From this definition we get two levels of forgiveness:
The 1st level:
To acknowledge that another is imperfect and at the same time a historical being, i.e. one has a past, present, and future. The future is unknown; hence, we can never be absolutely certain that the present state will continue to be the future state for a person. Hence, we almost always are given a second chance to start all over again or redeem ourselves.
The 2nd level:
To finally see the admission of fault and active reparation by the one who wronged, to see that those who have been wronged have been restored to their original state as much as possible for that specific situation, and to finally let it go.
The right kind of forgiveness isn't always the forgiveness that gives both. It should depend on the circumstances.
Additionally, it isn't always with both levels that we can achieve inner peace. Peace also comes from the conviction and commitment to ensure that justice is served.
Wrongs that we usually encounter are of such gravity that allows us to easily give both levels of forgiveness. Either the reparation here is light or light enough to just let it pass because holding on to it is much worse. However, sometimes, letting it just pass is worse for a whole lot of people.
When is just letting it pass (without reparation) worse for others?
1. In cases of gross abuse or denial of human rights, like what Bashar al-Assad is doing in Syria right now, what many dictators or related governments did to consolidate power - genocide - and what rapists and murderers do.
2. In cases of corruption, as likely in Janet Napoles' case and those people who hold positions in government, be it national, local, or student, who lack integrity, because they deprive many others of what is due to them.
3. In cases of cheating, like what one or two of my classmates did in our midterm examinations last semester and even in our periodic long exams in the first quarter of this semester, because that breeds an inclination to corruption and is greatly unfair to those who studied hard just to pass and graduate and to the university's reputation if these people do graduate and take the board exams.
In these cases and in many more, when we just forgive without justice served, we make those who committed wrong feel and, oftentimes, believe that they can just commit it again. No matter how much they say they will change or that they have changed, the fact remains that the offended didn't do anything to make it right. That's a great disservice for all affected because the offended did not limit to the greatest extent of his/her power the propensity of a similar offense. (And obviously reparation doesn't excuse anyone just because they come from a rich family or a poor family. It shouldn't because justice believes in the innate equality of all.)
Yes, there will be pain in holding on to it. There will be stress. But, is that sufficient enough of a reason to just let it go without justice served? Actually, holding on to it and actively moving to create a better society or state of affairs through it is a much better source of inner peace. Only here are we able to say that I have done my part for others.
Straight from the Gospels
I always hear from many Christian preachers that forgiveness is divine and should be given unconditionally like how the Heavenly Parent (so that I won't have patriarchal bias) does or how Jesus did. This leads me to ask, did Jesus really give both levels of forgiveness at all times?
According to the Gospels, specifically in Matthew's the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, Peter asked Jesus if forgiving seven times is the limit for a "brother who keeps on sinning against him". To this question, Jesus responded by saying "No, not seven times, but seventy times seven" (which I interpret to mean "unlimited"). He then proceeded to discuss the parable.
So according to the Gospels, what is to be given without limit? Both levels of forgiveness? To answer that let's probe further into the passage.
The parable went on to say that the Kingdom of Heaven is like that of a merciful king who "forgave" a servant of his debts and was given sufficient time to pay the king back. However, the servant, upon receiving such grace from the king, went to a fellow servant and unjustly demanded the other servant to pay a debt immediately. To this action, the king sanctioned punishment by sending the servant to jail until he should pay the whole amount back. (Like, merciful king, how could he possibly earn when he's in jail? That difficult of a punishment!)
Just from that, we could already understand that the unlimited is the first level - acknowledging the imperfection and historicity of people. We acknowledge that people can change so we give them time and the space to do so. But do we simply remove the burden to act better? No, the burden to pay off the debt still remains, only with more time! The second level which is liken to the acceptance to the Kingdom of Heaven is not automatically granted.
Another thing to reflect on: Is the "forgiveness of sins" by Jesus tantamount to the giving of both levels of forgiveness automatically? I also think not. The second level of forgiveness would again mean entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven. So, most preacher that I hear, are you saying that everyone's already assured a place in Heaven even if they do not act for the better of society or justice is not exacted from them?
The preacher would probably say: Woah! Hold your pen, blog writer! Are you saying that you're qualified to set the proper judgment as the Heavenly Parent is?!
To that I will say: I don't think I'm qualified because you don't worship me as you worship the Heavenly Parent, but just as your mortal interpretations of doctrine also set punishment (hello, the punishment of excommunication and community condemnation), the secular society also sets just punishment. Take a look back at the cases enumerated above.
Finally, even Luke's Jesus and Zacchaeus is indicative of the distinction of both levels of forgiveness. As all Scripture-based Christians should know, Zacchaeus was a chief tax collector who climbed a sycamore tree just to see Jesus. He was regarded as a sinner, which he later admitted. Notwithstanding his status, Jesus went and dine with him (the first level). When he proclaimed that he will "give half his belongings to the poor" and "pay back four times as much" to those whom he cheated (the burdens of the second level). Jesus then exclaimed, "Salvation has come to this house today..." (the fruit of the second level).
So, the next time you say "forgive", be especially careful with the distinction between the two kinds of forgiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment