We can only forgive the unforgivable (Part 1)
How can we even begin to approach the subject of forgiveness? It is a word that seems to have a lot of currency in personal relationships, religious movements, political discourse and even business. Yet is the forgiveness we encounter really forgiveness at all?
In politics when the word is used we can be pretty sure something is afoot, that there is a reason for the forgiveness being offered. One can assume that the word is uttered only after a variety of in depth citizen surveys have been taken and the solicitors have worked out the consequences. In short the “forgiveness” has conditions.
So to in the world of business. Here “forgiveness” is a great companion, helping to ensure return business and a good reputation. Again the word comes with implicit conditions, it is, as Derrida would say, inscribed in economics (I give you one thing in return for another).
When it comes to religion the same economic approach can also be seen at play. As John Caputo notes, “forgiveness” all too often comes after a set of criteria has been met, namely (1) an expression sorrow (2) a turning away from the act (3) a promise not to return to the act (4) a willingness to do penance. “Forgiveness” thus follows repentance.
Nothing radical there… this is the way the world does “forgiveness” and, as some theologians would point out, such a message would have been welcomed by the religious authorities of Jesus’ day. The religious system loved repentant sinners, they positively celebrated them (there is nothing quite like parading a repentant sinner in church for inspiring the faithful).
But what if Jesus had an infinitely more radical message than this? What if Jesus taught an impossible forgiveness, a forgiveness without conditions a forgiveness that would give before (some condition was met)? Now that kind of craziness would have annoyed a lot of people. “No, you don’t need to change at all, I accept you and welcome you just the way you are”. This would be the heretical image of a Jesus who hung out with drunkards and prositutues (not ex-drunkards and ex-prostitutes and not as a strategy to make them ex-drunkards and ex-prostitutes).
Yet is it not the case that it is precisely this unconditional gift of forgiveness without need of repentance/change that has the power to evoke repentance/change. As most of us know it is often impossible to change until we meet someone who says to us, “you don’t have to change, I love you just the way you are”. It is only then that the change can even begin to take place.
What if “forgiveness” that has conditions, that is wrapped up in economy, is not really forgiveness at all but rather nothing more than a prudent bet. What if such forgiveness was like a love that only loved those who loved in return i.e. a forgiveness without blood and sweat and tears? What if repentance was not the necessary condition for forgiveness but rather the freely given response to it?
I will post more on this in the next couple of days (working on a parable that will describe it in more detail)
Tags: Caputo, Derrida, forgiveness, Jesus, Peter Rollins, unforgivable
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 am
Everything else about Jesus was so outrageously radical, why wouldn’t his take on forgiveness not be as well?
Thanks for the intriguing post… looking forward to your further thoughts.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
[...] – Peter Rollins, dessen für mich bahnbrechendes Buch “How (not) to speak of God” ich gar nicht genug loben kann, beginnt eine kleine neue Reihe über Vergebung [...]
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Pete – I’d be interested in your take of forgiveness versus reconciliation – as Miroslav Volf and NT Wright have aptly noted in their respective works, the later requires a set of conditions. As Caputo observes, people tend to call this “forgiveness” when in fact, they are referencing reconciliation.
The forgiveness offered by Jesus seems to be an act that one can offer the other freely without any expectation that the gift will be received – in fact, the danger is that one will have the gift thrown back in one’s face.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
It’s interesting how we can use the same words and mean entirely different things. I can’t remember the last time I heard forgiveness talked about in a political or business context, so I’m not entirely sure what you mean there, but Jesus hanging out with drunks and hookers – I would call that radical love or acceptance, maybe – but not forgiveness.
Wouldn’t forgiveness necessarily entail that the other person has done something to hurt me? There are several prostitutes who do their business on my block. None of them have ever harmed me, so what would I be forgiving them for, exactly? Having a hard life?
I’m intrigued by your post, maybe precisely because we seem to be defining the word in very different ways.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
So true…. Also looking forward to more
I love how Jesus’ way causes us to “wonder in awe of him” and so compels are hearts to want to do his will….
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Hiya Pete,
Love the new virtual digs!
See you in Durham, NC sometime?
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 am
This post reminded me of a quote i pasted on my bedroom wall because I feel like I need to read it every day:
“The saved sinner is prostrate in adoration, lost in wonder and praise. He knows repentance is not what we do in order to earn forgiveness; it is what we do because we have been forgiven. It serves as an expression of gratitude rather than an effort to earn forgiveness..” – Brennan Manning
Thanks for reminding me to look at my wall.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 am
Hey all. Thanks for the comments. Christy thanks for the thoughts. In terms of politics and business I am thinking of the way that wrongs are overlooked or “forgiven” so that the machinery of industry etc. can run. The everyday acts of not holding a client or business associate responsible for an indiscretion. For me it is like the love that loves those who loves us… nothing wrong with it at all, indeed its a reasonable thing. But it isn’t really love in its Christ-like radicality until it exists the world of economy.
I like what you said about how does one forgive those who have not harmed you. And indeed I would like to clarify that prostitutes have nothing to ask forgiveness about to me… although I may have to ask forgiveness from them for being part of a system that allows the kind of oppressive conditions that would force some into that line of work. I guess I was thinking of Jesus as a representation of the “priest” as it were, the one before whom we are all guilty. So thanks for making me think!
