How long are offences offensive? Does the passage of time make it inappropriate to be offended by something in the distant past? Does there come a point in any conflict between people where we just have to say “it is all water under the bridge now” and require no admission of guilt, no apology, and no recompense? Let bygones be bygones? If we are ever going to move on beyond being offended so we can repair broken relationships, is it necessary in an imperfect world to overlook offences? Doesn’t God forgive our sins? Who are we to hold them against others? Surely we wouldn’t want to be like “The man who knew he was right”, and make everyone suffer for the sake of our being in the right?
The problem with an offence that is not properly dealt with is that it remains a barrier to a reconciled relationship. Forgiveness implies that the forgiven person has done something wrong, and acceptance of forgiveness implies admission of guilt. Relationship problems need to be resolved by forgiveness, admission of guilt, apology, and mutual desire to restore the friendship. Forgiveness may have to occur on both sides of a dispute. None of us is perfect. Pride is an obstacle to be sure, but so is truth. The passage of time dulls the memory, but the closer the relationship that has been damaged, the greater the pain and the sharper will be the memory. “Water under the bridge” denies the importance of the offence, belittles the closeness of the relationship that has been damaged, and sees less importance in truth than a comfortable life. Trust cannot be re-built on the basis of forgetfulness.
So what is the solution? What does God do? God lets people off the hook. He forgives them. He refuses to retaliate in judgement (at the present time, anyway). But forgiveness and reconciliation are not the same thing. Forgiveness is necessary for reconciliation, but not sufficient. Forgiveness is the response of the offended party. In a dispute between people both parties might be guilty of offence. The offending party has to accept the forgiveness. This involves admitting guilt and agreeing that he or she should have acted differently. Usually people require an apology before we forgive someone, but this is not necessary. God does not do that. He offers forgiveness before we apologise, and allows us to decide whether we will receive it. But it is one thing for a holy God to do that, and quite another for a sinful human being to forgive another sinful person.
We tend to label people as good people or bad people. We only want to be friends with the good people. Some see everything in shades of grey, a continuum from goodness to badness, and they stay away from those they think are worse than they are. Jesus saw everyone as being evil and alienated from God and in need of receiving his forgiveness. Jesus was known for befriending “sinners”. Of course, not everyone during Jesus time on earth wanted him as a friend. But Jesus did not say to them, “Oh well, it’s all water under the bridge now. Let’s agree to disagree on some matters and be friends as best we can.” He let them walk away.
It is difficult for us to forgive anyone, and especially difficult if they do not accept the implied accusation of guilt and do not want to be reconciled with us. Nevertheless, we must choose to forgive them. It is for our own good that we do this. Bitterness and resentment damage us more than anyone else. In the case of a work colleague or a family member, it might be necessary to continue with a superficial relationship for the sake of the job, or for the sake of others. Such a “water under the bridge” approach needs to avoid the water that keeps coming. A certain distance in the relationship will always be maintained for one’s own protection. On the other hand, a close relationship will not be destroyed by the raging waters of life which simply flow under the bridge.