Forgiving the unforgivable (Michael Berg forgives Zarqawi for hacking off his sons head)

The Sydney Morning Herald ^ | May 1, 2006

[jmc1969]

Michael Berg has come to terms with his son's murderer. But to most Americans that man is still enemy No.1, writes Martin Daly in New York.

In the darkness, when the pain becomes too great, Michael Berg pulls out a chair for the man who decapitated his son and talks to him about compassion and forgiveness.

Michael Berg has cried publicly many times for his dead son but he has forgiven Zarqawi, considered by the Americans to be the premier threat to peace in Iraq, but who remains free despite a $US25 million ($33 million) bounty on his head, and the huge numbers of personnel and technological resources being used to track him down.

In offering forgiveness to a man who this week told the world he planned to continue killing, Berg has had to go down dark, complex paths and has had to come to terms with an horrendous loss that has become public property.

[vigilo]

"So contrary to what you or another poster said, asking for forgiveness is not a prerequisite to be forgiven but a consequence."

We haven't defined our terms well enough yet to know that we are talking about the same thing (and I suspect we are not), but yes, you could look at it that way.

However, Mr. Berg is not the Sovereign Lord of the Universe and the murderer, as far as we know, has not converted to Christianity and therefore has not been justified by faith in Christ but is still in his sins. So, what is the ultimate effect of Mr. Berg forgiving the murderer? Does it restore Mr. Berg's fellowship with the murderer? (Matt 18:15) Does it mean Christ forgives the murderer too? When one man, who is not the Lord of the universe, forgives another man who will not repent but believes his murdering ways serve God, what does it mean?