Forgiveness or Revenge? Restitution or Retribution? [1 ed.] 9781848883581, 9789004374485

Citation preview

Forgiveness or Revenge

Series Editors Dr Robert Fisher Lisa Howard Dr Ken Monteith Advisory Board Simon Bacon Katarzyna Bronk John L. Hochheimer Stephen Morris Peter Twohig

Ana Borlescu Ann-Marie Cook Peter Mario Kreuter John Parry Karl Spracklen S Ram Vemuri

A Probing the Boundaries research and publications project. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/probing-the-boundaries/ The Making Sense Of: Hub ‘Forgiveness’

2015

Forgiveness or Revenge: Restitution or Retribution?

Edited by

Sheila C. Bibb

Inter-Disciplinary Press Oxford, United Kingdom

© Inter-Disciplinary Press 2015 http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/publishing/id-press/

The Inter-Disciplinary Press is part of Inter-Disciplinary.Net – a global network for research and publishing. The Inter-Disciplinary Press aims to promote and encourage the kind of work which is collaborative, innovative, imaginative, and which provides an exemplar for inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary publishing.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of Inter-Disciplinary Press.

Inter-Disciplinary Press, Priory House, 149B Wroslyn Road, Freeland, Oxfordshire. OX29 8HR, United Kingdom. +44 (0)1993 882087

ISBN: 978-1-84888-358-1 First published in the United Kingdom in eBook format in 2015. First Edition.

Table of Contents Introduction: This should be Flush Left Sheila C. Bibb Part I

Belief Systems As Lions, as Lambs: Forgiving the Unrepentant Wrongdoer Gabriel Gerard Gross

Part II

vii

3

A Philosophical Exploration of Forgiveness in Islam Mriganka Sankar Poddar

13

Christian Forgiveness and a Ghanaian Traditional Belief Alice Matilda Nsiah

21

Forgiveness as an Experience of Ritual Cleansing in African Religion Bartholomew Chidili

29

Forgiveness in Turkish Culture Defne Erdem Mete

39

Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness Angela Kueny and Sandra Cardenas

49

Forgiveness and Revenge: Crimes and Offenses An Exploration of Relationships between the Propensity to Forgive Severe Offenses, Individual’s Moral Rationales and Their Preferences for Restorative and Retributive Justice Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martinez

65

Revising the TRC’s Concept of Forgiveness in Achmat Dangor’s Bitter Fruit Francesca Mussi

77

Forgiveness: Complexities and Paradoxes in the Context of Genocide and Slavery Eva Kahana, Boaz Kahana, Timothy Goler and Julia Kay Wolf

87

I Should Help, but I Wouldn’t: The Evolutionary Psychology of Revenge and Its Application in Domestic Violence Intervention Susan DiVietro and Jordan Kiper

99

Part III Theoretical Arguments and Inherent Paradoxes Overcoming Resentment: Hannah Arendt on the Virtue of Forgiveness Marinus Schoeman

121

Forgiving Architecture: The Case of Gianni Pettena Leslie Anne Boldt

129

Forgive and Forget, but How? Aysel Demir

141

For Authentic Forgiveness: Which Anthropological Paradigm? Giulia Maniezzi

147

The Paradox of Forgiveness: Forgiving the Unforgivable Ilana Shiloh

159

Introduction Sheila C. Bibb In July 2014 I was privileged to be the Project Leader for the 7 th annual conference on Forgiveness, which was held at Mansfield College, Oxford. I say a privilege advisedly because this year, not only was there a good mix of disciplines which really facilitated the inter-disciplinary nature which we seek, but the range of subjects covered, together with the collegiality and depth of the ensuing discussions resulted in a memorable conference and the setting of a great foundation for future exchanges of ideas. It is to be hoped that these exchanges will not only continue but also stimulate and inspire future work and add new dimensions to the way in which we think about Forgiveness. As an example of the ways in which a change of approach can bring new perspectives, we have now held 7 conferences debating Forgiveness and 4 conferences looking at the concept of Revenge but this year we decided that, in view of the crossover of ideas at each conference, we would combine them. The result has been a new dynamism producing some interesting divergences from the normal ideas, and a greater focus on the paradoxes inherent in the concepts of both Forgiveness and Revenge. As with any conference which has as the subject matter an intangible notion such as Forgiveness or Revenge, one of the problems faced is the definition of the concept applied by each author and the context in which they chose to apply it. Much of the discussion which occurred between papers and at the general sessions of the conference hinged on this problem. This volume however, seeks not to delve into these aspects but rather to reproduce the papers given and thus provide a snapshot of the conference which allows the reader to decide for him or herself on the validity of each argument put forward. To better facilitate this, the chapters have been organized into three sections, each having a common basic theme. Part I therefore is a selection of writings linked by the broad term of Belief systems, and includes both writings espousing an overtly religious approach to the subject and also chapters which rely on cultural or traditional beliefs to explain their argument. Part II embraces not only Forgiveness but also the idea of Revenge and retaliation as the chapters there examine various crimes and offences, the ways in which these impact on all involved, possible ways of dealing with them either individually or collectively, and the possible outcomes. Part III concludes these writings by putting forward some sociological and theoretical arguments and particularly emphasizing the paradoxes inherent in granting Forgiveness. Part I: Belief Systems As already indicated, the common theme of this section is that those beliefs which we hold will determine our actions and reactions and thus our ability to Forgive. In reality this is so broad that the chapters involved have been grouped into those which are based on recognised religious approaches to Forgiveness and

viii

Introduction

__________________________________________________________________ then those that are linked much more closely with cultural beliefs and expectations, which may well include a religious element. Starting then with those chapters which have a recognised religious basis, the first chapter in this section, ‘As Lions, as Lambs: Forgiving the Unrepentant Wrongdoer’, is by Gabriel Gerard Gross and puts forward a Christian viewpoint espousing the need to attain some degree of agapic love for both the victim and the wrong-doer, even when the latter shows no remorse or repentance for their actions. The ideas put forward here can be compared and contrasted with Mriganka Sankar Poddar’s chapter, ‘A Philosophical Exploration of Forgiveness in Islam’, where an examination of the need to achieve harmony in order to become nearer to God is apparently contradicted by the need for punishment (i.e. violence) as a means to discourage hypocrites and unbelievers. By analysing The Qur’an, Poddar argues that these apparent inconsistencies can be easily resolved to provide the desired harmonious framework. The final chapter in this sub-division is ‘Christian Forgiveness and a Ghanaian Traditional Belief’ by Alice Matilda Nsiah. Here she first examines the story of the Prodigal Son as found in the gospel of Luke, which tells of a repentant sinner who returns home and is warmly greeted and received even before he makes any attempt to apologise or make restitution. This is contrasted with the belief associated with the shrine of the river goddess of Antoa in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. The traditional belief is that once the goddess is invoked, she is going to punish the offender severely if confession and restitution do not take place immediately. The argument therefore is between compassion, which is at the core of the relationship between the Christian God and his children, while justice and retribution appears to be at the heart of the relationship between the river goddess and those who come into contact with her. The second sub-division of this section focuses more on cultural beliefs and expectations, the first being Bartholomew Chidili’s ‘Forgiveness as an Experience of Ritual Cleansing in African Religion’. In this chapter Chidili shows how an African belief that every aspect of national and civil life as well as human interactions, including morality, is governed by God through the earth deity, so that the community is compelled to purge itself of any misdemeanour, whether committed by an individual or collectives, through the long established tradition which is Ritual Cleansing. This, he argues, facilitates forgiveness, pardon and reconciliation. This case, while similar to that put forward by Nsiah, differs in that while there is no actual element of Christianity involved, there does seem to be an element of compassion not normally associated with traditional African religions. The next chapter, by Defne Erdem Mete, entitled ‘Forgiveness in Turkish Culture’, also looks at rituals used by a community to enable forgiveness and face-saving. Here the emphasis is again on the collective response to a situation. The final chapter in this section is ‘Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness’ by Angela Kueny and Sandra Cardenas. Based on their work with an Old Order Amish community, Kueny and Cardenas show the various means whereby the members of the community, for example parents and teachers, as well

Sheila C. Bibb

ix

__________________________________________________________________ as material goods such as children’s books, and even cookbooks focus on discipline, humility, and the Golden Rule. By using these strategies they instill in the children a strong foundation for forgiveness, increasing the willingness and capacity to forgive in Amish adults and the community as a whole. Part 2: Forgiveness and Revenge: Crimes and Offences Moving away from the religious influence on Forgiveness, this next section comprises four chapters each detailing situations where one of the main elements is in fact revenge or retaliation and looks at the way in which the individual or the society concerned deal with the opposing needs of all involved. Starting with ‘An Exploration of Relationships between the Propensity to Forgive Severe Offences, Individual’s Moral Rationales and Their Preferences for Restorative and Retributive Justice’, authored by Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martinez, the reader is introduced to Colombia and the options facing the country as they enter a period of post conflict peace building. Similarly Francesca Mussi in her chapter, ‘Revising the TRC’s Concept of Forgiveness in Achmat Dangor’s “Bitter Fruit”’, reflects on the Truth and Reconciliation Committee established in South Africa at the end of Apartheid and the validity of the challenge to the Christian rhetoric of Confession/forgiveness put forward by Dangor. In so doing she attempts to seek answers to what truth is, and whether it is a precondition to forgiveness. Continuing with the theme of a society, (together with the individuals within that society), seeking to come to terms with a wrong, Eva Kahana, Boaz Kahana, Timothy Goler and Julia Kay Wolf, in their chapter ‘Forgiveness: Complexities and Paradoxes in the Context of Genocide and Slavery’ examine two crimes against humanity – the Nazi Holocaust and Slavery in the United States. This chapter considers often neglected influences of environmental and social contexts and transactions between the offenders and victims relevant to understanding the processes involved in forgiving. Focusing on the perspective of the victims, it particularly notes the need for restitution, and the impact that moving from the scene of the trauma has on the ability to forgive. Finally in this section we have a totally different scenario as we turn to the chapter by Susan DiVietro and Jordan Kiper, ‘I Should Help, but I Wouldn’t: The Evolutionary Psychology of Revenge and Its Application in Domestic Violence Intervention’. While the other chapters examine the need for restitution and forgiveness of a crime primarily from a collective point of view, DiVietro and Kiper examine the role of revenge within a domestic violence scenario and the ways in which both the crime, and the reaction to it, are dealt with on an individual level. It also looks at the community or collective response which indicates that those not directly involved are often reluctant to intervene in such matters.

