Sunday, April 01, 2007

sins of omission

Sometimes I am not a very nice person.

I do things, and say things, that are mean and horrible and bitchy.

Worse yet, I do them to people I love, like relatives and friends.

Luckily, most of these people love me back, and forgive me, otherwise I'd probably be sitting on a corner somewhere with Piper, my banjo and straw hat for tips, all homeless and beat up, because even the homeless people don't like me very much.

Forgiveness, when it's genuine, is redemptive. Sometimes I think that Christianity has the crux of human salvation-- that is, through the act of forgiveness-- quite right, even if the economics and politics of sin through official church institutions turn me off, and I'm at lost how to explain how we forgive corporate sin (as defined by theologians, not Walmart.)

I've always thought of forgiveness and redemption though, as quite a human mediated process--no matter what the divine consequences may be--and think Judaism has this particular facet down much better than Christianity.

Here's why: Jesus can forgive you all He wants for being an asshole to your mom or unsuspecting coworker or best friend, but you know, your mom/unsuspecting coworker/best friend still has to forgive you, or at least accept that you fucked up, for the whole process to begin to work properly.

(And, if you've ever noticed, it's easier to ask Jesus for forgiveness for being a jerk than it is your mom or best friend. Because Jesus = dead guy, not around. Mom/Best Friend/Whomever You Just Pissed Off = not dead, and around for awhile.

It's like, "So Jesus forgives you for being a fuck up. Dude man, that's not all that special. It's his job to forgive you for being a fuck up. He's like, Jesus and shit. That's what he does."

Human beings, on the other hand, who I think of as not generally possessing divine powers of absolution, have a choice to forgive you. I think this idea of choice is what is partially meant when Catholics go on and on about free will and grace, and Protestants go on about how that Catholic free will/grace talk is bullshit.

And, generally the choice you have means you have to genuinely want to be forgiven and they have to genuinely want to forgive you.

Sometimes you don't. Sometimes they don't.

We are all going to fuck up, that much is clear.

But, over all, choosing not to ask someone for forgiveness, and choosing not to forgive others is overall a good working definition of what Catholics call a "sin of omission," and sometimes can be even more damaging than that which is committed.

While this definition probably isn't helpful when we're talking about Really Bad Stuff, I do think it works on an interpersonal level.

And who the hell really knows what to do about the Really Bad Stuff, any way? Granting pardons for for say, genocide, must be God's territory, because it certainly isn't mine.






1 comment:

mmr said...

Hello Jamie,
This is your former colleague from divinity school, avid reader of your blog, and friend of Katy's. Now I'm in the GDR, and I write about forgiveness. Specifically, I write that forgiveness need not have moral weight, that a person can be not forgiving and also good. In fact, non-forgiveness may be the safest bet in some cases (domestic violence, situations where the victim is emotionally not ready to forgive, etc). I am interested in what you were saying about non-forgiveness as a sin of omission - do you think that's always the case? You're right on (in my opinion) that the Jewish only-the-victim-can-forgive mode is right - human forgiveness is the key, since we can almost take divine forgiveness for granted (at least in the Christian tradition). Are there times when you think non-forgiveness is warranted, and even a good thing? Plus, what is forgiveness, anyway? Is it an action, or is it a feeling? Or both? I would love to know what you think.
Thanks for your fun and intelligent blog which I enjoy very much. Happy birthday to Piper, and warm greetings to your bunny.
Yours,
mmr