Flickr
Reaching In Pollsmoor Prison Restorative Justice Programme
The gift of forgiveness
The question which I will attempt to ask within the scope of this paper, then methodically work through until in typical post-modern fashion come to the conclusion of having more questions is, "How should we understand the gift of forgiveness in a society which prides itself on human progress?" The other basis for my paper is the assumption that I am speaking as an American and as a Christian. Also, for argument's sake, I will define human progress as basing itself on the assumption that we as American Christians can develop ways to overcome the presupposed evil in the world by sheer intent. To will ourselves or even project ourselves into this world of human progress means developing new ways to advance as a species, but the problem with this modern worldview is that those people who don't, won't, or can't advance quickly enough, will be marginalized on the periphery in this world of progress. This exclusive world will grow simultaneously in violence, since humans have at their core the innate desire for participation as social creatures and being excluded will diminish hope. Although the language I am using may appear to be some quasi-socialist perspective, let me assuage any fears that what I am talking about is the gift of forgiveness with the hope of reconciliation, not a new or even old political praxis.
How can we advance when so many people don't have the will to overcome and rise above their present circumstances? They will in essence be left behind and in order to rationalize their being left behind, they will be classified as deserving of what they get. What if they did not deserve what they got, but simply decided that this world of human progress was not a world which put God in the forefront, but made God into a golden calf which could be controlled, so that God advanced along with us? We as Christians would then have to define this world as the culmination of an idolatrous world, since idolatry is creating god in the image of that which can be controlled and in the world of human progress, god is technology.
Working off the old, but continually moving into the new, This myth is perpetuated by many well meaning Christians in the U.S. who preach, teach, and hold to the fact that each person should and can muster the inner resolve to simply rise above their circumstances. To rise above one's circumstances means that we need to assimilate into the American ideal, which in the end is vastly different than the Christian ideal anyway.
Not enough emphasis is placed upon the deep emotional aspects of receiving and giving forgiveness. "To forgive contains an explicit condemnation of the wrong done, but also an offer toward reconciliation through this gift of forgiveness." (Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge) When one offers forgiveness to another, the person who offers the gift is recognizing a wrong done against them by the mere fact of offering forgiveness, but in the same breath drawing the other person toward themselves. Forgiveness should hold within its grasp a direct human connection not only for the deeply emotional movement toward vengeance, but the fact that this movement toward vengeance will destroy our own connection with God, humans, and ourselves. Vengeance must be recognized within the scope of forgiveness, since oppositional logic would tell us that we understand ourselves in relation to and opposed to other objects. We as Christians understand forgiveness through the perspective of my knowledge of the vengeance sometimes explicitly and at other times very implicitly from deep within myself.
Forgiveness offers the possible initial movement toward reconciliation, but violence offers the continued perpetuation of the initial offense. This perpetuation though will usually be exhibited as harsher than the original offense. We as humans tend to be one dimensional and over or under perform vengeance. Vengeance may also trigger a conflict spiral, whereby, the initial action causes a psychological response in the victim, which causes an action, since humans are not neutral beings, which causes a psychological response in the initial offender (now victim); repeat cycle. This cycle will usually end through one party overwhelming the other, which can sometimes cause death, or parties are forcibly separated and these two scenarios clearly reflect part of the problem with our society today. The movement of forgiveness does not have to be immediate either, but through the actions of another person who will walk through this process, one of the parties involved in a conflict can possibly voluntarily separate themselves for a time, until a person has the space and time to process their thoughts.
From numerous studies done after state executions, many people say that the death of the offender did not heal the pain of their loss, as they may have expected. There is no punishment which can be outwardly inflicted on another person to heal the pain of the loss felt from within. Neither should the outward act of forgiveness be viewed as a complete healing, since scars will always leave residual marks upon human beings, until that future moment when we are transformed through the resurrection. Until then, we must pursue forgiveness since the offer of forgiveness will soften the natural defensive posture of the offender. This defensive posture may be dismantled through the heard expression of pain felt by the victim or victim's family through the action(s) of the offender. Since we as Christians affirm that the cross of Jesus drew us into God's very self, we can as church, as body of Christ offer this gift of forgiveness to other people. As a matter of fact it is imperative that we do offer this forgiveness to other's. We are still entrenched in Western Civilization though, and the abstractness of sin, causes the abstractness of forgiveness, as not related to our lives and communities. As Jurgen Moltmann has poignantly expressed in The Crucified God, "The fullness of God and the fullness of humanity was drawn together on the cross, where Jesus prayed, 'Father forgive them, for they don't know what their doing.'"
This statement explicitly decried certain actions being performed by humans, but by saying, "Father, forgive them", this ties together the condemnation of the wrong with the offer of forgiveness.