x

Introduction

__________________________________________________________________ Part 3: Theoretical Arguments and Inherent Paradoxes For the final part of this book we turn to five chapters which cover a range of theoretical perspectives and thought as well as highlighting some of the paradoxes inherent within the very concept of Forgiveness. Starting with a chapter by Marinus Schoeman, entitled ‘Overcoming Resentment: Hannah Arendt on the Virtue of Forgiveness’, he tells us that Arendt sees virtue, trustworthiness and forgiveness as the highest ‘principles’ of action and the opposite of resentment and revenge. In order therefore to overcome such negative qualities, it is necessary that an individual strive for virtue and forgiveness by developing strategies for accomplishing this. This positive approach towards overcoming a wrong is echoed in the chapter ‘Forgiving Architecture: The Case of Gianni Pettena’ by Leslie Anne Boldt. In this instance the focus is on the use of memorials and architecture to bring about a transformation, both to the landscape and the lives of those affected by the wrong, and in so doing to facilitate healing. This practical approach is echoed in Aysel Demir’s chapter, ‘Forgive and Forget, but How?’. When the wrong is murder or rape, the question of forgiving becomes more difficult, particularly if the state gives an amnesty to those convicted of such crimes. Using the example of the Rahsan Amnesty in Turkey in 2000, it is argued that the state not only undermined and harmed the concept of justice but also created legal, political and ethical problems. Most importantly though, the victims felt that justice had not been served and therefore they erred more towards feelings of revenge than forgiveness. Giulia Maniezzi in her chapter, ‘For Authentic Forgiveness: Which Anthropological Paradigm?’, asks a more general question namely, can we in fact talk about forgiveness in any particular context such as religion, or culture, or a philosophical manner and still have the same meaning? If the meaning differs depending upon the context we use, then is there any possibility of an authentic forgiveness? Ilana Shiloh’s, ‘The Paradox of Forgiveness: Forgiving the Unforgivable’, also raises questions about the reality and authenticity of forgiveness for, as she says, ‘Forgiveness is a paradox. Slight misdeeds or wrongdoings do not necessitate forgiveness. If I forgive because the offensive deed is forgivable, because it is easily excusable, then I’m not forgiving. I can only forgive when there is something unforgivable. Forgiveness thus predicates on its opposite and is both an impossibility and a necessity.’ From this intriguing viewpoint she discusses various ways of attempting to solve this paradox and explores the way in which Paolo Sorrentino’s 2011 film This Must Be the Place approaches this subject. In short then we have fifteen chapters each introducing a different perspective on a much debated subject. The range of ideas and styles are a reflection of the interdisciplinary nature of this gathering and show just how valuable a multiple approach to a subject can be in creating a dynamic atmosphere from which new and fruitful conversations can spring. It was indeed a pleasure to be associated with

Sheila C. Bibb

xi

__________________________________________________________________ this conference and I am delighted to present these arguments to the reader. I also wish to thank all who participated for their hard work and diligence.

Part I Belief Systems

As Lions, as Lambs: Forgiving the Unrepentant Wrongdoer Gabriel Gerard Gross Abstract The goal of forgiveness, broadly construed, is to attain some degree of agapic love, i.e. regard for the well-being and the good of both oneself and one’s wrongdoer. This chapter focuses on one aspect of forgiveness--forgiving the unrepentant wrongdoer--and proposes the Lion-Lamb model as a means to achieving agapic love within that aspect. The Lion-Lamb model takes a simultaneous defencemeets-grace approach to ensure that victims actively resist the wrong done to them, but also (when ready) welcome back the wrongdoer to the moral community via grace. Though its precise formulation in each instance of forgiveness is client- and context-dependent, the Lion-Lamb model facilitates agapic love when used appropriately. The model answers objections regarding forgiveness of unrepentant wrongdoers, namely the worries that such forgiveness condones the wrong and/or compromises a victim’s self-respect. The Lion-Lamb model also solves the often cited case of ‘the abused housewife,’ who continually lets her unrepentant husband off the moral hook and thus leaves herself vulnerable to further harm. When forgivers strike the proper balance of self-defence and grace, the Lion-Lamb model directs agapic love toward both victim and wrongdoer. Its strength lies in defending the former, while its grace rests in accepting the latter, despite her wrong. The love achieved by this model may not be flawless, but it is nonetheless a love well worth pursuing. Key Words: Forgiveness, repentance, unrepentant wrongdoer, agape, grace, selfdefence, Kingdom of God, neighbour love. ***** We are all of us wrongdoers. We are all of us victims. We have each known the hurt that an offender leaves behind, and we have each been an offender. After offenses come, often enough, lost trust, broken relationships, anger, hatred, resentment, and a need for some degree of moral reparation. Here is where forgiveness has its place. From a Christian context, forgiveness is one means of sustaining the Kingdom of God, constituted by Christ’s followers who seek to embody Him in how they live. To be Christ-like, one must prioritize the most important commandments, among which is the call to ‘love your neighbour as yourself.’ The sort of love Christ commands here is not the lustful Eros, nor the friendship-seeking Philia, but the communal Agape. Should we intend to forgive in such a way as to bolster the Kingdom of God, to be like Christ, then I maintain that the overarching goal of forgiveness ought to be attaining agapic love. Here, agapic love shall mean a

4

As Lions, as Lambs

__________________________________________________________________ communal neighbour-love, a regard for the well-being of others as for one’s self. Pertaining to forgiveness, loving agapically means that, to the appropriate extent, the victim exhibits a regard for her own well-being and for her wrongdoer’s wellbeing. Moreover, she recognizes the actual and potential good in both herself and her wrongdoer, and thus treats both as worthy of love. Understandably, it tends to be easier to exercise agapic love toward a repentant wrongdoer. Sincerely apologizing, recognizing one’s wrong, and promising to do better can go a long way. But keeping one’s sights on the goal of agapic love is especially important in instances where one’s wrongdoer is unrepentant. It is difficult, yet critical to keep love in mind when a perpetrator refuses to acknowledge her wrong, apologize for it, or take action to turn from that wrong toward more moral ways. Philosophers debate how we ought to forgive unrepentant wrongdoers; some question whether such perpetrators warrant forgiveness at all. Within the context of this chapter, I will maintain that the unrepentant wrongdoer ought to be forgiven, or at least ought to have the proverbial door opened to forgiveness. This is different from saying that such a wrongdoer warrants or justly deserves forgiveness, but I will not be treating forgiveness as a matter of justice. I will treat forgiveness as a matter of love, which calls us to step beyond justice’s limits of desert, and sees all human beings as potentially worthy objects of forgiveness. As Robert Adams suggests, ‘We ought in general to be treated better than we deserve,’ and this is the stance I take in support of forgiving unrepentant wrongdoers.1 But how we forgive these wrongdoers is key. My position is that we ought to forgive the unrepentant wrongdoer in such a way as to show love for her, but also for ourselves, ensuring agape. However, to do so, we must confront the objections of David Novitz and others who insist that forgiving unrepentant wrongdoers may compromise a victim’s self-respect and lead to further harm,2 or that this sort of forgiveness amounts to condoning the wrong.3 I will present a model that allows us to accomplish these tasks. But before I do, I must clear up some definitional issues. I intend to make clear what I mean by forgiveness, and how I think we can best take up the task of forgiving an unrepentant wrongdoer. The forgiveness I am concerned with here is what Glen Pettigrove calls commissive forgiveness. It requires two tasks of the victim: ‘forswearing hostile reactive attitudes and committing myself (to some degree) to [the wrongdoer’s] well-being.’4 The former task calls the victim to let go of, or at least commit to reducing, such attitudes as resentment, hatred, and anger toward the wrongdoer. This means that forgiveness is unilateral--only requiring action from the victim--and intrapsychic, occurring within the victim’s mind rather than necessarily manifesting in a behavioural way. Pettigrove’s latter task is half the battle of agapic love, showing regard for the wrongdoer’s well-being. But what is well-being? What are we, as forgivers committed to agape, called to show regard for?

Gabriel Gerard Gross

5

__________________________________________________________________ Pettigrove clarifies his notion of well-being, which exceeds mundane interpretations like adequate health or positive mood: ‘The relevant notion of wellbeing is not merely a function of physical safety and above-average socioeconomic status. Nor is it simply a matter of the amount of pleasure that an agent enjoys. It is a normative notion that is connected up with ideas of the good life.’5 Well-being, then, entails one’s whole being: physical, psychological, moral, spiritual, etc. Wellbeing is tied to one’s capacity for eudemonia, human flourishing, becoming one’s best self. This is what agape calls us to care about in forgiveness: that we and our wrongdoer are being as we ought to be. Pettigrove’s concept of commissive forgiveness is a useful one, in that its second part explicitly calls for a concern toward the wrongdoer’s well-being. But I would like to again emphasize that concern for the victim’s well-being is also essential to forgiving an unrepentant wrongdoer, at least per my model. Yet how are we to do both? Accounts of forgiveness can seem to entrench themselves in one camp or another. For instance, R. T. Kendall’s concept of total forgiveness calls for victims to immediately and unconditionally love those who have done them wrong, to approach wrongdoers with Christ-like open arms, to turn the other cheek.6 In contrast, philosophers like Griswold and Murphy suggest that victims wait until their wrongdoers have met a number of prerequisites before forgiveness ought to occur, for the sake of both justice and self-defence. But do we need to take a side? Or can forgiveness both love the perpetrator and protect the victim? I maintain that it can do both. When it comes to forgiving an unrepentant wrongdoer, so long as forgiveness can simultaneously love and protect, I think it ought to. But what would such a dual-natured forgiveness look like? It would need to show strength enough for selfdefence, but also grace (that is, ‘intentional unmerited favour’)7 enough to love the wrongdoer despite her wrong. This model of forgiveness can perhaps best be illustrated as a lion and a lamb, typical images of strength and sacrifice, respectively, and we’ll refer to it as the Lion-Lamb Model. The model is meant to be an optimal means of forgiving an unrepentant wrongdoer, because it does not leave the victim vulnerable to repeated offenses, but does recognize the wrongdoer as a human being and opens the door to welcome her back to the moral community. The model works as follows: When confronted with an unrepentant wrongdoer, victims must first exercise sufficient and appropriate resistance to prevent the specific harm from being repeated against them; once an adequate defence is established, victims may show grace sufficient to convey positive regard for the wrongdoer. Now the grace need not happen immediately after the wrong has been committed. The victim will need time to deal with the hostile reactive emotions that have resulted from the wrong. But because self-defence is critical to the victim’s well-being, at least the Lion’s share ought to be undertaken as quickly as possible following the wrong. After the defence is in place, the victim’s extension

