Friday, December 08, 2006

Forgiveness

A friend of mine recently posted an interesting article on the subject of forgiveness. This post started as a comment on hers, but grew too large to fit, so I moved it into my blog.

This basic issue revolves around the question of whether society can extend forgiveness to a murderer who has truly repented before being caught (in this case, 9 years after the murder). My friends and I agree that the answer, in short, is "no". I think this is part of what it means for us to have a secular government. Our legal system must deal only with justice, we do not have the wisdom to administer corporate forgiveness.

I think the idea here is that we can only practice morality in our personal lives. In the larger framework of society, we must act on principles. And the principle here is that the guilty must be punished. The validity of this principle is demonstrated consistently throughout history in society after society. What then, are Christians to do with the Christian call to forgiveness? What if the judge, the DA, and all the members of the jury were Christians? Could they let the accused go free?

I still contend that the answer is "no." The Christian morality that calls for forgiveness can only be practiced on a personal, relational level. This is not to say that Christianity has no place in society - clearly our principles are shaped by the morality found within the Bible. It is just that moral acts are inherently personal. You achieve a moral society, not by legislating moral behavior, but by developing moral individuals. It is then incumbent on those individuals to elucidate from their morality and their history the principles that will best govern society. This is basically the pattern outlined by our founding fathers.

Herein lies one of the great benefits of a pluralistic society. In such a society, it is possible to draw from the moral backgrounds of a wide range of cultures to find the principles that have proven most effective in building a stable society. This is so important because humans are notoriously bad at finding the right principles to govern based on their morality. I have asserted this over and over about Christianity, but it is true of every religious tradition; they are notoriously bad at managing secular power. If we could ever learn to stop yelling at each other, we in America might be able to find our way back to the place where we can negotiate our shared principles. But I dream...

2 comments:

Dr. Don said...

(This didn't fit in my original post, but I wanted to say it)...

C.S. Lewis, in his book The Abolition of Man speaks of the Tao or natural law, that is common to every culture, or at least every successful culture, throughout history.

His concern in the book is that the education system in England at the time (the 1950's) was undermining the power of these core principles, and that this trend would have a negative effect on society at large.

I believe that modern multiculturalism suffers from the same problems, but in an interesting way. By asserting that all cultures are equally valid, multiculturalism focuses on the differences between cultures rather than on the commonalities that can be the basis for building a shared society. It is then within this framework of shared morality and principles that our differences can be celebrated. When we start with the differences, we fight rather than celebrate.

Bad Methodist said...

Our legal system must deal only with justice, we do not have the wisdom to administer corporate forgiveness.

I think the idea here is that we can only practice
morality in our personal lives. In the larger framework of society, we must act on principles.

Very well said!!

Re: your comment
I believe that modern multiculturalism suffers from the same problems, but in an interesting way. By asserting that all cultures are equally valid, multiculturalism focuses on the differences between cultures rather than on the commonalities that can be the basis for building a shared society. It is then within this framework of shared morality and principles that our differences can be celebrated. When we start with the differences, we fight rather than celebrate.

That's a really interesting point. I think focussing on the differences comes from a defensive posture. As soon as you tell me MY culture is "wrong" and yours is "better," I'm gonna get defensive of those differences. I think it needs to start by the dominant culture reaching out and being respectful so that defensiveness can dissipate, then it's easier to focus on the commonalities and appreciate and celebrate the differences.