If we have so many various testimonies of the healing aspects of forgiveness and reconciliation within the lives,communities, societies, and even once in a while a nations, then why is forgiveness not being expressed as the central theme of Christianity? One of my favorite stories of forgiveness is Corrie Ten Boom, who was approached after a speaking engagement in Germany in 1947 by a former guard from the Ravensbruck concentration camp, where members of her family were executed for hiding Jews. She said, "For a long moment, we grasped each other's hands, the former guard and the former prisoner." "I had never known God's love so intensely as I did then." I still can not read this without a deep felt need for God's love to penetrate the coldest, darkest areas in our lives and societies. Although, we live in a highly individualized culture, so God's love will be manifest itself personally and individually, but God forbid that love stay individualized. The coldest, darkest areas are held by the most utmost secrecy, as if no one can see what is taking place. Once the secrecy is brought into the illumination of God, it may be healed. Jesus traveled and made visible that which was previously invisible. Jesus constantly demonstrated how power was affecting people and holding people in bondage.
I think that at the heart (core) of forgiveness is the relinquishing of what really belongs to God, which is the power of vengeance and we as humans think we can handle or control vengeance. We seem to tend to believe ourselves to be rational enough in our post-Enlightenment minds to handle this type of power, but the power of vengeance contains deep emotional impacts, of which even the most reasonable people can not suppress. These felt emotions within the scope of being offended is so important to move toward the process of healing. Without the emotion, one is unable to process the severity of the offense. An act of violence against a person or loved one should illicit a response of disbelief and shock at the trauma involved, including a full range of emotional responses. The dominant problem is not the reaction toward the offense, but that there are limited outlets toward condemning the offense by the person offended. Somehow we as Christians have outsourced this job the criminal justice system, at least in terms of violent or property offenses. We have subsequently through many years of neglect allowed this important job to be conducted by people who should not be engaged in the difficult work of reconciliation. The Criminal Justice System is not based in the U.S. on restorative justice, but punitive justice and to a great degree ignores the victim, in favor of the offender.
Restorative Justice though draws the victim and offender back together, since the actions of sin had previously separated them. This is the goal of Christianity and this act brings glory to God, since it demonstrates love, not through ignoring the offense, which is deeply unloving, especially to a victim, but expresses the pain and grief caused by these actions. This also is not universal policy, since there are numerous factors which should be stipulated and agreed upon by the parties involved. If one party is unwilling (especially the offender) to acknowledge the offense, then restorative justice could cause further harm to the victim. Many times though, the problem in our society stems from people feeling that lying will benefit them the best. We as a society have created this phenomenon, through implicitly teaching that one person should pay for their offense by themselves. If a person or society sees no intrinsic value in confession, then confession is not a value which is pursued.
The church is based upon the aspect that the gospel is explicitly social in that as we have been forgiven, reconciled, and participate in God's gracious action toward us, then as Jesus commands, we 'freely' offer these gifts to other people. If we are not offering forgiveness to other people, then maybe it's because we ourselves do not truly believe that we are forgiven. To know God's forgiveness is to see forgiveness exhibited in the lives of people. If we do not see forgiveness demonstrated in social action and therefore social responses, how are we to know we ourselves are forgiven? When I offend and my brother or sister offers the gift of forgiveness through deep empathetic concern that our relationship may be strained, I must respond to them over the possibility that I have in some way contributed to this offense. It does not mean that every offense is only one person's fault, but through the act of dialogue, I can realize that I may be ignorant to my actions. If done in ignorance, I have gained knowledge, if done knowingly, then I must begin the process of confession that my sheer willfulness to offend is causing harm to others. Of course the second scenario is more difficult to address, but forgiveness is still offered and until the movement away from sheer intent is recognized, usually reconciliation is impossible, since at the core of reconciliation is trust.
In order to understand how one arrived at having to offer forgiveness, we must begin to understand the process toward offense. Therefore, the offer of forgiveness is implicitly tied together with the movement toward re-engaging with another in the hope of reconciliation. This action of forgiveness should allow both parties the mutually satisfying solution of unpacking the issues of offense. The one who originally causes an offense toward another person or even toward a community of people has explicitly violated various forms of established boundaries, set in place by social norms to prevent these violations.
The following excerpt from the gospel of Luke begins to unpack the premise that sin is manifest in our actions toward God and toward other people. No sins exist in a vacuum, whereby they don't directly or indirectly affect our relationship with people. For too long has sin either been compartmentalized into being defined as abstract or as only relating to the issues which the person defining is not controlled. The way which I perceive Jesus defining sin is not through these definitions, but as manifest in our social institutions and within our wills. Sin could then be succinctly defined as a continued movement toward self aggrandizement without care for another.
In Luke 1:1-4, Jesus' language involving sin or "offenses" is fierce, due to his complete understanding that people do what they see, therefore, people will follow the leadership either into the kingdom of God or into practices which diminish a person's unique ability for the sake of building up the leadership. If we thought outside of the scope of our world, then it would not matter what another does, since we would be able to act outside of another's actions. We thoroughly know that life is not like that, nor did God intend life to created from nothing. The only time anything was created out of nothing was the original act of creation, but ever since, creation can only utilize the created world to re-create. This means that life can not exist outside of our space/time continuum, nor is it intended to. It places humans as directly inter-connected to each other and to our world. As illustrated above, forgiveness is the means to reconciliation and reconciliation is God's means to rebuilding our world.
Luke 1:1-4: "Things that cause people to sin (offenses) are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves. 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."
