My son sent me a podcast discussion about Forgiveness.
While the people in the podcast don’t acknowledge this or distinguish between them enough, there are three different levels of forgiveness that are being discussed:
1. The question of how God can be both merciful and just at the same time.
2. Forgiveness by the governing authorities through establishment of rules and implementation of punishment when those rules are broken.
3. Interpersonal forgiveness
The distinction between societal and personal forgiveness is mentioned, but what is meant by societal isn’t necessarily the same as governmental. For example, there are discussions over cancel-culture and twitter-based public shaming and the unwillingness to forgive shown on that platform. Public shaming is societal, but not governmental.
Forgiveness is defined as the cancellation of a debt. It can only be proffered when the other party is actually guilty in the prescribed meaning. The party has to be guilty of the offense, has to owe a debt, before it can be cancelled or forgiven. Bruenig says
“forgiveness isn’t deserved by definition, it’s freely given”.
How much forgiveness (or mercy) is owed when an offense is committed?
The question asked is- are justice and mercy the same? To which Bruenig says mercy is paramount in justice. I should clarify that justice is a wider aspect than just meting out punishment for crime. Justice is about being just- morally fair and right. Mercy is showing compassion or forgiveness toward someone whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm.
Governmentally, we should expect our laws to be based on what is morally fair and right. Those that break the laws are therefore being unjust in some respect and level. I’m not sure that mercy is paramount, or supreme, in justice. Justice is to maintain what is morally right and fair, mercy is to not punish for offense.
So my thoughts on the three levels of where forgiveness might take place, and how confusing them will conflate lessons that would be applicable in one category into places where they shouldn’t be applicable.
With regards to reconciling both God’s justice and his mercy, this is the central reason for why Jesus came. God himself, through Jesus, paid the price for our sin by dying. He satisfied the demand for justice, so that mercy could be shown to those that were guilty because he was the one to whom the debt was owed.
On the governmental level, I don’t think it has any duty or obligation to be forgiving. Fair, yes, but if guilty, it doesn’t owe the guilty a break. To the contrary, it might be an important part of societal well-being to know that the law is being upheld. If someone commits a crime against me, I want to think that justice will be done. If I think they are just going to get away with it because the authorities in charge of maintaining order have decided they won’t prosecute that that break justice, then I will feel there is NO justice. And if there is no justice, then there won’t, and can’t, be any order or maintenance of society.
On a personal level, I would always suggest forgiveness, although I don’t think it can be mandated. As Bruenig says, it has be to given freely because the offender is guilty. I personally do it because I know I’ve been guilty of great sins before God, and he has forgiven me. So I don’t find it in my heart to hold grudges against others for things they’ve done against me.
The last two levels particularly are where ideas about forgiveness get mixed up. We can refer to the bible and make pronouncements about what we ought to do on a governmental level- “Forgive as we have been forgiven”, by mistaking that such a command is for us on a personal level. Where this ties in with governmental level is that knowing the law will be upheld, fosters an atmosphere where personal forgiveness can happen. But if others are allowed to commit crimes against you by the authorities, then people understand they are effectively thrown to the wolves. Now they have to worry about protecting themselves. One example of the conflation of the two categories is seen in the statement Bruenig makes:
“For Christians forgiveness is important, but few really look at what it means to forgive someone, the cost of it, and the necessity.”
So, why is important, and even necessary, for Christians to forgive?
For consistency of example, I’ll like the world to a society and God as the authority over it. I am a criminal because I have broken God’s law. I am therefore guilty and condemned. Jesus, who is God himself, comes and pays the penalty in my place, and offers, If I will accept him and follow him, that he will forgive me sin. I accept that. Justice is upheld because the penalty is paid, and mercy is offered by grace.
Why is necessary for me as a Christian to forgive? Because I have been forgiven, I’m told to model that forgiveness for others. AND, that comes naturally BECAUSE I’ve been forgiven. I know I’m guilty, and yet the Lord loves me and forgives me. That makes me want to forgive others. My forgiveness of others is both commanded, and something I want to do.
But that expression of what God has done for me personally isn’t the same as the responsibility the governing authority has to maintain justice within its jurisdiction. I forgive others the small debt they owe me, because God forgave me for a much larger debt I owed him.
In our human societies, if someone steals my stuff and becomes a criminal, he is guilty and condemned under the penalties of the law. If the authorities simply forgive by not holding him accountable, the authority itself is guilty of upholding injustice through showing mercy.
This is an abstract thought experiment, since I doubt Bruenig, or anyone else, are really saying there ought to be no consequences for crime. They probably only want to take the death penalty off the table, BUT….. the issue I’m dealing with is forgiveness, not what type of unforgiveness is acceptable. Bruenig states forgiveness is necessary, and forgiveness is the cancellation of debt. If the issue is just removing the death penalty from the payment of sin, then all the words about forgiveness are superfluous. We’re not really talking about forgiveness, we’re talking about acceptable levels of punishment.
But there are some statements Bruenig makes about forgiveness, that make me want to delve into the subject a little more.
Mercy is supreme in justice.
Forgiveness must have restorative measures.
Evil characterizes actions not people, and even for those that commit heinous crimes, there is a part of them that is good and deserves preservation, dignity and forgiveness.
And we want to be a society where a person who has done wrong can atone, make amends and retain some continuity between their life before and after.
It seems to me that in most cases, there IS a pathway for atoning for wrong and making amends. The level of crime will make it harder for continuity between their life before and after. In the worst cases, where the death penalty is employed, there isn’t a chance for continuity of life as it was before, but atonement and making amends in some way would still be possible in the case of repenting. I would think any murderer could admit what was done to the families of victims and apologize. That of course can’t bring the person back to life, but it can go towards atoning or making amends.
Of related note, the interviewer made this statement:
Given the core values of the left, it seems like forgiveness would be a natural outgrowth of progressivism, but that’s not the case.
This has me wondering what the left sees as the core values of the left.
But it also seems to be a direct proof that whatever they think the core values they hold are… they’re incorrect. Whatever values the left claims are its core values should produce forgiveness. It doesn’t. Therefore, their core values almost certainly aren’t what they claim.
I think the core value of the left is to divide the world in terms of hierarchies of oppressor and oppressed. Those classed as oppressed are given benefits in compensation for the injustice, those classed as oppressors are condemned. This would explain the absolute forgiveness of anything those in oppressed classes do, and the concurrent complete lack of forgiveness for those in what they consider to be in the oppressor class.