Earlier this week Alma Jean and I attended the opening session of the Baptist Peacemakers Conference at EMU to hear keynote speaker Vietnamese-Canadian Kim Phúc tell the story of her journey to forgiveness.
Kim is the nine-year-old girl who was shown naked and badly burned in the Pulitzer-Prize prize winning photograph of her and other children fleeing a napalm attack in her village of Trang Bang, South Vietnam on June 8, 1972. A South Vietnamese pilot mistook the group for enemy soldiers and diverted to attack, killing two of Phúc's cousins and two other villagers and inflicting severe burns on many others.
Associated Press’s Nick Út’s photograph became one of the most haunting images of the Vietnam War and is thought to have further turned the tide of public opinion against it. Kim recalls that she was yelling, "Nóng quá, nóng quá" ("too hot, too hot") in the picture.
Her story, which included her conversion to Christianity and her growing conviction that she must let go of her bitterness over the physical and psychological scars inflicted on her, was profoundly moving. She described it as being like “heaven on earth” to be able to love those who had inflicted all the suffering and the many surgeries she had to go through.
“And my scars? They are my protection against being proud,” she said.
Showing posts with label love for enemies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label love for enemies. Show all posts
Friday, July 8, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Killing Goliath
This morning's paper headlined the killing of Osama bin Laden somewhere in Pakistan, the work of operatives who have been stalking him for years. It also highlighted the death of Seif al-Arab Muammar el-Qaddafi, son of Muammar Qaddafi, in a bombing raid on Qaddafi’s headquarters in Libya.
The violent death of the former is being hailed as a long sought victory in the war on terror. The death of the latter, at age 29, along with his three children, all under the age of three, is seen as unavoidable collateral damage.
Humanity’s efforts at solving problems by slaughtering enemies reminds me of a time many years ago when I was reading our very young daughter the story of David slaying the evil giant Goliath. At the dramatic point in the story when Goliath falls, I didn’t get the expected approving response from our three-year-old. Instead, I noticed tears in her eyes.
Taken by surprise, I asked, “What about the story makes you sad?”
“Well, because Goliath was still a person,” she insisted.
Out of the mouths of babes, I thought to myself. No matter how despicable our enemy, no matter how indefensible and inexcusable their behavior, each one is still someone’s son or daughter, or may be someone’s father or mother, someone's sibling or friend. And each human being is still one of God’s loved creations, no matter how awful their deeds.
We tend to forget that. In our desire for justice, we all too often pursue only vengeance.
The violent death of the former is being hailed as a long sought victory in the war on terror. The death of the latter, at age 29, along with his three children, all under the age of three, is seen as unavoidable collateral damage.
Humanity’s efforts at solving problems by slaughtering enemies reminds me of a time many years ago when I was reading our very young daughter the story of David slaying the evil giant Goliath. At the dramatic point in the story when Goliath falls, I didn’t get the expected approving response from our three-year-old. Instead, I noticed tears in her eyes.
Taken by surprise, I asked, “What about the story makes you sad?”
“Well, because Goliath was still a person,” she insisted.
Out of the mouths of babes, I thought to myself. No matter how despicable our enemy, no matter how indefensible and inexcusable their behavior, each one is still someone’s son or daughter, or may be someone’s father or mother, someone's sibling or friend. And each human being is still one of God’s loved creations, no matter how awful their deeds.
We tend to forget that. In our desire for justice, we all too often pursue only vengeance.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Should We Ever NOT Forgive?
Recent killings by deranged gunmen bring up the question of forgiveness for people who commit terrible crimes of that kind.
When a similarly deranged shooter killed innocent Amish children at the Nickle Mines School in southern Pennsylvania in October, 2006, that religious community instinctively responded with grace and kindness. Everyone saw their actions and attitudes as amazing examples of Christian forgiveness.
I wonder if their response shouldn’t simply be considered an incredible form of “give-ness,” the giving up of any revenge or hate and the demonstration of a truly Christlike and unconditional love for an enemy who had harmed them in the most terrible way possible.
I prefer to call that cross-like love. The forgiving part is up to God.
Jewish writer Dennis Prager questions the notion that we “should forgive everyone who commits evil against anyone, no matter how great and cruel, and whether or not the evil doer repents.” He also believes we can only forgive those who have sinned against us, not those who have sinned against others.
“If we forgive everyone (unilaterally) for all the evil they do,” he says, “we have substituted ourselves for God.” Even Jesus, he adds, when interceding to God to forgive those who crucified him, “never asked God to forgive those who had crucified thousands of other innocent people.”
As a Jew, Prager does affirm Jesus’ idea of having us forgive those who wrong us based on their repentance, just as God surely does. He just wonders whether many of us have trivialized forgiveness, turned into something that’s about making us feel better rather than, like the God of the Bible, being concerned with both justice for evildoers and compassion for them when and if they repent and commit themselves to genuine change.