6

As Lions, as Lambs

__________________________________________________________________ of grace should not disable that defence. Grace and defence work to supplement the striving toward agape, not to cancel out each other’s efforts. The defence must remain while the wrongdoer stays unrepentant, while the victim’s acts of grace function as invitations back to the moral community. Even if the wrongdoer never repents, the grace should remain for as long as the victim can maintain it, for the sake of both parties. For the victim, the grace enhances her moral well-being, giving her the opportunity to practice love, rather than vengeance. For the wrongdoer, the grace is a constant reminder that she is worthy of love. As an example of the model at work, imagine a victim, Gloria, who has been betrayed by a close friend, Heather. A once-intimate trust has been severed, yet Heather shows no sign of remorse. In fact, she shrugs off her act of betrayal, hardly acknowledging the turmoil it has caused. She urges Gloria to ‘just get over it.’ So how ought Gloria to regard Heather? If she used the Lion-Lamb model, Gloria’s stance toward Heather would call for her to defend herself against further harm, while simultaneously making it clear that she still regards Heather as a human being, worthy of love. I imagine that this would look, metaphorically, like the victim standing with one hand close to her body, prepared to resist further harm, and the other hand outstretched in welcome, prepared to accept Heather. Perhaps in Gloria’s case, the Lion’s resistance would amount to keeping her personal life far enough out of Heather’s reach, so that Heather may not betray her again. The Lamb’s grace might be Gloria’s continued positive acknowledgement of Heather, when the two happen to cross paths. I do not wish to get caught up in the specifics of how resistance and welcome, defence and grace, would manifest, because their manifestation is quite client- and context-dependent. Depending on such factors as the nature of the wrong and the relationship between victim and perpetrator, the situation might call for much more resistance than welcome, or vice versa. One must carefully consider the context to decide what qualifies as appropriate and necessary resistance and grace. So while I cannot script every possible instance of forgiving an unrepentant wrongdoer, I can show how the combined effort of defence and grace called for by the Lion-Lamb model 1) promotes agapic love and 2) answers objections to forgiving unrepentant wrongdoers. Let’s first turn to how the model promotes agapic love, staying with our case of Gloria and Heather. Recall that agapic love is a two-part phenomenon: regard for one’s own well-being and regard for another’s well-being. It is precisely the dual nature of the Lion-Lamb model that allows it to promote agapic love. The Lion, or self-defence, primarily regards the victim’s well-being. It actively recognizes and resists the wrong that has been committed, and defends the victim against repeated harm. This defence is key, because when we are dealing with unrepentant wrongdoers, it is quite possible that the harm will be re-committed, whether against the original victim or another. As Gloria distances her personal dealings from Heather, she is defending herself against future harm. She is taking a

Gabriel Gerard Gross

7

__________________________________________________________________ step to ensure that the same wrong will not be committed against her again, and is not allowing herself to be crippled by the wrong. For instance, Gloria defends appropriately by still maintaining a relationship with her friend Izzy, who has proven true and reliable over the years. Had Gloria distanced herself from both Heather AND Izzy after Heather’s betrayal (possibly believing that since one friend betrayed her, surely ALL friends would betray her) she would not be using the model correctly. She would be defending against a wrong that Izzy had not committed, and by isolating herself from Izzy, would be fracturing a relationship unnecessarily. The Lion does not call victims to resist imaginary evils, or to don so much armour that they cannot fight the evils that do exist. It calls for appropriate self-defence, that Golden Mean between too much and too little resistance. And when a victim determines and actualizes the appropriate amount of self-defence, she shows regard for her own well-being and thus achieves the first aspect of agapic love. The Lamb, the victim’s extension of grace to the wrongdoer, accounts for the second aspect of agapic love: regard for the perpetrator. Recall that grace, as defined by Pettigrove, is ‘intentional unmerited favour.’ The victim who offers grace to his wrongdoer does so deliberately, with good intention, without regard for whether it is deserved or not. Desert is irrelevant. Grace, a victim’s hand outstretched in love and welcome to the very person who harmed him, does not necessitate desert. It reaches for the human being, not the harm, and reminds wrongdoers that they are worthy of love. In this way, the Lamb’s grace completes agape; it shows regard for the well-being of the wrongdoer. In Gloria’s case, that regard may be subtle: positive acknowledgement of Heather when the two cross paths. In another victim’s case, grace may be more overt. If appropriate, it may be a heartfelt letter of forgiveness, a hug or kiss, a shared meal, or even a fully reconciled relationship; as with the Lion, how the Lamb manifests is client and context dependent. And though particular acts of grace will differ, so long as they are truly grace, i.e. ‘intentional unmerited favour,’ they are meaningful and powerful gestures of love. This seems a good place for a reminder that by the Lion-Lamb model, we are not seeking to achieve flawless agapic love (though that would be ideal); we need not (and surely cannot) love ourselves and our wrongdoers perfectly. But to love ourselves and our wrongdoers in what capacity we can manage is still a worthwhile feat. Agape is always worthwhile. Having seen how the Lion-Lamb model can promote agapic love, we can now focus on how the model can also overcome a number of objections that have been raised against forgiving unrepentant wrongdoers. The first objection we shall consider is that forgiving unrepentant wrongdoers communicates that the victim condones the wrong. This objection is raised by Griswold (2007), who says that if forgiveness were interpreted as condonation, this would ‘compromise the moral point of the act.’8 But if a victim were actively and appropriately resisting the harm

8

As Lions, as Lambs

__________________________________________________________________ that had been committed against her (via the Lion aspect of the model), how could one think that she condoned the wrong? That a victim could simultaneously condone and resist a wrong would seem to be logically contradictory. And so, as long as she does actively and appropriately resist the wrong, it seems unlikely that her behaviour would be interpreted as condoning the wrong. Of course, while the victim is defending, she is also showing grace, and perhaps it is that grace that could be mistaken for condoning the wrong. This is more plausible, but still surmountable. If someone observes Gloria’s positive attitude toward Heather, and subsequently assumed that Gloria must have condoned Heather’s betrayal, this observer might confront Gloria to ask why. Gloria could then set our observer straight by explaining that she is showing favour to Heather not because she agrees with the wrong, but because she recognizes the actual and potential good of which Heather is capable. Agape is not condonation of wrongs; it is acceptance and love of the person despite their wrongs. Now let’s say our observer did not confront Gloria with a question about condoning; he merely believed, quietly in his heart, that Gloria had condoned the betrayal. Perhaps this is what worries Griswold most: that one can (mis)interpret forgiveness as condonation, and not be corrected. However, even in this case, I do not think that such an interpretation would, as Griswold suggests, ‘compromise the moral point’ of forgiveness. A mistaken assumption held in another’s heart should not deter Gloria from her own mission toward agapic love. In other words, her defence and grace should remain unhindered by the observer’s (or anyone else’s) interpretation of them. And it is Gloria’s actions that preserve the moral point of forgiveness: agapic love. If agapic love is indeed the moral point of forgiveness, then Griswold’s objections do not seem to threaten my model. It is worth mentioning, however, that Griswold and I may disagree as to what the ‘moral point’ of forgiveness is. While I believe it to be agapic love, he seems to prefer justice as the end goal of forgiveness. That is, he wants the unrepentant wrongdoer to receive only what she deserves. Moreover, Griswold’s conception of forgiveness is not unilateral, but dyadic; it requires action on the part of both the victim and the wrongdoer before it can occur.9 That strikes me as problematic, especially since it seems to entail that the victim must wait for the wrongdoer before she can begin letting go of her anger and resentment. This waiting period would place a significant additional burden on victims, especially those whose wrongdoers never repent. Thus, I maintain that it is better to structure forgiveness on a framework of agapic love, than a framework of justice. But since further discussion of this point is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is perhaps best for the time being to agree to disagree with Griswold on the ‘moral point’ of forgiveness. A second objection against forgiving the unrepentant wrongdoer is that doing so compromises the victim’s self-respect, and may leave her vulnerable to further harm. To illustrate this objection, Novitz uses the case of an abused housewife who returns to her abusive husband, despite his lack of repentance. He, in turn,

Gabriel Gerard Gross

9

__________________________________________________________________ continues to harm her, perpetuating the vicious cycle. In this case, Novitz suggests, the wife’s ‘forgiveness’ has compromised her self-respect and resulted in the same wrong being committed against her again.10 First of all, I hesitate to call what the housewife has done ‘forgiveness,’ in any serious sense of the word. A hasty return to one’s abuser out of fear or some genuine naiveté does not amount to forgiveness. It more likely rationalization of the wrong. But forgiveness is not rationalizing. Even if Novitz were to dig in his heels and insist that the wife’s return was an (albeit poor) instance of ‘forgiveness,’ then I would counter that her actions are not consistent with the Lion-Lamb model, and so I would not prescribe them. The Lion-Lamb model calls for defence and grace. The defence preserves a victim’s self-respect. It says to the wrongdoer and to the moral community that the victim takes issue with the wrong, that she does not think herself or others worthy of such treatment, and that she vows to do what is necessary to resist the evil going forward. Had the abused housewife exercised proper defence/resistance, I do not believe that her self-respect would be questioned. It would be evident. One cannot defend herself without some regard for herself. Self-defence intuitively suggests at least some degree of self-regard. And just as proper self-defence would have preserved (or even fostered) the housewife’s self-respect, so too would it have helped to prevent further harm. The Lion’s task, in a situation of severe abuse, would certainly involve separating the victim from the wrongdoer, resisting harm by finding a safe place, and recognizing that the arms of an abuser no longer qualify as safe. In short, had the abused housewife followed the Lion-Lamb model, she could have begun the process of forgiving her abuser without compromising her self-respect or perpetuating the abuse. Her situation might have called for more resistance than grace, but the opportunity to display both was available (and still is, to the real-life ‘abused housewife’). In summary, the merits of the Lion-Lamb model for forgiving unrepentant wrongdoers are significant: The model both promotes agapic love and defeats some traditional objections against forgiving unrepentant wrongdoers. It calls the victim toward strength and grace to realize and defend the good in both herself and in her wrongdoer. It commits the victim to striving toward perfect agape, and commends her even when she falls short of perfection. Perfection, after all, is not a prerequisite for love, nor for forgiveness. As Lions, as Lambs, agapic love is already within our reach.