Hey Becky… I very much agree that it is an important distinction to make. Reconciliation is not forgiveness, reconciliation works with economic principles and if vitally important. In many ways the most radical form of reconciliation takes the structural form of forgiveness (without being forgiveness. It can be defined like this: a gift is given and then refused so that nothing is given yet a relationship is restored.
If I can use a personal example to express how this works. Some years ago a close friend committed an act which hurt me. When we were eventually reconciled he apologized to me and I genuinely told him that I now understood why it had happened and that he did not need to apologize… the key to interpreting this act is to note that we both needed him to apologize and we both needed to hear that the apology was rejected – thus nothing was given yet relationship was re-established. If one party had not played the ‘game’ it would not have worked
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:39 am
good thoughts pete. the story of the woman caught in adultery comes to mind (john 8:1-11) and i think is completely offensive to evangelical sensibilities. there jesus offers full pardon without it ever even being asked for (the bare minimum in any “sinner’s prayer”.
also christ on the cross “father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”
also zizek is fond of talking about social situations in which some things have to be said but not acted upon in order to keep relationship. for example, two friends go up for the same job and when one gets it, he says something like ” o you should have got that position. i don’t know what those guys were thinking. i’ll step aside. you should have got it.” the correct response to this, according to zizek, is gratitude and a polite refusal of the offer, but the offer itself keeps the friendship open and prevents enmity from entering.
similarly, your friend had to apologise for the relationship to be restored. when you said that he did not need to apologise, he could have said “o, fine. ok i take back my apology. i’m not sorry at all any more.” this, of course would have ruined everything. the apology had to be offered freely before it could be refused and had to remain in play after the refusal in order for the friendship to continue.
think i’m waffling and not really explaining myself well. but, good provocative, actionable thoughts pete. thanks.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:15 am
Hey Shane. Yeah Zizek is my compass in terms of these reflections on the idea of an empty gesture which allows for relationship to continue
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Pete – thanks for the example. I’m hoping as we continue to dialogue, this distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation can be maintained. BTW-Volf also talks about not confusing forgiving with forgetting and the challenge of how to remember an event so one learns from the event without falling into the role of professional victim. So I hope those two terms won’t get confused either.
What Volf aptly notes is that once can choose to forgive without even any awareness on the part of the other. This hit home for me after a priest suffering from PTSD post 9/11 began wrecking havoc that affected a number of us involved in the 9/11 recovery effort. While he is unable to forgive, I had to let go of my anger towards him (and by default his denomination for not intervening) by forgiving all parties involved.
And this doesn’t appear to be a one shot dealie – as Jesus noted, we must forgive 70 times 7. I find this is an ongoing process where if I am not diligent in seeking forgiveness, my anger can easily get the better of me. Given that, what’s your take on psychologists who sell you on their methodology as a means to achieve forgiveness – just follow my program and you can “forgive for good?” Seems to me they have confused seeking forgiveness with achieving inner peace.
Also sometimes relationships can be repaired but not reconciled. For example, after a series of rather nasty email exchanges with someone I thought was a friend, I apologized and tried repeatedly to get together with no success. Eventually, she extended an olive branch by offering to help me with a project. I accepted and we have begun a cordial albeit infrequent email exchange. A mutual friend told me she was glad we reconciled, but I said it was more like the re-establishment of a professional working relationship. I am not sure what’s going on in her mind, but for my own sanity, I chose to forgive her.
February 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Over the past couple of years, I have wrestled extensively with the issue of forgiveness versus reconciliation.
Bottom line, I have come to realize that unconditional love, which I believe is required in order to give the type of forgiveness Pete is referring to here, is only possible when we let go of expectations. Granted, there are exceptions, but a majority of the time offenses that ‘require’ forgiveness on our part to another party, typically revolve around unmet expectations. When we learn to take responsibility for our choices, realize that we are the ones responsible for meeting our own needs, the ones responsible for choosing to be in relationship with whoever may have hurt/offended us, the one who took the risk of allowing another to impact us in a physical, emotional, or spiritual way, then we can exit the ‘blame game’ and concentrate on meeting our own needs and allowing others to be themselves and walk out their own journey.
I think Jesus was able to forgive 70 times 7 because he wasn’t out trying to get his needs met by any social or religious system or any other relationships. He recognized human nature and its propensity to fall short of perfection, and instead found a place of wholeness within himself and his relationship with His Father. From this place of wholeness, he could hold loosely to everything and everyone else, loving them unconditionally right where they were at, while also inspiring them to step up into their potential.
This forgiveness is different from just whimsically throwing ourselves into systems and relationships that will continually tear us down and cause perpetual pain. I think Jesus also demonstrated wisdom in setting boundaries and choices when to be reconciled within a system or relationship and when to keep a safe distance while still extending forgiveness and love.
