, in fact, been decreasing over the past two decades. Increasing parental caution and the commonality of cell phones among kids probably have a lot to do with this.

I don’t “blame” parents for being overcautious about their kids’ physical safety. I remember, for example, the panic of my brother-in-law when he couldn’t find his young son at a popular beach in Michigan in 1981. He and I were loudly calling out the boy’s name as we went further and further down the beach, and my brother-in-law was even looking in the lake. Thank the Lord, when we finally found him, he was safely with a police officer far down the beach. In a previous post, I have written a similar story about my daughter, who was “lost” for an hour or so after school one day; I had forgotten that it was a minimum day, and she had wandered into a nearby neighborhood, where she was playing with some girls.

On the other hand, I have seen examples of parents who seem to have very little, if any, concern about their kids other than physical safety, and even then, only of a certain kind. Here’s a vignette from about 20 years ago that encapsulates a strangely twisted notion of safety: I have a friend who had gotten divorced, and he had a son. When the son became a teen, my friend told me that he was vexed because his ex was providing her house as a place for not just him, but also his girlfriend, to hang out after school. When my friend (who’s a Christian) expressed his concern to his ex, she said that if their son and girlfriend were going to have sex anyway, why not do it in a safe place? It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the ex had also provided their son with condoms! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what is twisted about this so-called notion of safety; compare this with most parents’ concern that their kids not engage in sex back in the 1960s.

Jumping ahead to the present, in the child sexuality realm: a federal judge ruled just three months ago that California is not violating parents’ rights by requiring public schools to accept students’ gender identities and to let them decide whether to inform their families. Compare this with this requirement from the CA Dept. of Education: “You must supply the school with all medicine your child must take during the school day. You or another adult must deliver the medicine to school, except medicine your child is authorized to carry and take by him or herself.” And then there are the LGBTQ activists and some in the medical establishment who have been pushing for “gender-affirming care” for those kids who want to transition to the opposite gender; I have written more about that here: https://keithpetersenblog.com/2022/02/23/clarity-and-compassion-for-the-transgendered/ In Spain, minor children as young as 16 are now allowed to legally change their gender without parental consent, including sex reassignment surgery (also known as genital mutilation); is that safe, and do you think that won’t happen here? Again, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand these twisted and inconsistent notions of safety in the realm of childhood sexuality. This is also obvious, for example, in laws in some states allowing kids to use the restroom of the gender they “identify” with.

I would be remiss if I didn’t add a couple of examples about safety in relation to society at large. You will find differing numbers depending on which source you consult, but what is clear is that since 2019, there has been a significant surge in crime in the U.S. One of the reasons for this is cashless bail, which can be seen by the fact that a comparatively small number of criminals commit a large proportion of violent crimes, and over a relatively short period of time. If you’re interested, you can check out this article by Brad Hamilton from last year: https://nypost.com/2022/08/06/why-a-small-number-of-criminals-perpetrate-the-worst-crimes-in-america/

One more example: in late 2021, the FAA held a summit focused on inclusive language–and then another one early this year. Chew on this: in the FAA, inclusion (think DEI: diversity, equity, and inclusion) is now regarded as equivalent in importance to air safety, meaning that they are striving for this equivalency. (This is from a video from the summit.) Do you remember at the beginning of this year when all flights were grounded for several hours because of a corrupted computer file? Following that fiasco, many pilots blasted the FAA’s 2023 budget because of its inclusion of tens of millions of dollars for “environmental justice” along with, you guessed it, equity and inclusion. My guess is that 99.99% of Americans would rather have the FAA focus on air safety and allocate its finances accordingly.

Safety of all kinds is important, including physical safety. However, as a Christian, there is another kind of safety that is more important to me: spiritual safety. Here’s how Jesus defined love for Him, in John 14:15: “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” And in 2 Thessalonians 3:3, we are told, “But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen and protect you from the evil one.” Regardless of what may happen to me, when I live in obedience to Jesus, I am protected spiritually from Satan. In contrast, secularists have a hard time being consistent, to put it mildly, in their ever-evolving notions of physical safety. If you’re not a believer, may this be the day you put your trust in Christ; when you do, He will keep you safe in the way that matters most.

