4 Articles on Forgiveness
C.S.
Lewis-C.S. Lewis, a well-known and prolific
author among Christian theologians, wrote the article “The Humanitarian Theory
of Punishment.” In his article he delved into the issue of punishment and its
place in society. If one were to look at the justice system of America today,
we could very easily see where we need to review our justice system and maybe
even restructure it all together. We need to make it very clear why we punish
or if we even do punish, especially in light of Americans being divided on
topics such as capital punishment and the punishment “appropriate” for sex
offenders and murders.
A
very interesting statement that Lewis makes concerning the Humanitarian theory
of punishment is that humans who are convicted of a crime are “deprived of the
rights of human beings” (Lewis 1), saying that the Humanitarian ideal of “curing”
the criminal rather than truly punishing him or her is actually degrading of
humanity and strips us of what we truly deserve. Lewis seems to believe that
asking any question other than “what does he deserve?” is not asking a question
that leads to true justice. So the question for us as humans becomes “Can there
be justice without punishment?” What justice is given on behalf of the girl who
was raped if the rapist isn’t punished for his crimes? We have a right to see
just done on our behalf and that is not met under the Humanitarian theory.
Lewis
describes the Humanitarian theory as the belief that “to punish a man because he
deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore,
barbarous and immoral” and that the only way to approach to “correction” of a
criminal is from the perspective that they can be “cured” of their lifestyle.
Which I wonder is a theory more or less influenced by a “low- nature, high-nurture”
perspective on humanity.
Regardless
of where you land on the Calvin vs. Arminius scale, it is agreed that a man who
commits murder deserves “punishment”, but let the murder kill a member of your
own family and suddenly punishment is not enough. The murder made his choice to
kill, and therefore deserves punishment. Lewis’ argument is more than valid,
and when it comes to dealing with matters of “punishment” or “reform” we should realize
that humans have rights and that it is more human to give them a punishment
fitting what they deserve rather than to attempt a “reprogramming” of their
brains.
Overall,
I loved Lewis’ article and believe he had many excellent points. He does not,
however, give thought to forgiveness and its role in the punishment issue.
While I would agree that the Humanitarian Theory in and of itself is insufficient,
perhaps it is a good alternative to punishment in the event that the criminal
and victim come to term and reach reconciliation. At that point, counseling or
processes of mental reform and stability may not be such a terrible course of
action.
Dr. Troy Martin- Dr. Martin challenges the common Evangelical
Christian perspective of forgiveness. The basis of Martin’s argument is that
there are no examples in the Holy Bible in which we see people forgiving
without repentance. Martin accuses Christians of adding to the concept for
forgiveness by forcing people to “Forgive and forget” and to do it instantly
regardless of whether the person has repented or not (Martin 360).
Martin explains that it
is necessary for there to be confrontation between the offended and the
offender and that this is clearly laid out in the Gospel of Matthew as Jesus
gives a step by step process to confrontation. In addition to this, he uses the
Apostle Peter as an example of confrontation from taking the passage from Acts
in which he preached to the crowds concerning “their guilt of crucifying Christ”
(Martin 360).
Repentance is apparently
a major necessity, according to Martin. Martin uses a good number of biblical
text concerning forgiveness that state a need for repentance for one to be
required to forgive. The implications of this are enormous and would require
the Church to really reevaluate her theology concerning forgiveness between individuals,
as well as their processes of interpreting and studying the Holy Text.
Some of Dr. Martin’s
arguments were very weak and bothersome. I have difficulty making connection
between Peter’s preaching and the argument for their needing to be “confrontation”
for there to be repentance, at least not in the way that Martin presented it.
He preached about Christ and the realization of Christ, along with the working
of the Holy Spirit that was so obviously present, people went to God in
repentance and proclaimed Christ is Lord. I hardly think it was because he “confronted
their guilt in killing Jesus” (Martin 360). While I suppose that one could
argue that by sinning all of humanity is responsible for His death and, therefore,
Peter was actually confronting their wrongs on Christ’s behalf. I, however, am
not yet fully convinced and would prefer that the author explain this
particular point more in depth.