Notes 1

Quoted in Glen Pettigrove, Forgiveness and Love (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 136.

10

As Lions, as Lambs

__________________________________________________________________ 2

David Novitz, ‘Forgiveness and Self-Respect’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58.2 (1998): 299-315. 3 Charles Griswold, Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 4 Pettigrove, Forgiveness and Love, 17. 5 Ibid., 92-3. 6 R. T. Kendall, Total Forgiveness: Achieving God’s Greatest Challenge (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2001). 7 Pettigrove, Forgiveness and Love, 127. 8 Griswold, Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration, 121. 9 Ibid. 10 Novitz, ‘Forgiveness and Self-Respect’.

Bibliography Comte-Sponville, André. A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues: The Uses of Philosophy in Everyday Life. New York: Metropolitan, 2001. Print. Coogan, Michael David., Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print. Farley, Margaret A. ‘2013 Koch Lecture.’ Koch Lecture, Saint Benedict University, September 2013. Griswold, Charles L. Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration. New York: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print. Kendall, R. T. Total Forgiveness: Achieving God’s Greatest Challenge. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2001. Print. Kraybill, Donald B., Steven M. Nolt, and David Weaver-Zercher. Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007. Print. Murphy, Jeffrie G. Getting Even: Forgiveness and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. Print. Novitz, David. ‘Forgiveness and Self-Respect.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58.2 (1998): 299-315. JSTOR. Web. June 2013.

Gabriel Gerard Gross

11

__________________________________________________________________ Pettigrove, Glen. Forgiveness and Love. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print. ———. ‘Meekness and Moral Anger.’ Ethics (2012): 341-70. Vacek, Edward Collins. Love, Human and Divine: The Heart of Christian Ethics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP, 1994. Print. Gabriel Gerard Gross is an undergraduate student at King’s College in WilkesBarre, Pennsylvania. A lover of morality, nature, and good dialectic, she is currently conducting research on the impact of forgiveness and reconciliation on psychological well-being. She aims to incorporate models of forgiveness, like the Lion-Lamb, into her future career as a mental health counsellor.

A Philosophical Exploration of Forgiveness in Islam Mriganka Sankar Poddar Abstract In Arabic, the definition of ‘Islam’ is ‘submission.’ Spiritually, the term refers to self-submission to the will of God or Allah. Practically, the term refers to the establishment of peace. Like other major religions, Islam also emphasises practices which can nurture inner goodness of human beings. Very legitimately, it advocates the theory of monotheism. In Islam, we find the notions of universal brotherhood and socialism. Islam believes in the philosophy of harmony. In order to achieve harmony, it asks its followers to perform their duties – true performance of which will lead them to establish Islam and help them to become nearer to God. According to Islam, ‘To Forgive’ is an act that a man should perform in his everyday life. Again, Islam allows punishment (violence in other words) as a means to discourage hypocrites and disbelievers. In Islam, God alone is the creator of this universe and naturally He has the full authority over everything. So, the question arises – how can a person other than God have the authority to take up weapons to punish or kill the others? And if I am advised to be forgiving, then how can I be punishing? So, inconsistency may appear, when it allows practice of violence (punishment) and non-violence (forgiveness) to its followers as obligatory. In this chapter my aim is to analyse The Qur’an to show the consistency present in the main tenets of Islam, which can resolve apparent contradictions and provide us with a harmonious framework for inter-religious dialogue. Key Words: Arabic, Islam, self-submission, God, Allah, religion, human being, universal brother hood, Philosophy, socialism, harmony, consistency, violence, non-violence, forgiveness, punishment, The Qur’an, The Gita. ***** Preface Through an analysis of forgiveness as delineated in Islam, my intention has been to remove misunderstandings about Islam and engender a unity among the religious-minded people irrespective of their specific religious affiliations. 1. Introduction In Arabic ‘Islam’ means submission. 1 Spiritually the term refers to selfsubmission to the will of God (Allah), 2 and practically the term refers to the establishment of peace.3 Islam believes in the philosophy of harmony and especially it preaches socialism. Legitimately it advocates the theory of

14

A Philosophical Exploration of Forgiveness in Islam

__________________________________________________________________ monotheism.4 In it God has been the only object of worship. It favours spiritual dualism and stands strongly against idolatry. 5 Islam provides a set of disciplines that a follower of Islam should maintain and perform. If one claims to be a follower of Islam, he or she must obey Islamic ruling. Like the other major religions Islam also does not welcome any kind of violence to other beings. It always suggests people to do the right things. Still, it seems that Islam creates a controversy, when it allows punishment (which is sometimes considered as violence) to discourage disbelievers. Currently we notice a tendency to undermine Islam. But as do the other religions, Islam too aims at spirituality. So, it can’t admit inhuman practices (like violence), for spiritualism does not allow people to be involved in such activity. The Qur’an is a spiritual text and has a pragmatic vision about human life. It is found similar to the pragmatic approach of The Gita,6 for both welcome human beings to be in favour of justice. Justice welcomes activities which may or may not incur anger. Sometimes an act of anger can be a part of our living. If we properly analyse The Qur’an, we will see, under what conditions believers are allowed to attack the disbelievers. So, we should have the proper understanding of the religion by which so called ‘controversy’ can be removed. And thus my analysis continues to configure a consistent picture of Islam in the following sections. 2. Sin and Sinners in Islam The concept of sin has been described in Islam as a fact of disobedience. Sin naturally comes out from disobeying disciplines which are considered as good for mankind in the religion. After the creation of human beings, God ordered angels to bow down to them (Adam and his wife); but Iblis (one of those angels) denied to do so.7 It is the first example of disobedience stated in Islam. Iblis did it on the grounds of his superiority complex (i.e., he is created from fire whereas they are from clay).8 God considered him as a sinner. The second example of disobedience occurs after Adam and his wife disobeyed God’s advice (i.e., they went nearer the tree and enjoyed its fruits).9 It happened due to the proximity and bad practice of evil (Satan). Both the examples cited above are designed to show how one can become a sinner. A person’s sin may have its origin in his ego or may be prompted by external influences. In the former case it happens to Iblis and in the latter case it happens to the couple. In fact, both of these cases have been considered as sin by God and He reproached all. 3. Believers Now, it becomes clear that, disobeying Islamic disciplines has been the key to becoming a sinner. And thus, obeying Islamic disciplines must be the key to becoming a pious. There are so many verses in the Text mentioning our duties

Mriganka Sankar Poddar

15

__________________________________________________________________ which its followers are required to perform. 10 Each person who claims to be a true follower of this religion must fulfil the following criteria in The Qur’an: Goodness does not consist in turning your face towards the east or the west. The true good are those who believe in God and in the last day, in the angels, the scriptures, and in the prophets; who give away some of their wealth, however they may cherish it, to their relatives, to orphans, the needy, travellers and beggars, and to liberate those in bondage; those who keep up prayer and pay prescribed alms; who keep pledges whenever they make them; who are steadfast in misfortune, adversity, and in times of danger. These are ones who are true and are aware of God. 11 By this verse we know about the socialistic approach of Islam. It seems that the religion by its ruling tends to balance the existing socio-economic inequalities of our society. It also mentions that mere performance of rituals does not make a true believer, but God-consciousness along with the performance of rituals makes the soul of a true believer. It has been very nicely stated in The Qur’an that ‘Godconsciousness is the best of all garments.’12 4. Non-Believer, Disbeliever and Hypocrites In The Qur’an polytheists (idolaters), hypocrites and disobedient – all are addressed as ‘disbelievers’. It is in the sense that, they do not follow what the Text suggests to follow. It suggests people to do good deeds always. So, in this connection, a question may arise, if a polytheist always does good to mankind, does he become a sinner? It seems to me that if a polytheist always keeps doing good to mankind he does not necessarily become a sinner, for God loves those who always keep doing good.13 In fact, Islam admits – we all are creations of God;14 so, they (polytheists) are not different people – ‘[All] people are originally one single community.’15 They may choose a different way of worship, for they are ignorant.16 Unless they do wrong to anybody, we can attach no illness to them. After all The Qur’an declares – ‘each community has its own direction to which it turns: race to do good deeds and wherever you are God will bring you together.’ 17 But surely, if those polytheists’ worship is driven only to fulfil their material interests, then they would be the sinners in the true sense. Actually it seems that Islam takes idolatry as a system in which people worship God in order to satisfy earthly desires, but Islam makes it clear that, ‘…The present world is only illusory pleasure.’18 Those, who strive to have such pleasure, are wrong on their way. These people are not good for our society. I propose to call them non-believers. They are the main concern of Islam, and they have been addressed as disbelievers. They are the disbelievers of every religion. And believers are believers of every religion. Finally, those people who are atheists, who have no faith in God, are hypocrites in