Paying What You Can vs. Paying the Full Cost

A few months ago, a headline about a recently-closed cafe/coffee shop in Toronto called The Anarchist caught my eye; this self-described “anti-capitalist” business had a “pay what you can” model for its drip coffee, while charging high prices for other drinks as well as pastries. It also allowed the public to use its restroom and hang out in the storefront without making a purchase. Naturally, the locals called out the hypocrisy of the owner, Gabriel Sims-Fewer, for charging high prices while claiming to be anti-capitalist. More importantly, his business survived only a year; the owner blamed a “lack of generational wealth/seed capital from ethically bankrupt sources.” In other words, “Hey, my anti-capitalist business didn’t survive because you venture capitalists out there didn’t support me!” The end of his statement to the public was filled with expletives.

The Anarchist (good riddance, by the way) story brought to mind an organization called Promise Keepers. This is a Christian organization that seeks to equip men to be Christian leaders of integrity in their homes, churches, workplaces, and communities. Back in the mid-1990s, I attended two large outdoor stadium conferences with other brothers from my church. There were several speakers, each one focusing on one of seven promises; if you’re interested in what they are, click here https://promisekeepers.org/about-us/7-promises/ and scroll down a little. Interspersed with the challenges from the speakers was music from the Promise Keepers Praise Band. We literally rocked the stadium, and I came home reinvigorated to live out those promises!

I don’t know how many men were at those two outdoor events, but looking around, the stadium looked pretty full, with a capacity of ~48,000. A couple of years later, Bill McCartney, the founder and CEO of Promise Keepers (which began in 1990), announced that from that moment on, their conferences would be free. This is how the press reported it; actually, conference-goers were encouraged to pay/donate whatever they could. When asked why PK was going to stop charging for its conferences, McCartney said: “We stopped charging admission because we felt it was the heart of God that we would not charge admission.” In a different interview, he said this: “I felt during a prayer session, like the Lord told me the expense was too much for some people, and felt like we needed to make sure everyone could come.” The problem was that ~72% of PK’s revenue had been coming from its conferences, which had been charging an average of $60 a ticket (with lunch provided); attendees (including me) also bought various resource materials, particularly books.

The high point of Promise Keepers was in 1996, when 1.1 million men attended 22 stadium events; the revenue for that year was $87.4 million. However, following McCartney’s announcement of no-admission conferences in early 1998, along with the switch to volunteerism on the part of staff, the organization nearly fell apart, coming close to bankruptcy before the year was out. I was not able to find year-by-year financial or attendance records, but here are some numbers:

  • 2000: conference admission fees were reinstated; total revenue for the year was $32 million, down sharply from $87.4 million in 1996
  • 2004: attendance was 179,000, down very sharply from 1.1 million in 1996
  • 2005: staff dropped to 100, down from 470 in 1996
  • 2010-2021: revenue ranged from $1.1 million to $4.6 million

As the years went by, events were held in indoor arenas (drawing 7000-10,000 men) rather than outdoor stadiums. And naturally, online events (free of charge) began when COVID hit.

Bill McCartney was a visionary man of God, but he was not a businessman. Furthermore, it seemed as though he did not have an awareness of “scholarships.” At the church I was a part of back in the 1990s, when someone was not able to pay the full cost of a given event, whether for kids or adults, partial scholarships were often available. Admittedly, I don’t know how common these are at churches around the country, but I think they are a great idea and could even occupy a small portion of a church’s budget. I suppose even Promise Keepers could have offered a limited number of scholarships. Instead, McCartney said in 1998, on the heels of switching to free events and volunteerism: “I believe that every church that names the name of Jesus is supposed to give Promise Keepers $1,000.” Notice the phrase “is supposed to.” It seems to me that would be more likely to alienate churches than result in donations. And in fact, as mentioned earlier, Promise Keepers nearly went bankrupt a few months later. I should also mention that McCartney stepped down five years later.