Martin makes a most
fascinating point about Jesus saying “Father forgive them” rather than “I
forgive you” (362). I think Martin is on to something here, but I believe it is
extremely dangerous to completely accept a theological thought based off one
scripture. Granted, he lists two possible scriptures, but can we really say
that Stephen’s cry is proof of Martins claim? Can it not be said that their
crying out is proof of their own rendering forgiveness to them and simply
asking God (or in Jesus’ case, the other members of the Trinity) to also
forgive?
It is important that one
is careful not to base his beliefs on something supported by one or two
scriptures. Otherwise, you just might end up with something like people
suddenly all disappearing before some unbelievable disaster strike for, oh let’s
say, 7 years. Worse yet, someone might end up making an epic fictional book
series off of that unorthodox belief and get rich because of it. While it is
respectable where Dr. Martin has landed in his thoughts, there is not enough
support (textual examples, historical culture information, examples of early
church fathers practicing this thought, etc.) in his paper to be truly convincing.
On a brighter note, I
believe that Martin was exactly right about the misunderstanding of forgiveness
that is running rampant in the Church today, as well as in sessions of
Christian counseling. Quite frankly, is it not the counselor’s job to help a
person process emotions and feelings and help them work through their issues?
How is saying “let bygones be bygones” accomplish that goal or fulfill their
job requirements? It does not fulfill it at all. It is a false approach to a
matter and terrible work on behalf of the counselor that is causing more damage
than it’s healing.
Lynn Jansen-When it comes to the subject of terrorism and our forgiveness
for those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, it can be hard to be reasonable
and logical in our pursuit to bring justice and/or reconciliation. Jansen’s
first point is that we must first decide whether or not the offenders (here
being the terrorists) are inside or outside of our “moral community” (Jansen
22). She argues that if they are not, there is no obligation whatsoever to
forgive them because they are not “appropriate objects of forgiveness” (Jansen
22). The reasoning is that if a person is “outside of the moral community” then
they are “not responsible for their actions.” If we choose then to say that
they, in fact, are a part of our “moral community”, then they most certainly do
become appropriate objects of forgiveness (Jansen 23).
Her next point is even
more fascinating in thought than the last. Is forgiving when there is no
repentance is nothing more than condoning moral evils? (Jansen 23). If the
terrorist refuse to admit that what they have done is wrong or to believe that
it is wrong, then it is quite possible that we would be doing a great evil in
prematurely “forgiving” them.
Lastly, Jansen raises the
question “Is it our duty to forgive?” which is definitely an extremely hard
question to approach, especially in light of this particular situation being
explored. She makes it very clear that is there is a “sincere and genuine” acknowledgment
of the evil having been done by the offender, then it is our duty to forgive
them and work to remove them, in our minds, from the evil that was done. She
also states that with offenses of a minor nature occur, then it is very
possible to forgive those even if there is no acknowledgement, but as for the
major atrocities like those of the 9/11 attacks, the answer she gives is
strictly no. There is no duty to forgive such evils. (Jansen 25)
My primary issue with her
article is the use of the words “moral community.” Thinking upon the topic of “morality”,
I find it more than difficult to divide morality into “communities” since my initial
belief is that morality is universal and not just cultural. God wrote the moral
law and he has written morality upon the hearts of man and He is our reason for
yielding to the moral code at all. Given this, it is known that murder is wrong
and no matter what community you belong to it is still wrong. Therefore, it is
natural to assume that the terrorists are completely responsible for their
actions and are, without a doubt, appropriate objects of resentment and
forgiveness.
However, our response
still requires our careful thought process. Those who are continually seeking
to kill and destroy should be stopped, but how they should be stopped is an
entirely different question. Also, where does the mental stability of the “wrongdoer”
come into the equation for our decision on how to reign in justice and
punishment, as well as forgiveness? The mentally destroyed person lacks humanity
and, in my opinion, worthy of death; if not as a punishment, then at least as
an act of mercy.