16

A Philosophical Exploration of Forgiveness in Islam

__________________________________________________________________ Islam.19 They have sickness in their hearts. They lack firmness and so can’t remain steadfast against what is wrong. 5. Punishment In some chapters of The Qur’an, punishment has been declared as a means to discourage wrong doers’ activity. Wrong doers will have a chance to repent. Until they repent,20 they will have no mercy from God, He says – ‘I will make the disbelievers suffer severely in this world and the next; no one will help them.’ 21 According to The Qur’an, ‘God will not forgive those who have disbelieved and do evil, nor will He guide them to any path except of Hell…this is easy for God.’ 22 These verses indicate how God can implement punishment showing dissatisfaction to the wrong doers. I think by these verses Islam tends to impose fear in people’s mind, so that they can always be on the right path. According to Islam men are prone to be selfish, 23 so they usually have chances to fall back on false conceptions rejected by the religion. Fear of punishment can keep them safe from such illness. Thus fear of punishment becomes a necessity. But, when a person (believer) is allowed to punish his offender, 24 there is a reminder that, to perform this job he must not cross the limit and everything will happen in the cause of God.25 ‘In the cause of God’ may very well be translated as ‘in the cause of justice’, for God wants justice and He is the Lord of justice. 26 Still controversy may appear when one is advised to help a needy, beggars and travellers. My question is – will he judge them (whether believer or not) before going to serve them? Certainly he should not judge them as they all become his relatives in this faith that God created all of us. So, kindness, tolerance and forbearance must be maintained by him in such case. And, unless attacks come from the other side, he should maintain these qualities in his life. But, if he is hurt, then to defend himself a believer can uphold a weapon to stop his opponents’ activity. Self-defence is allowed in Islam.27 6. Forgiveness The Qur’an presents God addressing Him as most forgiving and most merciful.28 By this we know about God’s forgiveness. Such forgiveness must be followed by true repentance. If we feel truly repentant for our deeds then God must forgive us and our sins. 29 We need to be honest in this regard. So, we should not hide anything from God as He knows all.30 In Islam, question of forgiveness does not arise for evil doers.31 However, He may forgive whomever He will. 32 But, knowing this too, a believer should not allow evil as his companion on his way of righteousness. He must be steadfast and firm. 33 The Qur’an also prescribes the practice of kindness to mankind. In ‘The Opening’ chapter it is clearly stated like a prayer – ‘Guide us to the straight path: the path of those You have blessed, those who incur no anger,’34 hence it becomes

Mriganka Sankar Poddar

17

__________________________________________________________________ clear that, Islam welcomes kindness from mankind which naturally includes the act of forgiveness. We also know – patience, tolerance and forbearance have been well admitted in it.35 So, human-forgiveness must have a place on these issues. The Qur’an does advice – ‘forgive and forbear until God gives His command.’36 ‘God’s command’ simply means ‘command of justice’. And ‘command of justice’ may be sometime treated as an essential determination of human life in a particular situation. According to Islam, if such command is dawned to a believer, then he should perform the job. And he must remember the principle of fair retribution in this regard. Fair retribution has been prescribed in Islam to save lives of the believers,37 although God knows that fighting is too hard for them. 38 But, God says – ‘…you may dislike something although it is good for you, or like something although it is bad for you: God knows and you know not.’ 39 7. Punishment and Forgiveness We see that in Islam, believers are advised to be both punishing and forgiving. But, this advice apparently seems contradictory, for ‘to forgive’ is very well a good practice while on the other hand one may tend to say that, ‘to punish’ is a bad practice. Secondly, ‘to forgive’ is a kind act and reversely one may say ‘to punish’ is an unkind act. Actually, we think of them as alternatives to each other which seem to be mutually exclusive. So, their co-existence must result in a contradiction. Hence we need to clarify the senses that have been ascribed to punishment and forgiveness. I would like to emphasize that it is true when we say ‘to forgive’ is a kind act, but it is also at the same time true that ‘to punish’ is not always an unkind action. Punishment would never welcome violence unless we cross the limit. Thus, punishment does not necessarily imply violence. It is keenly related to social ruling whereas forgiveness is subject to a person’s own feeling and determination. Application of punishment requires a command of justice which holds an objective standpoint. But, forgiveness due to its subjectivity lacks such properties. Command of forgiveness comes out from a person’s own spirit and realisation, which may or may not satisfy our social administration. Thus, punishment and forgiveness oppose each other. They can’t be both false together, and these two very well may lie in the same person. It seems that, punishment is additional to human beings whereas forgiveness is natural to them. So, if a victim forgives his offender, then our society and our religion are really looking helpless. They remain in vain in this regard. According to Islam, men are basically weak. 40 It is in the sense that they are mentally soft. So, it would be untrue if we consider it unnatural when a victim forgives his offender. Moreover, if we see believers to keep and maintain kindness as well as forgiveness in their practices, then it can’t be all bad, for Islam admits, ‘God knows exactly who does evil.’41 ‘[He] is all seeing and all knowing,’42 thus He knows very well, the fault lies not in the victim but in the offender. The

18

A Philosophical Exploration of Forgiveness in Islam

__________________________________________________________________ judgement day is the final day when God will bring all of us together (good and evil).43 His decision is final. Remembering this if one leaves everything up to God’s decision, and gives his attention only to those kind acts Islam prescribes then, we should not see anything wrong in his practice. After all ‘God loves those who seek to purify themselves.’44 8. Conclusion Finally, God has been considered as the father of us in Islam. So, naturally we derive all those qualities (like – be forgiving, be forbearing and merciful) from Him. Although He is severe in punishment, 45 we should not desire to be so; because it is God’s prerogative to punish as He knows all including the secrets which we do not know.46 Those qualities which are kind in nature are always welcome for they may help us to always be in real human spirit. Moreover, as we – the believers always remain in God-consciousness, hence is it possible for us to make a time to incur anger in mind? The religion declares: To love God is the highest motive of our conduct, for it leads to the love of God’s creature; to win the approbation and love of [Him], is the highest reward, far transcending any compensation or satisfaction we can obtain in this life. 47 Let us split the term ‘spiritualism’; we see three things to emerge – a) spirit, b) ritual, and c) ism. These things together constitute the core of a religion. Religion teaches us everything about the art of living. Islam also did so; but it seems that, some followers undertook only ritualism (b & c) to which they confine themselves. And it happens I think, for they lack the realisation of spirit (a). They look ritual conscious, which is not solely an intended requirement of a believer. We know it from the verse 177 of chapter two. So, a believer should have the right cognition of his religion in this regard, unless he would be unable to have the message of it. In fact, understanding religion always becomes a necessity and responsibility for being free from all confusion and controversies.

Notes 1

M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, Introduction to The Qur’an, xxiv. M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, trans. The Qur’an, 2:131, 139; 3:83, 102; 10:25; 15:4; 40:66. 3 Ibid., 4:90, 128; 36:58; 10:25. 4 Ibid., 2:133; 2:163. 2

Mriganka Sankar Poddar

19

__________________________________________________________________ 5

Ibid., 4:48. Jagadish Chandra Ghosh, trans. The Gita, 2:31-38. 7 Haleem, trans. The Qur’an, 2:34. 8 Ibid., 7:12. 9 Ibid., 7:22. 10 Ibid., 2:83, 184, 188, 215, 274; 3:160; 4:19, 36. 11 Ibid., 2:177. 12 Ibid., 7:26. 13 Ibid., 2:195; 3:134, 146, 148; 9:108. 14 Ibid., 2:29; 3:47; 23:12-17; 35:11; 39:5-7; 53:45-46. 15 Ibid., 10:19. 16 Ibid., 9:93. 17 Ibid., 2:148. 18 Ibid., 3:185; 4:47. 19 Ibid., 4:64, 141, 142; 8:49; 9:67. 20 Ibid., 2:54,159; 7:23; 8:33.39,53; 9:3, 5, 11. 21 Ibid., 3:56. 22 Ibid., 4:168, 169. 23 Ibid., 4:128. 24 Ibid., 2:191-193; 3:56; 4:74; 8:39; 9:5, 73. 25 Ibid., 2:244. 26 Ibid., 3:18; 6:57; 10:109. 27 Ibid., 2:190; 9:36; 22:39. 28 Ibid., 2:199, 218; 3:31; 4:23, 106, 110, 129, 152; 8:69. 29 Ibid., 3:16, 159; 4:64, 106, 110. 30 Ibid., 2:29, 115, 183, 224, 244. 31 Ibid., 8:16. 32 Ibid., 2:105, 253; 3:13, 73, 74, 129. 33 Ibid., 2:153, 155; 4:119; 9:123. 34 Ibid., 1:6-7. 35 Ibid., 2:83-84, 109, 177-178; 9:5, 36. 36 Ibid., 2:109. 37 Ibid., 2:178. 38 Ibid., 2:216. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid., 4:28. 41 Ibid., 9:47. 42 Ibid., 8:17. 43 Ibid., 2:113, 148, 281; 4:87. 6

20

A Philosophical Exploration of Forgiveness in Islam

__________________________________________________________________ 44

Ibid., 9:108. Ibid., 8:25. 46 Ibid., 3:66; 8:43. 47 Abdullah Yusuf Ali, commentary to 42:40, The Holy Qur’an, 1318. 45

Mriganka Sankar Poddar is a scholar in residence at the University of Calcutta. He is interested in the most controversial things of Religion as well as Philosophy. His research and writing is devoted to explore and clarify those controversial things with the best of his understanding.