I’m excited to hear more of your reflections on this subject, Pete.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Pete –
Thanks for the clarification. My initial confusion was no doubt due to the fact that you and I most likely have very different view of Jesus – and probably sin as well. I’m not terribly theologically orthodox these days. (And I haven’t read Volf, and I don’t know who Zizek is – so maybe that’s part of it as well.)
For various reasons I won’t go into here, forgiveness is very much a live issue for me these days and I’m re-thinking what it is and what it isn’t. I think forgiveness may be very different than I thought it was. Anyway, I will be interested in hearing your further thoughts on the subject, even if I’m not sure I’ll agree with you.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
i did a translation: http://epic.snsy.de/?p=165
german
thanks for the story!
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:24 am
I apologize for the length in advance. I am using a real, live, open example from my own life, so please bear with my story.
Forgiveness is a live issue for me as well. Recently I learned that my mother’s death when I was 4.5 years old was the indirect result of my father, a pastor his entire life, cheating with the church secretary, who is my current stepmother. I spent 8 months getting counsel from many wise friends, thinking and praying about how to confront my stepmother (my father is deceased) with this knowledge. We had never had a good relationship, though I was forced to call her mother from the age of 5 onward.
So what to make of reconciliation vs. forgiveness here? Touching on some of the issues raised in this thread, there was actual, extremely costly injury done to me and to my younger brother as a result of this injustice. Our relationship was strained from the beginning and nearly irreparably damaged with this new knowledge. What was to be my approach? I settled with the idea of the gift: I was going to tell her that I was giving her, after these many years of secrecy, the gift of confession. Without telling her what I knew, and instead telling her who I had spoken to and where I had been to gain this knowledge (which would easily cue her in to what I was referring to), I would offer her the chance to tell ME what she and my father had done.
My plan, if she complied, was to instantly offer her my complete forgiveness. The idea, of course, was that this would restore relationship. Listening to the conversations here, perhaps I could have used more nuance in my thinking on forgiveness and reconciliation. Perhaps. It seems to me that forgiveness can be extended without reconciliation only when reconciliation has been rejected by one of the parties involved. From my example, because my stepmother refused to own her deeds, she refuses to be reconciled to me. [The term reconciliation is even a bit of a stretch here: because the entire history of our relationship was built on lies, we really would have been starting completely new, figuring out how to be family for what, in essence, would be the first time.] Once this reconciliation has been refused, I must still deal with the anger and pain in some sense. This, for me, would be an act equivalent to Becky’s psychotherapy example: purely for intra-psychic release without reconciliation. This, to me, is a hollow form of forgiveness, a “thin” forgiveness if you will, and not something I believe our scriptures bear out, but necessary for spiritual health and in the absence of the “thick” forgiveness of reconciliation.
For those who would say, as has been referenced already, “what about Jesus act of forgiveness on the cross?” That act, of course, was by definition without repentance on the part of the guilty. But I would argue that there was special circumstances: the guilty party literally did not “know what they were doing”: i.e.: killing God’s Son, an innocent man. Jesus description of his own activities rings in my ears at this point, from John 9: “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” This is the context in which such an (literally exceptional, in the strict sense of the word) act is to be understood, I think.
It is more instructional for me to hear 1 John, a passage perhaps overly familiar to most of us: “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness/injustice.” [I added the more helpful translation "injustice" to hint at where I am going here.] It certainly seems the case that, with God, forgiveness is predicated on confession, on owning one’s deeds. This is the hard work of reconciliation, and, I would argue, as radical as any other form of forgiveness (just look at South Africa, the recent ownership of aboriginal oppression in Australia, etc.). Reconciliation with someone who has not only injured you but committed a horror against you is radical, indeed. Forgiving them in your own self without recourse to ever speak to them is, I would argue, the way “the [church] world” so often chooses to do it. Justice is cheapened in this way; the gospel is then rendered flavorless salt, incapacitated in its role to “bring good news to the poor.”
Penance is not required (step four of Peter’s transactional forgiveness, above), not even a promise not to return to the act is needed prior to the extension of forgiveness. But an expression of sorrow (”I’m sorry”) and a “turning away from the act” (”I never should have done that to you” “Go and sin no more”) are the meat and potatoes of reconciliation/restoration of relationship, at least for me, and precisely because I believe that is how forgiveness works with God.
Thoughts?
March 4th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I should have added to this:
“It seems to me that forgiveness can be extended without reconciliation only when reconciliation has been rejected by one of the parties involved.”
These words:
“or when reconciliation is otherwise impossible or risks the continued enabling of horror.”
I know better than to have excluded that caveat. So sorry.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:12 am
[...] It seems that as Peter Rollins talks of “impossible forgiveness” being a “a forgiveness without conditions” that likewise calling is being summoned to the impossible. That’s how I see it a the [...]
May 13th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
The answer to the question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is…
Four day work week,
Two ply toilet paper!
—————————————————————————————————-
http://xanga.com/toryleblancfv
November 9th, 2008 at 4:13 am
[...] reminded me of this pete rollins blog (always an excellent mind-tickler) where he suggests that the only forgiveness worth giving is [...]
December 15th, 2008 at 2:17 am
[...] emergent and postmodern philosopher of religion, echoes this radical view as he ponders (on his blog) the radical meaning of true [...]