If a person has mental stability but is
misguided and indoctrinated, then we should we not seek diplomacy and
understanding. Are we not obligated to at least attempt to reveal truth to that
person so that they might know they have a need for repentance? There is too
much complexity and varying situations to come to a solid answer, but it is
important to consider. Does morality count towards the mental insane? Also,
where does the sense of “justice”, which was previously discussed in Lewis’
paper, find its place in this mess? Does “forgiveness” dissolve a need for “justice”?
I would argue no, but I could just as easily argue yes.
Other than this I found
Jansen’s paper to be well thought out and thought provoking, specifically when
it came to the topics of “condoning moral evil” (Jansen 23) and our obligation
to forgive (Jansen 24). My own thoughts have been most definitely influenced by
these two particular sections of the paper. If anything, I think I now see an
absolute need to approach forgiveness with much more hesitancy and with
thoughtful consideration. It becomes essential for one to render time to
process and work through their pain to truly forgive them.
David A. Crocker-Crocker, using South Africa as an example,
formulates an argument that helps separate revenge from retribution and probes
the South African movement to have reconciliation. Crocker tells of Archbishop
Tutu of South Africa who appears to be defining punishment as retribution and
retribution as revenge, and from there it can be determined that the Archbishop
sees “punishment” as wrong. While his work in the area of reconciliation and
forgiveness are beautiful and essential, his philosophy concerning punishment
is wrong. Also, what if there are those who choose not to forgive? Is the
criminal taken to court just like those who chose not to publicly forgive? Where
is justice?
Crocker defines retribution
as being very different from revenge. While both are actions against a wrong, retribution
is not personal, takes no satisfaction, and is “principled” (Crocker 4). What
is mean by principled is that “Retribution insists that the response not be
greater than the offense” as opposed to vengeance which is not principled and “insists
that is be no less and if possible more” that the crime (Crocker 4).
I find people like
Archbishop Tutu to be wonderful, loving people, but also misguided. Of course
it is most likely that I am the misguided one. My primary question for this
article is “does it become unnecessary for there to be punishment in light of a
criminal’s public confession and repentance, especially if the victim choose to
forgive?” My initial reaction is to say that “no, there must be a punishment”,
but then I must question my reasoning for why I want punishment. Why is there a
need for punishment? Am I using punishment for social reform or am I just
enforcing my own idea of Karma upon the criminal by “bringing balance”? “Eye
for an eye and tooth for a tooth” is the basic philosophy that rest behind my
desire for justice.
Therefore, I make the
following statement. I believe that we must bring about reconciliation where
possible, and punishment where necessary. This means that we must take a
criminal’s actions and show grace if he repents. However, if they do it again,
less grace must be shown since the previous repentance was obviously of little
value. Murder and rape however are of a different class. It is, also, simply
not enough that a criminal repents, but that the victim shows forgiveness and
drops the charges. If possible, reconciliation should be attempted to be
reached before the courts take place, and if the victim is willing to forgive
then he/she should drop the charges that have been placed against the criminal.
My
Philosophy of Forgiveness
The
Christian faith teaches strongly on the concept of forgiveness. It is the very
reason we do what we do. We are in need of salvation and forgiveness from God. What
happens, however, when we are the one needing to forgive? Forgiveness is a
choice that must be made on the part of the offended, but can that be done
without repentance? The Holy Scriptures
does not appear to give us that idea. It does however say that we are to “love
[our] enemies and pray for those who persecute [us].” (Luke 6:27) Even though
this does not say “forgive” per say, does it imply a need to forgive, or merely
that we need to have a willingness to forgive.
Forgiveness
is a process, but one does not have to go very far to find those that say “You
need to forgive right here and now, and do not worry cause the Holy Spirit will
help you do this.” While it is beyond agreeable that that Holy Spirit can cause
us to instantly be able to have the willingness to forgive (as is well
demonstrated by St. Stephen), but can forgiveness be completed without the
repentance of the offender? After having read the paper by Dr. Lynn Jansen, I
would have to say that it is possible depending on the severity of the wrong
that was done. This particular question will require a great deal more thought.