Christian Forgiveness and a Ghanaian Traditional Belief Alice Matilda Nsiah Abstract There appears to be some similarities and differences in the goal, the process and the rituals of forgiveness and restoration from the Christian God in the parable of Luke 15:11-32 and the shrine of the river goddess of Antoa in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. In this story of Luke, the author wrote that a father welcomes the return of his prodigal son with warmth and affection even before he (the son) renders his apology to his Father. In such a welcoming atmosphere, the son apologizes and the father celebrates his return with joy. On the contrary, there emerges some kind of fear and intimidation that grips the offenders of the river goddess of Antoa. It is believed that once the goddess is invoked, she is going to punish the offender severely if confession and restitution do not take place immediately. Sometimes the punishment for the offender is so severe that it may lead to death, yet the ritual to be performed to ensure forgiveness may be costly and humiliating. A comparative and contextual study of the two rituals reveals that, compassion is at the core of the relationship between the Christian God and his children in the story. On the other hand, justice and retribution appears to be at the heart of the relationship between the river goddess and those who come into contact with her. The study concludes that it is important for any offender to ask for forgiveness and that forgiveness brings healing and restoration of life. Key Words: Compassion, God, goddess, ritual, forgiveness, invocation, restoration, retribution, deity, Christianity, tradition, reconciliation, relationship, Father. ***** 1. Introduction The aim of the research is to examine how a father forgives his wayward son in Luke 15:11-32. Relevant portion of the passage is analysed and related to the rituals of forgiveness at the Antoa shrine in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. The researcher is of the view that forgiveness is a gift from God who is the source of it. As a gift, it must be quickly shared with all who ask for it. God is able to forgive unconditionally. Creatures are able to forgive under divine influence, otherwise nature longs for justice. The chapter adopts a multi-disciplinary methodological approach, using observation, content analysis and historical critical exegesis of the chosen text. The work concludes that forgiveness benefits both the giver and the receiver. The following questions guide the discussions in this chapter:

Christian Forgiveness and a Ghanaian Traditional Belief

22

__________________________________________________________________ 1. 2. 3. 4.

What constitute offense? How was forgiveness and restoration achieved? How do we understand and explain the events at the shrine? What are the implications of the study on forgiveness?

2. What Constitutes Offense According to the passage, a son requested his father to give him the portion of his estate that will come to him. Craig Keener suggests that such a request is out of place since it is tantamount to wishing the father dead.1 Nolland John says that one might excuse the son in the prospect of a marriage or to better one’s situation in life.2 There is however, no indication that the son in this discussion was going to marry or to better his prospect in life. Fitzmyer rather suggests that a father in the Jewish customs could disposed of his property either by will which is to be executed after his death or by a gift to his children in his life time.3 Nolland confirms that the practice of partial disposition of estate in the life of its owner is reflected in the books of Sirach and Tobit in the bible and that such a practice also took place in Greek and Egyptian homes. Nolland proposes again that, the word for estate also means life, the manner of life or means of subsistence. The estate is what supported the life of the family. Therefore the younger son’s request was an attempt to break the solidarity of the family.4 The son gathers all that he had and travels with it. The Greek verb that is used here is synagein which was used by Plutarch to mean converting an inheritance into cash. If property was in the form of land, the son might have sold his property to be able to travel with his inheritance.5 The departure is probably an attempt to alienate himself from the father’s control as there is no indication that he invested his property in any way to generate income. It is rather said that he squandered his property or he lived loosely until all his money was spent. The Old Testament suggests that to live a dissolute life is associated with dishonouring one’s father in the book of Proverbs. According to the text, when all his money was spent, there was famine in the neighbourhood that made his situation worse. He became so needy that he hired himself out to feed swine. Geoffrey Chapman alludes that pig was the most frequently used sacrificial animal in Greek and Roman worship. 6 David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel add that Old Testament legislation declared pigs as unclean animals and Jewish Rabbis cursed any man who rear swine. 7 This made handling swine for a Jew becomes equivalent to paganism and apostasy from Judaism.8 Lastly, it is possible that his employer was a gentile and this will be disgusting to Jewish sensibility. All these mean that the son has taken the lowest job, one that no Jew will take. It can be concluded that the son’s sins consists of making a claim to the father’s property, separating himself from the family, living a life that dishonors the father and finally renouncing his religious beliefs.

Alice Matilda Nsiah

23

__________________________________________________________________ 3. Forgiveness and Restoration According to Fitzmyer, repentance must include what the son had done to his father, regret his own bad conduct and desired to go back to his family and the religion of his ancestors.9 This is seen in the idiomatic expression ‘coming to his senses’ in v.17 as the son soliloquizes, reflecting and comparing his servile situation to that of labourers in his father’s house. The contrast in those situations compelled him to take a decision to go to his father and confess his sins. Having planned what to say, he set out to the father. The father saw the son from a distance and ran to hug him, breaking all protocol. Some scholars criticized the father for running to meet his son, since it is seen by Orientals as undignified behaviour by elder people, especially in response to a wayward son. Those who look at it this way ignore the compassion of the father. Compassion is described by as the emphasis of attachment of one being to the other, it is like an experience of maternity.10 It describes a mother’s intimate physical and psychological relationship with her new born child which makes it possible for her to discern the needs of the child. In the light of this, compassion is understood as the capacity to be moved by the fragility, weakness and suffering of another. It is the ability to be vulnerable enough to undergo risk to participate in the experience and loss of the other.11 It is such a compassion that moves the father to initiate the process of forgiveness even before the son confesses. The father kissed the son to express his joy in meeting him. This encounter and experience is similar to the reconciliatory encounter between Jacob and his brother Esau and between Joseph and his brothers in Egypt. 12 It in the same way that king David received and kissed his son Absalom after the son betrayed the king for the throne while the father was still alive. With such a kiss, the process of reconciliation has begun.13 The son completed the process by making his confession and asked for forgiveness as he had planned to do. He however omitted his earlier plan to request to be a daily labourer to the father in the family house. Perhaps judging from the reception he received, there was no need since this will have been an insult to the love of the father. The father ordered for the son to be clothed. The word used is ‘stole’ a term used of angels, and glorified believers. The term is also used to describe official attire of scribes. Perhaps this is to give the idea that stole might be the best cloth or former robe of the father, a mark of the son being restored to the family. 14 A ring was put on his hand. It is not sure if the ring contains a seal, if it does, it is confirming the restoration of the son to his former place in the family. It is reminiscent Joseph being clothed by Pharaoh with a ring, fine cloth and gold chain or a picture of Mordecai being honoured by the king with a signet ring as sign of authority of the king.15 Sandals are given to the son, a symbol of wealth indicating that the son has moved from destitution to restoration. Some scholars suggest that cloth, ring,

24

Christian Forgiveness and a Ghanaian Traditional Belief

__________________________________________________________________ sandals are signs of reinvestment of authority to the son. The father then calls for celebration in honour of the son’s return. For him, the son has come back to life. The celebration connotes the joy in finding what was lost. This shared joy confirms that the son is forgiven and restored to the father. One can therefore conclude that when the son returned to his father for forgiveness, the father willingly forgave the son and restored him to life and the family. Therefore it is important for any offender in his or her own interest to make a conscious effort to ask for forgiveness. Forgiveness benefits the one who asks and the one who receives. 4. Events at the Shrine A. Antoa Antoa is a small village of about 20 kilometres from Kumasi, the capital of Ashanti Region of Ghana. In this village is a river goddess called ‘Antoa Nuso Nyama’ (popularly known as ‘Antoa’) from whom the village took its name. This deity exercises a lot of influence on many Ghanaians. This is because Ghanaians, traditionally, believe in Spirits and deities as children and agents of God. They are embodied in physical things like rivers, trees, rocks, mountains and other natural habitats. They are ministers of God the Supreme Being and so are believed to be everywhere. There are priests that serve the individual spirits or deities as their mediators. They do not have powers on their own, but derived their power from God.16 Yet they are able to work independently for those that seek their assistance. This is because deities are believed to be the custodians of the norms of society. They are there to ensure proper behavior and good relationship among people of the community. Through them the living is said to receive blessings, protection, prosperity, directions and guidance from God. They can also bring punishment like sickness, calamity, poverty, barrenness to the living through curses.17 Hence, when push to the wall and justice is denied or the truth is at stake, a Ghanaian may invoke the name of a deity to his/her aid in terms of blessing or cursing. 18 B. Curses A curse is said to occur when one invokes the name of a deity to harm another person for perceived wrong doing. Curses are believed to affect only the guilty but not the innocent. It is believed that this deity will punish anyone cursed for antisocial behaviour. According to an informant, once the afflicted party realizes through sickness or divination that he/she is cursed, the accused is requested to reverse the curse. The culprit is likely to suffer serious ill-health and even death, if nothing is done to reverse the curse on time. 19 C. Annulment of Curses Once a curse is established, the first stage is for the culprit to look for a mediator to settle the disputes that brought about the curse and ensure

Alice Matilda Nsiah

25

__________________________________________________________________ reconciliation between the two feuding parties. Mediators are people with status, recognition, integrity and experience in community that are capable of intervening to resolve conflict. The mediator represents the whole community that is believed to be hurt through one’s anti-social behaviour. Forgiveness and reconciliation between the two parties is essential before a curse could be reversed. If one party does not agree, the curse cannot be reversed. If there is need for compensation to pacify the one offended, the mediator will ensure that this is done at home before a journey is made to the shrine to perform the ritual of annulment. At the shrine, the goddess takes over the place of the community that is offended. What is done at the shrine and the things required for the rituals depends on the gravity and nature of the offence and whether a life is at stake. Usually the following are required: a drink, chicken or eggs, white cloth, a brass bowl and powder. A priest inspects the things to ensure the required items are met. All the accepted items are put into the bras bowl. It is only at this point that the ritual for forgiveness begins at the shrine. D. Penitential Walk The bowl is carried by the culprit on the head for a penitential walk through the principal street of the village. Women are paid to hoot at the culprit. This is to create shame and to discourage one from indulging in such anti-social behaviour again. Such a walk is shameful and humiliating that one would not want to do it a second time. All this is done to elicit remorse from the culprit. It is also to discourage one from indulging in anti-social behaviour that may lead to a curse. E. Libation After the walk, the culprit steps into the river, an invocatory prayer is said by the priest. He does this by using the drink to pour libation. In the prayer, the goddess is invited to accept the drink of her wayward child and forgive him/her. The drink is poured intermittently into the river as the prayer proceeds. The goddess is implored to accept the sacrifice that is going to be made with favour and to see to a peaceful annulment of the curse. This prayer is meant to solicit compassion from the goddess and creates a favourable atmosphere for the sacrifice. F. Sacrifice Peter Sarpong proposes that propitiatory sacrifice is made to pacify the goddess when she is offended. On the other hand, substitutionary sacrifice is made when one’s life is at stake. The life of the animal is destroyed in substitution for the life of the individual.20 The priest holds the chicken, speaks some incantation, dips it into the river, consecrates it, immolates and then tosses it into the water. 21 The reaction of the animal is interpreted, how it flaps its wings and how it dies. When the sacrifice is accepted, the culprit kneels and dips his/her hand in the river three times and asks for forgiveness. He/she will then wash with clean water, put on