What got Prager to thinking about this was seeing a news article and photo of some students in West Paducah, Kentucky, some years ago displaying a large banner with the words “We forgive you, Mike!” referring to the 14-year-old who had just shot and killed 3 teenagers at Heath High school. He believes they/we have neither the power or the right to forgive on others’ behalf.
So, should we distinguish between loving evildoers versus pronouncing them forgiven? The first is an initiative toward even the unrepentant, the second is a response based on a complete 180 degree turn on the part of the one seeking forgiveness.
Please understand, I strongly agree that we should forgive our debtors. But a debtor, by definition, is one who is fully aware of what he or she owes and is unable to repay. A person who denies having committed an offense is not a debtor. Nor is the person who insists the offense is not really their fault, as in, “The devil (or my temper, my addiction, or my bad upbringing) made me do it.”
I have a book in my office with two title pages, one on the front and another on the back. It’s actually two books in one, written by David Augsburger. The first title is “Caring Enough to Forgive” which takes up approximately half of the pages, and the other, reading from the reverse side of the book, is “Caring Enough Not to Forgive.”
The latter is a jarring title for those of us who’ve been taught that forgiveness is something we grant everyone unilaterally, no strings attached, just proclaim them off the hook. But Augsburger believes the implied condition for all of our “forgiving others their trespasses as we ask God to forgive us our own” is one clearly stated in Luke’s gospel, which says, “If others sin against you, and if they repent, forgive them.”
Meanwhile, for all who choose not to repent, we continue to love, do good to, and pray for them without question. All the while remembering that we are always in need of plenty of forgiveness of our own.
I'd love to have you respond with your thoughts below.
When a similarly deranged shooter killed innocent Amish children at the Nickle Mines School in southern Pennsylvania in October, 2006, that religious community instinctively responded with grace and kindness. Everyone saw their actions and attitudes as amazing examples of Christian forgiveness.
I wonder if their response shouldn’t simply be considered an incredible form of “give-ness,” the giving up of any revenge or hate and the demonstration of a truly Christlike and unconditional love for an enemy who had harmed them in the most terrible way possible.
I prefer to call that cross-like love. The forgiving part is up to God.
Jewish writer Dennis Prager questions the notion that we “should forgive everyone who commits evil against anyone, no matter how great and cruel, and whether or not the evil doer repents.” He also believes we can only forgive those who have sinned against us, not those who have sinned against others.
“If we forgive everyone (unilaterally) for all the evil they do,” he says, “we have substituted ourselves for God.” Even Jesus, he adds, when interceding to God to forgive those who crucified him, “never asked God to forgive those who had crucified thousands of other innocent people.”
As a Jew, Prager does affirm Jesus’ idea of having us forgive those who wrong us based on their repentance, just as God surely does. He just wonders whether many of us have trivialized forgiveness, turned into something that’s about making us feel better rather than, like the God of the Bible, being concerned with both justice for evildoers and compassion for them when and if they repent and commit themselves to genuine change.
What got Prager to thinking about this was seeing a news article and photo of some students in West Paducah, Kentucky, some years ago displaying a large banner with the words “We forgive you, Mike!” referring to the 14-year-old who had just shot and killed 3 teenagers at Heath High school. He believes they/we have neither the power or the right to forgive on others’ behalf.
So, should we distinguish between loving evildoers versus pronouncing them forgiven? The first is an initiative toward even the unrepentant, the second is a response based on a complete 180 degree turn on the part of the one seeking forgiveness.
Please understand, I strongly agree that we should forgive our debtors. But a debtor, by definition, is one who is fully aware of what he or she owes and is unable to repay. A person who denies having committed an offense is not a debtor. Nor is the person who insists the offense is not really their fault, as in, “The devil (or my temper, my addiction, or my bad upbringing) made me do it.”
I have a book in my office with two title pages, one on the front and another on the back. It’s actually two books in one, written by David Augsburger. The first title is “Caring Enough to Forgive” which takes up approximately half of the pages, and the other, reading from the reverse side of the book, is “Caring Enough Not to Forgive.”
The latter is a jarring title for those of us who’ve been taught that forgiveness is something we grant everyone unilaterally, no strings attached, just proclaim them off the hook. But Augsburger believes the implied condition for all of our “forgiving others their trespasses as we ask God to forgive us our own” is one clearly stated in Luke’s gospel, which says, “If others sin against you, and if they repent, forgive them.”
Meanwhile, for all who choose not to repent, we continue to love, do good to, and pray for them without question. All the while remembering that we are always in need of plenty of forgiveness of our own.
I'd love to have you respond with your thoughts below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)