One passage in the Bible that came to mind as I was reflecting on Bill McCartney was Exodus 18, where Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, advises Moses. In verse 18, Jethro says, “You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone.” Jethro goes on to tell Moses that he should select men and appoint them as judges over the people; Moses wisely follows Jethro’s advice. Here’s another good verse; Proverbs 15:22 says, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.”

Bill McCartney did not operate alone, but it seems as though he did not have people with various skill sets (including in business) who could give him wise counsel and challenge him if need be. What of Promise Keepers today? I’m glad to say that they are alive and reasonably well. Their seven promises have not changed from the ones I posted on my bedroom wall 28 years ago, and I’m grateful to them for helping equip me at that time in my life. I noticed that there are those who have attacked them over the past few years because of, among other things, their standing firm against the encroachment of the LGBTQ activists and their agenda in society at large; my prayer is that the leadership of more churches would follow PK’s example.

On a final note: Back when McCartney made his announcement about switching to free-admission Promise Keepers conferences, I talked with several of my brothers about it. We were unanimously against it because, among other things, we were aware of the cost of putting on such events. My idea of giving was (and is) that when I give, I don’t expect anything tangible in return. Could I have attended another Promise Keepers event for free and donated to the organization? (As I mentioned earlier, that’s what Promise Keepers encouraged in 1998.) Yes, but that didn’t sit right with me, especially when I had saved enough money to pay for the conference itself. My brothers and I were united: Tell us what the cost is, and we’ll pay it if we can afford it; otherwise, we won’t go. And as I also mentioned earlier, I like the idea of churches building “scholarships” into their budget.

If you disagree and you like the idea of paying what you can, I’m not saying you’re wrong, but frankly, it doesn’t seem to work out well in the real world, whether you’re a coffee shop or a parachurch organization holding events.

Are Christians Obligated to Forgive, No Matter What?

Several years ago, my house was broken into. The burglars took some of our keys, our wallets, and an old laptop that didn’t work anymore. Thankfully, we discovered the break-in very quickly (it wasn’t very obvious, but they weren’t in the house very long, either); as a result, the burglars were able to make only a couple small credit-card purchases before I canceled the cards. Furthermore, we got all of the money back that was stolen via those purchases, so in the end, the thieves got only a couple hundred dollars. On the other hand, they took away a lot of our time as we had to change our locks and buy “clubs” for our cars, in addition to canceling cards.

Around that same time, a close friend of mine asked me, “Are we required to do something that even God doesn’t do?” That “something” he was referring to was forgiving, no matter what. His question and the break-in got me thinking, and for quite some time, I have been studying Scripture as well as what other people have had to say about it.

First of all, was my friend’s assumption about God right? Another way of posing this question is: Does God forgive everyone, no matter what? More specifically, for example, does God forgive even unbelievers who never repent? If you read the Bible, you will find that repentance and forgiveness are always linked. For example, Jesus tells us in Luke 24:47, “Repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Acts 2:38 says, “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.'” God is clear throughout the Bible: He does not forgive without our repentance. If He did, I suppose every single person who has ever existed would go to heaven!

Now let’s move on to my friend’s penetrating question: Does God require us to forgive no matter what, even though He doesn’t? I think a good place to start is in Luke 17:3-4, where Jesus tells us, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” Matthew 18 has a very similar passage; in verse 15, Jesus says, “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.” He goes on to say that if your brother will not listen, take along one or two witnesses, and if he still doesn’t listen, tell it to the church; finally, if he still doesn’t listen, treat him like an unbeliever. In verse 21, Peter asks, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” In verse 22, we have Jesus’ answer: “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” Putting these passages together, notice that Jesus tells us to go to our brother and tell him how he has wronged us; if he repents, then we need to forgive him. This is the point of the parable of the unmerciful servant, which immediately follows Peter’s question and Jesus’ answer. In the parable, a man owes the king millions of dollars, but the king cancels the debt when the man begs him. The man then finds another man who owes him a few dollars and has him thrown in prison. When the king hears about it, he is very angry and has the first man thrown into prison and tortured. Scripture is very clear that when someone asks for forgiveness, we are to grant it.