26

Christian Forgiveness and a Ghanaian Traditional Belief

__________________________________________________________________ white cloth and powder in thanksgiving for a successful reversion of the curse. This is an indication that the life of the culprit is spared. He/she is restored to the family and start to recover if he/she is sick. One can conclude that traditionally, forgiveness leads to healing, good relationship between people and restoration of life. Again, one need to ask for forgiveness and be committed to the process of forgiveness or one may lose one’s life. 5. Implications of the Study on Forgiveness Four main issues stand out clearly in the discussions above: In the first place, it is clear that there is the presence of sin in both situations that requires repentance and forgiveness. Secondly, there is repentance and a journey towards the source of forgiveness. In both cases, the need for forgiveness is in the interest of the offender. But the offended is happy that forgiveness is being asked. Thirdly, it is important to note that while forgiveness was easily achieved in the biblical text, in the traditional set up, forgiveness is received through a difficult process. This is because the offender in traditional community is punished before forgiveness is given. Finally, forgiveness in both cases leads to healing, good interpersonal relations and restoration of life to the family and shared joy. 6. Conclusion Forgiveness is received when the offender acknowledges his/her offense and makes a conscious effort to ask for forgiveness. It is important to forgive when one asks for it. He who does not ask for forgiveness, is like a sick and destitute person. Forgiveness brings healing, new life and joy to both the giver and the receiver.

Notes 1

Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), np. 2 John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 35b: Luke 9:21-18:34, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1998), np. 3 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible, the Gospel According to Luke (X-xxiv) a New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 1087. 4 Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary, np.; Nolland is actually referring to Sir. 33:19-23 and Tobit 8:21 in the Old Testament. 5 cf Tobit 3:17, 1Macc 10:30 which suggest that estates consisted more of landed properties.

Alice Matilda Nsiah

27

__________________________________________________________________ 6

Geoffrey Chapman, New Jerome Biblical Commentary, eds. Raymond E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy (Great Britain: Cassell Publishers Limited, 1990), 698. 7 David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (Michigan: Baker Academy, 2007), 343. 8 cf: Macc 2 and 4, Isa 65:1-5. 9 Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible, 1088. 10 Michael Downey, ed. ‘Compassion’, in The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000), np. 11 J. W. Meiklejohn, ‘Compassion’, in The New Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1962), np. 12 Cf Genesis 33:4, 45:14. 13 Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1309) (Michgan: Baker Books, 1996), np. 14 Cf Mk 16:5, Rev 6:11, Lk 20:46, Ez 27:24. 15 Cf Gen. 41:42, Esth. 3:10, 8:2, 6:6-11. 16 Peter Kwasi Sarpong, Libation (Kumasi: Good Shepherd Publishing Limited, 1996), 3-5. 17 Joseph Omoregbe, Comparative Religion: Christianity and Other World Religions in Dialogue (Lagos: Joja Press Limited, 1999), 64-65. 18 Since the work is on forgiveness, the researcher only treated curses and not blessings. 19 Interview with the chief in charge of rituals, Kumasi, 29 January, 2014. 20 Sarpong, Libation, 14. 21 Ibid., 15.

Bibliography Bock, Darrell L. Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1309). Michigan: Baker Books, 1996. Chapman G. New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy. Great Britain: Cassell Publishers Limited, 1990. Downey, Michael, ed. ‘Compassion’. In The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000. Dooley, Catherine. ‘The Theology of Forgiveness’. In New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, edited by Peter E. Fink. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000.

28

Christian Forgiveness and a Ghanaian Traditional Belief

__________________________________________________________________ Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Anchor Bible, the Gospel According to Luke (X-xxiv) a New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Magesa, Laurenti. African Religion: The Moral Traditions of Abundant Life. New York: Orbis Books, 1979. Meiklejohn, J.W. ‘Compassion’. In The New Bible Dictionary. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1962. Nolland, John. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 35b: Luke 9:21-18:34. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher 1998. Omoregbe, Joseph. Comparative Religion: Christianity and Other World Religion in Dialogue. Lagos: Joja Press Limited, 1999. Pao, David W. and Schnabel Eckhard J. ‘Luke’. In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G.K. Beale, and D.A. Carson, 251415. Michigan: Baker Academy, 2007. Sarpong, Peter Kwasi. Libation. Kumasi: Good Shepherd Publishing Limited, 1996. Vince, R.M. ‘Alienation’. In New Dictionary of Theology, edited by S.B. Ferguson, and D.F. Wright, np. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Alice Matilda Nsiah is a lecturer at the University of Cape Coast in Ghana and a Doctoral Degree student at the same University. She is also a member of a Religious group of the Daughters of the Most Blessed Trinity, dedicated to serve the rural poor. She sees forgiveness as a gift from God to be shared.

Forgiveness as an Experience of Ritual Cleansing in African Religion Bartholomew Chidili Abstract Forgiveness is a process of attaining genuine pardon for wrongdoing or misdeeds. As a process, forgiveness has various models which include ‘Ritual Cleansing.’ This model, ‘ritual cleansing,’ centres on community’s concept of wrongdoing and genuine pardon for sins. Since, Africa views the world and everything in it both good and bad as God’s creature; people believe that every aspect of national and civil life as well as human interactions including morality is governed by God through the earth deity. Within this concept, every human misdemeanour is a wrongdoing soiling the relationship between the divine beings and humanity. Because of the inherent punishment executable by the earth deity, in wrongdoings, the community is compelled to purge itself of any misdemeanour; whether committed by an individual or collectives, through the long established tradition, which is Ritual Cleansing. In this established process, God inspires the sinner by bringing misfortune, illness or any other distress that might compel the sinner to look inwards together with the community. At this juncture, a diviner who divulges the sins is invited to do his/her job while the elders and/or priests perform a ritual cleansing as the culprit confesses his/her wrongdoing; begging God for pardon. Although what transpires during the process of forgiveness is spiritual, the action that produces the spiritual grace is performed by a visible agent spurred by God. Through the action of the agent or agents then, wrongdoing and guilt is removed by God; reconciling the culprit and the community with himself in the process. In this way, a perfect forgiveness is attained and genuine pardon achieved. The whole work therefore, presents a symbolic ritual cleansing structured in a community where all the participants are conscious of the divine cooperation in both spurring the repentance and fundamentally enabling genuine confession, forgiveness and proper life-giving reconciliation. Key Words: Earth-spirit, emanation, forgiveness, reconciliation, God, intermediaries, ancestors, morality, wrongdoing, community, ritual cleansing. ***** 1. Introduction Within the current research literature, there is no accepted psychological definition of forgiveness; however, there is a consensus of opinion among the scholars that forgiveness is a process of attaining a genuine pardon for misdeeds. Recently, a number of models describing the process of forgiveness have been published including a radical behavioral perspective. 1 Ritual cleansing in African

30

Forgiveness as an Experience of Ritual Cleansing

__________________________________________________________________ religion is another model describing the process of forgiveness as entrenched in African Religion. Accordingly, it is a general concept among the Igbo people of Nigeria and indeed the entire continent of Africa that every wrongdoing is considered as an offense against earth-spirit. Parrinder and Arinze identify the earth-spirit, and the ancestors, as the special guardian of morality.2 Evans-Pritchard identifies the moral guardians as the emanation of God. 3 Metuh maintains that the guardians are created by God to serve as his messengers. 4 Hence, Mozia maintains that the earth-spirit as a messenger is more powerful in controlling morality than other deities. According to him, ani or earth-spirit is the custodian of both public and private morality. 5 Consequently, earth-spirit is interpreted to be the true messenger of the Supreme God in punishing the moral delinquents. Hence, the earth-spirit is assumed to punish any wrongdoer irrespective of their social status. According to Mozia the relationship between earth-spirit and the ancestors with God is that the ancestors are the custodians of public morality and the laws of the land. In this regard they serve as the intermediaries between God and the living members of the community, whereas the earth-spirits, ‘act as the indirect mediator to whom the ancestors are directly responsible.’ 6 Thus, all the taboos and ‘omenani’ or laws of the land, forming the central moral codes of the Igbo people are powerful legal sanctions deriving from God. In the words of Mozia, ‘it is Osebuluwa who taught the provisions of Omenani to the first ancestors through the tutorship of God and in accordance with the provisions of the testament.’7 On them the faith and moral life of the Igbo revolves. The earth-spirit sanctions the prohibitions or moral norms and the ancestors communicate same to the living. The living makes sure that these prohibitions are not broken. 8 But if in any event the prohibitions are breached; they must be atoned for; there is no question of hiding such a crime or trying to omit the sacrifice. Since ‘the Igbo believe firmly that if such abominations are not atoned for, be they ever so secretly committed, the penalty is sure to descend on the culprit’s head or on his relations and descendants.’9 That is why Magesa explains that the admission of wrongdoing by an individual or group of people follows several interlinked steps between the wrongdoer and the community. According to him, admission of wrongdoing entails much more than personal, interior feelings of guilt, which only amounts to an initial step in a wrongdoer’s possible acceptance and confession of guilt. He maintains that the most decisive element in the recognition and acceptance of moral culpability is the involvement of the community. 10 Magesa further explains the two results that often follow from the community’s views of the moral codes as follows: On the one hand, it may trigger in the wrongdoer an awareness of failure, of having let down oneself and the community. If so, the wrongdoer feels remorse or ‘shame’ for the wrong, a sense of personal shortcoming, of betrayal against oneself and the community. If the matter in question is serious and the community insists that the wrongdoer redresses the wrong, the guilty party is led to admit and