Depending on what was done and the person’s mindset concerning the matter, my
ability to forgive without acknowledgment will vary.
For me to forgive the
person who knows they did wrong but has no remorse would be the same as me
giving them an applause for what they did, and this only invites them to
continue acting upon their wrongs. However, if a person simply cannot
understand how what they did is wrong, and is, therefore, unable to own up to
what was done (because they are incapable of repenting of something they cannot
deem to be wrong) then perhaps it is appropriate to forgive them. Obviously, if
the matter is of a much more serious matter such as murder, rape, etc, then
forgiveness is not necessary and the wrongdoer’s mental stability should be
brought into question.
When I know that I’m in
the wrong and have offended a person, then I am obligated to go and seek
forgiveness from them because reconciliation is vitally important (Matthew
5:24-26). Once I seek reconciliation and done all that I can in an attempt to
mend the issue, I have fulfilled my part. As someone who has been wronged, it
would be my duty as a Christian to have a willingness to forgive and to work
through my emotions and pains so that I can (when the time is right) approach
the person who has wronged me and confront them, or at the very least be ready
to listen and be soft hearted should the wrongdoer approach me. I believe that
it is a part of forgiveness to have confrontation and it my social and moral
duty to seek restoration and reconciliation.
Concerning forgiveness
for the murderer, if a man were to kill me then he would not be able to
reconcile with me, but instead he would need to reconcile with my parents whose
son was stolen from them. Beyond that he will need to seek out God for his
forgiveness since my lack of presence might hinder him in that. I believe that
we can transfer the issue to God who can rule in our defense in the event that
we are unable to complete the reconciliation process ourselves.
On a
society level, we face the same issue. The ideal would be that all matters
could be reconciled, just as the country of Germany today has been reconciled back
into the western world as an acceptable people and as equals in the world. In
the case of terrorism we face a mighty threat and are unable to seek reconciliation
since most of the diplomacy between the American forces and the terrorists is
not done with words, but instead with gunpowder and rocket fuel. The fact is
that there is no easy answer for every situation.
It is impossible,
however, for the Nazi Germans to apologize for what happened in World War 2,
unless of course they are still alive. The modern German is not responsible
since the actions were not his own. How can someone repent on behalf of a wrong
that they did not do? Jesus did it, but He was God! Can a man stand in on
behalf of someone else? My belief is no.
Therefore, as long as all of the offenders are either dead or repentant we must
reconcile, but the modern nation as a whole is not responsible for what the
nation as a whole back in the early 1900’s did. Only the group of human beings
that participated can be held responsible.
Why is it
my duty to forgive? Because the biblical text make it clear that forgiveness
should be sought out, and because for us to have a functioning society we need
to be willing to let go of bitterness and hatred and seek peace and harmony. It
is an opportunity to show the grace and mercy of Christ who is now living in me
and who paid the price for my own repentance. He was willing to forgive me for
my limitless evil, and therefore I should be willing to forgive for the minor
list of offenses that have been committed against me.
Work Cited
Holy Bible. Book of Matthew. <Online Resource>
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV.
March 18, 2012.
Holy Bible. Book of Matthew. <Online Resource>
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:15&version=ESV.
March 18, 2012.
Holy Bible. Book of Luke. <Online Resource>
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6:27&version=ESV. March
18, 2012.
Croker, David A. “Retribution and
Reconciliation”. Philosophy and Public
Policy. School of Public Affairs. College Park, Maryland. 2000
Jansen, Lynn A. “Evil,
Forgiveness, and the Moral Community”. The
National Catholic
Bioethics Quarterly. Spring 2002.
Lewis, C.S. “The Humanitarian
Theory of Punishment”. God in the Dock.
1970
Martin, Troy. “The
Christian Obligation Not to Forgive”. The
Expository Times. Saint Xavier University. Chicago, IL.