In Matthew 5:44, Jesus tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. In Romans 12:19-21, Paul expands on this: “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” In other words, we are to treat our enemies with kindness; one of the great theologians of the last fifty years, R.C. Sproul (now in heaven), said that the “burning coals” refer to either shame or God’s judgment; in other words, when you treat your enemy with kindness, he will feel shame, and he may even repent! If he doesn’t repent, he will face God’s judgment. Regardless, we are not to seek revenge against anyone but to leave it to the Lord.

Some have pointed out what Jesus Himself said from the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” We also have the example of Stephen, the first martyr, who forgave those who were stoning him to death; in Acts 7:60, he says, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” It has been inferred from these two examples that we should always forgive. Interestingly, in Revelation 6:10 we have the words of the souls of martyrs in heaven who say something very different: “They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?'” These martyrs are asking the Lord to avenge them, which is in line with Romans 12:19, quoted earlier. And notice where they are: in heaven! I love what R.C. Sproul said about Jesus’ words on the cross: From that example of Jesus, it has been inferred that Christians must always forgive all offenses against them, even when repentance is not offered. However, the most that we can legitimately infer from Jesus’ actions on that occasion is that we have the right to forgive people unilaterally. Though that may be indeed a wonderful thing, it is not commanded. Notice R.C.’s insight; we have the right to forgive someone unilaterally (without their apology and/or repentance), but we are not commanded to do so.

I thought of the mass shooting of nine parishioners at Mother Emanuel AME Church in 2015 and the responses of some of the survivors and family members; the media reported that many forgave the murderer, but at least in some cases, their words of forgiveness were combined with words of hope that he would repent. I also thought about a story that I read more than forty years ago of a believer who had unspeakable things done to her, but who forgave her attacker unilaterally. However, as R.C. said, this unilateral forgiveness is not a command. If we regard it as such, we may find ourselves admonishing other believers who have had even horrible things done to them to forgive. That is not something they have to do unless the Holy Spirit tells them to!

One aspect of forgiveness that is overlooked and which I am very grateful to Dr. Guy Richard (President and Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta) for writing about is this: forgiveness is relational; in other words, whether it’s between a person and the Lord, or between two people, true forgiveness is about a relationship; when it happens, it results in reconciliation and the restoration of the relationship. It doesn’t mean that there are no changes in the relationship, but it means that it can continue. You can read more about what Dr. Richard wrote here: https://guymrichard.com/2023/04/do-we-still-need-to-forgive-even-if-they-never-apologize/

Much more could be said, for example, about unilateral forgiveness of someone who has died, someone whose location you have no knowledge of, or even someone whose identity you don’t know. When I began thinking about this question regarding forgiveness, I had thought of it in terms of whether believers are obligated to forgive unbelievers. However, it evolved into a better question, which is irrespective of the other person’s faith or lack thereof. In that regard, I have told the Lord more than once that if someday, one of the burglars that I mentioned at the outset comes to my house and confesses, I will freely forgive him. If he offers me some money, I will accept it (for his sake, not mine), and I will not report him to law enforcement.

When I was a young boy, one of my brothers once told me that I was a “vengeful little bugger.” It’s true that I enjoyed “getting back at” people and that I used to hang on to my resentment and bitterness. Thank the Lord, I have become more forgiving over time; one shining example of a person who forgives very readily is my wife, and I know that her example is one reason for this. While I am very rarely a unilateral forgiver, when I experience forgiveness, whether I am the offended or the offender, the sweetness of it makes me want to do it ever more readily. May all of us who profess the name of Christ be shining examples of those who both receive and extend forgiveness.