P.O. Box 53055    
Los Angeles, CA 90053   

PARDONING AN UNREPENTANT PRESIDENT

It might very well have changed the course of U.S. history — a little TV speech entitled “Presidential Proclamation 4311.” Dated September 8, 1974, it was announced by Gerald Ford, 38th President of the United States, pardoning Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States. Invoking his presidential powers according to Article II, Section Two of the Constitution, he was forgiving Nixon for any and all offenses he might have committed against the government during the Watergate scandal.

Well, there was quite a buzz about this: a new President — after less than a month — pardoning the man who had given him his job. Ford explains very articulately, in his wonderful book, A Time to Heal, why he felt he simply had to do it for the sake of the nation. Ironically — since we’ve been studying here the biblical principles involved in forgiveness and in nursing a grudge — that was precisely why he did issue the pardon. The entire country was fixated on Watergate; we were collectively obsessing with the grudge, with a desire to “get” Nixon, to punish him, to salivate over every detail of his alleged misdeeds. What would happen to his tapes? What was on those tapes? Would Nixon do time? “We are all addicted to Watergate,” Army Major Bob Barrett observed. “Some of us are mainlining; some of us are sniffing; some of us are lacing it with something else. But someone has to come along and make us, as a nation, go cold-turkey.” And as it turned out, only Gerald Ford had access to Article II, Section Two. Only Gerald Ford had the constitutional authority to “forgive,” to officially shut down the grudge so that the country could get on with business.

But the interesting thing is this: the whole pardon process almost came unglued before it was announced, and for one simple reason: Richard Nixon was extremely reluctant to admit he had done anything wrong. He hadn’t confessed before August 9 and his famous helicopter ride to California; he wasn’t about to confess after August 9 either. He just did not want to say, “I was wrong.”

Well, Ford’s lawyers went round and round. They argued that to accept a pardon was, in and of itself, an admission that you were guilty. Why else would you need one? Just signing the paper was a tacit confession of your crime. And they cited a famous ruling, a 1915 incident known as the Burdick case, where the Supreme Court had ruled as follows:

“A pardon carries an imputation of guilt, acceptance, a confession of it.”

But when Ford’s lawyer, Benton Becker, flew out to San Clemente to meet with the former president, press secretary Ron Ziegler was his usual defiant, truculent self. “Let me get one thing straight,” he said straight off. “President Nixon isn’t signing any admission of guilt, whether Jerry Ford pardons him or not.” Ford writes later how amazed and angry he was that Nixon’s press secretary, Ziegler, was so unbelievably arrogant, referring to Nixon as if he were still president and calling President Ford “Jerry” like he was some errand boy. The lawyer almost turned around and went back to the airport right then and there. But cooler heads prevailed, they finally hammered out language where Nixon grudgingly admitted that, yes, he had made mistakes which many fair-minded people could construe as self-serving and even criminal, he signed the paper, Ford went on TV to announce it, and the rest is history. To this day, many pundits suggest that Ford later lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter precisely because he issued that Proclamation, #4311.

We’ve spent quite a bit of time here on the radio discussing this topic of grudges and resentment. And certainly one of the reasons why we’re reluctant to forgive a person is because it seems to surrender the reality that they’ve done wrong! If they’ve done wrong, and ought to go to jail — and now they don’t go to jail, it sounds like, well, maybe they didn’t do the wrong thing. Maybe they didn’t hurt us as bad as we’ve let on. Forgiveness seems to undo our moral right to be right.

I mentioned yesterday, though, this very powerful statement, from Vera Sinton’s book, How Can I Forgive?, which forgiveness actually says to the wrongdoer. And in a sense, Ford was saying this to Nixon:

“You are a mature person. You know there are things that are right and wrong in the world. You are able to make choices. I hold you responsible for this action.”

That’s good, isn’t it? Let me go on and share Sinton’s next paragraph with you, and notice here that forgiving someone is not at all the same as excusing them. Not the same at all. Here’s what she says:

“If we excuse something that was blatantly wrong, we are saying to the offender, ‘I have low expectations of you. I despise you. I do not consider you worth my moral indignation.”

She adds a sober warning that forgiveness shouldn’t be used as a shortcut out of a conflict, that we have a responsibility to uphold justice in this world. But then she moves to what forgiveness, properly expressed, based in reality, can really accomplish. After you and I get up the courage to say to someone, “Yes, you were wrong, but I forgive you . . . and forgiving means that there is something wrong that I choose to give to the Lord rather than obsess about myself,” we can then move to this point. Again, this is from Vera Sinton’s book:

“Yes, you did this thing. I accept your apology. I will not hold this against you. I will trust you as I did before.”

In a way, this all takes us into the great cosmic realm where the theological currents run very deep. And you know that we don’t usually wade into where the sharks are, but for a moment let me go there and pose this question: What does God’s forgiveness of our sins express? Instead of eternally resenting us or bearing a galactic grudge against us, God forgives us. But is His forgiveness of our sins saying that there were no sins, or that there were sins? In his book, Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis has a chapter on this whole business of Calvary and the atonement. And he asks the very good question: If God wants to wipe away our guilt, why doesn’t He just do it? Just because He’s God? He doesn’t answer to some higher court. Why a cross? Why an atoning sacrifice, this incredible gift by His own Son?

“If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so?” Lewis writes.

Well, the science of Calvary and the miracle of grace is something we’ll study for a long, long time, at the feet of an Instructor who has nail scars in those feet. But I think I can tell you this: Part of the reason why there was an old rugged cross, and why there was blood shed on that cross is because sin is real. The cross is, in a very tangible way, an expression by heaven about how deadly an infection sin is. The way God forgives communicates in a way no one in the universe can misunderstand that our sins are real. They’re fatal. They’re eternally destructive. And so God forgives in a way that says all of those things. He’s not excusing sin, ignoring sin, covering it up, papering it over, sweeping it to the side, putting it in some closet. Friend, when He forgives through the shed blood of His own Son, He’s saying to all recipients and all listeners and viewers: “I’m not ignoring sin; I’m dealing with it. I’m pardoning sin because there is sin to pardon.”

And down here in our own hospital ward, where you and I try to decide whether to forgive someone or just keep feeding IV bottles full of nutrients to our grudges, I think Calvary provides us with an incredible model. We can forgive someone without fear that our pardon somehow erases the reality of what they did wrong. If anything, our forgiveness actually reinforces the truth of what happened. Just as Calvary is a huge, monumental, universal expression of the raw reality of our transgressions, the forgiveness we offer an offender can carry that same, quiet, moral power. In fact, it’s because of the moral power of Calvary that we can forgive. “Forgive others as you have been forgiven,” the Bible tells us. The cross is a sufficient statement about evil to cover both us, and those who sin against us.

Vera Sinton shares what I think is a very wise point-counterpoint discussion regarding what Party A, the forgiver, needs to do and what Party B, the “forgivee,” also needs to do. Notice:

“Forgiveness matched with repentance produces reconciliation,” she writes. “Forgiveness is: 1) Granting free pardon for a hurt, 2) Giving up all claim for compensation, 3) Ceasing to feel resentment.” And now how does Party B, the Watergate sinner, respond? “Repentance,” she writes, “is: 1) Accepting a pardon for a hurt, 2) Making any appropriate restitution, and 3) Ceasing to feel guilt and shame.”

I’ve mentioned that a lot of the Psalms in the Bible, the “imprecatory Psalms,” are man’s agonizing shouts to heaven, saying: “God, please clear Your throat and at least say that my enemy’s sins were real, that what they did was wrong. Please!” Friend, Calvary says it loud and clear. For our enemies . . . and for us too.