Bartholomew Chidili

31

__________________________________________________________________ confess, a process that usually culminates in an appropriate rite of reconciliation with the community, the ancestors, and God. 11 This may include some form of punishment for the wrongdoer, which Arinze explains as follows: If the suspect is proved to be guilty in the major abominations and is known to hide the heinous acts, he will be cut off from social communication 12 or treated to what Adibe calls nsupu or ostracism,13 which means severing all relationships: social, religious and economic with the offender. If in any event the culprit dies he/she will not be given full burial rites, which in fact is a death knell to good life after death. Moreover, some sins such as murder are punished by exile or banishment from the community. Furthermore, if the person presumed guilty by the society does not feel shame and does not admit wrongdoing, a means is devised to establish the veracity or otherwise of the offense. At times the devised means may be legal, like a trial before a chief but most of the time people sought the solution through divination or trial by ordeal and the verdict of either innocence or guilt is often established beyond any reasonable doubt.14 When the suspect is proved guilty, the spirits are appeased for the wrongdoing through the sacrifices prescribed for specific offence by the diviner. After the ritual sacrifices the culprit is forgiven and reconciled with God and the community. 2. Clarification of Terms Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense; lets go of negative emotions such as revenge, with an increased ability to wish the offender well. Forgiveness is different from condoning (failing to see the action as wrong and in need of forgiveness), excusing (not holding the offender as responsible for the action), pardoning (granted by a representative of society, such as a judge), forgetting (removing awareness of the offence from consciousness), and reconciliation (restoration of a relationship). In certain contexts, forgiveness is a legal term for absolving or giving up all claims on account of debt, loan, obligation or other claims. 15 Moreover, forgiveness is something different than problemresolving, it is something different than ‘sucking it up and getting back to work’, it is different than ‘moving on’, it is different than ‘Oh, don’t worry about it, it’s no big deal’. Forgiveness is rather radical, it is fundamentally interior. Forgiveness implies a deliberately clear recognition of the wrong committed; no excuses, no attenuations, no ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’. It bears no promise of reward or compensation (from the source of pain, that is, for the person that forgives, it promises great reward). It is a risk, a jump in the dark. 16 Further still, forgiveness is essentially the repudiation or cessation of resentment, indignation or anger perceived as an offense resulting from willful injury or mistake or disagreement. It also means to stop demanding punishment for a perceived offense, disagreement, or mistake. It further means to discontinue a request for restitution for a perceived injury.17 The Dictionary.com Dictionary, further defines forgiveness as granting pardon and to

32

Forgiveness as an Experience of Ritual Cleansing

__________________________________________________________________ give up all claims on account of an offence or debt.'18 Ritual forgiveness therefore offers this unrestricted pardon through the process of an established symbolic ritual where God inspires repentance mediated through a visible community. Although what transpires during the process of forgiveness is spiritual, yet the action that produces the spiritual grace is performed by a visible community spurred by God. In this case then, the community performs the ritual; wrongdoing and guilt are removed by God and the culprit knows it through the ministration of the divine agent such as priest or diviner. This is consistent with the idea that some world religions operate ritual purgation as it makes them more conscious while confessing and presents ‘symbolic refinement of liturgy, together with a theological clarification of the initiative of God in restoring man [woman], despite his [her] sin, to fellowship with God.’ 19 Next, we discuss forgiveness as an experience of ritual cleansing in African Religion. 3. Forgiveness as an Experience of Ritual Cleansing in African Religion In the religions of the earliest period of human civilization, and even now as it still operates in African religion, spiritual transformation resulting from the process of forgiveness is achieved through ritual cleansing as mentioned earlier. Basically, what engenders the recognition and acceptance of moral culpability and confession in African setting is not only a personal deep-felt sinfulness or wrong doing but as Magesa points out, the involvement of the community. The fulcrum understanding of sin among the Igbo is a disorder that affects the ontological order of the community. Hence, every member of the community is on the guard against any action that might destroy the moral order of the community. If in any event either individual or collectives fall into any sin, the community owns it up and goes ahead to purge itself of the sin/s. Therefore, it is within the community’s purview to detect sin and assess the level of the wrongdoing and sentence the evil doer according to the law of the land as described above. This results from the Muntu spiritual philosophy that binds all the members of the community together. 20 A corporate philosophy where no one African exists alone; rather every African finds his/her existence with the community—a thought Mbiti expresses this way: I am because you are and because you are I am.21 This philosophical equation gives rise to participatory principles which guard every responsible action and inaction any African takes. This is why though an individual commits wrongdoing; the community takes it upon itself as the community’s wrongdoing for the Igbo people say that when one finger touches the oil, it spreads on other fingers (ofu aka metu mmanu ozue ora onu). That is why the community owns up the sin and goes ahead to enforce the law of the land that would yield confession that pleases God which engenders eventual forgiveness and reconciliation with God and the community. Thus, while Magesa identifies sin or evil in African thought as ‘wrongdoing;’ 22 Parrinder and Arinze in their works identify wrongdoing as patricide, incest, stealing of farm-products such as yam, cassava, cocoyam, goat, sheep etc.;

Bartholomew Chidili

33

__________________________________________________________________ bestiality, wilful abortion, pregnancy within a year of the husband’s death, suicide, adultery and the killing of the sacred animals. Others are spousal molestation, such as wife-beating, non-provision of food to wives; wives not cooking for their husbands, or denial of sexual intercourse. Some other wrongdoings are the breaching of the laws of the spirits guiding various aspects of human life, like the water spirits, earth spirits etc. 23 The streams and anything living in them like fish or royal python are sacred, since they are dedicated to guardian spirits. It is the duty of every villager to respect the stream by not fishing in it so as to preserve the purity of the stream as they respect the guardian spirit. This gives rise to an unwritten but outstanding taboo not to fish in the stream embedded in the heart of every member. Anyone who defiantly breaches the law faces the wrath of the guardian spirit as it is obvious in the killing of royal python by Okoli who paid with his life. 24 But if the lawbreaker quickly atones for his/her sins through the established rites, his/her sins are forgiven and the culprit lives. Since fight desecrates the hallowed ground; fighting in or around the stream is prohibited. But for no other reason than patriarchal denigration of women folk, menstruating women are also forbidding from entering the stream. When anybody breaches any of the laws the person is considered guilty automatically. To get out of divine punishment, the offender together with the community must seek for remission through ritual cleansing. The sacrifice is effected by offering of a white fowl. The fowl is not killed; it is brought and released at the edge of the water and allowed to run wild. While the fowl is being offered; ‘the culprit prays for forgiveness on the pleas that the offence committed was unintentional.’ 25 But Achebe noted that the accidental killing of royal python carries with it the penalty of sacrifices of atonement performed as an expensive burial ceremony such as would be done for a great man.26 After the sacrifice the offense is forgiven and the offender is set free from all his/her wrongdoing and free to relate with God and his/her community. This means that always wrongdoings either by individuals or by collectives are wrongdoings to God. Whenever, God senses any wrongdoing, he reveals his displeasure through the earth-spirits, ancestors, or even unknown spirits who brings in discomfort to the sinner. The sinner with his/her kindred consults the diviner who divulges the sin(s) and its consequences. Thus, when someone falls sick or fails to do well in business, etc. he/she pins the cause of misfortune on his/her wrongdoing, he/she together with the community consults a diviner who prescribes the type of fitting sacrifice for the appeasement of God. The culprit with his community undergoes the ritual cleansing required of such a misdemeanour. Discussing about the Nuer people in this regard, Evans—Pritchard notes that most sacrifices have peculiar purposes; that is why they are often made in times of trouble, or occasion of sins. The purpose of sacrifices are generally the same, that is to get rid of the impending evil, or threatening evil by offering to God a victim whose death will take the evil or sin away. 27 Citing the expression of the Nuer people of Southern Sudan, Evans-Pritchard states the resultant effect of removing

34

Forgiveness as an Experience of Ritual Cleansing

__________________________________________________________________ wrongdoing in various ways as follows: after the sacrifice; the evil ‘will be finished with a thing (duorg)—that is with an oblation. Or that the evil ‘goes into the earth with the blood of the cow.’ Or that ‘the cow shields (gang)’ the persons threatened by the evil. Or that God ‘turns away the evil’—who ‘goes into the earth’ with the blood of sacrifices marking its total end. 28 For a ‘sin’ of spousal abuse: when for instance a wife complains that her husband starves her, the older relatives would investigate the allegation. If the allegation is found to be false, the woman has to offer a fowl as a sacrifice to ancestors and earth spirits to wipe away her sin. To perform the rite effectively the people of the village must gather with the couple, at the place of the eldest person of the village, where the woman withdraws her accusation. When the woman withdraws her accusation the priest (in this case, the ‘Okpala’ or eldest man in the kindred) kills the fowl and asks the ancestors and possibly also the earth spirits to forgive her.29 At the end of sacrifice the woman is set free from her sins and she becomes whole again reuniting with God and her community. If the allegation is proved to be true, the man would be advised to apologize to the sprits and the elders and to promise not to maltreat his wife again. While the woman is not expecting direct apology from her husband, [because it is man’s world] she would be satisfied that the husband has apologized to the spirits and the elders and that he has promised to cease hostilities with her. From that moment on all hostilities are abolished and peace is restored to the household. 4. Conclusion From the preceding, it is obvious that ritual forgiveness is a process of remitting wrongdoing, which indeed produces reconciliation and indwelling peace for the repentant. It is also clear that through this rite, God forgives his people and reconciles with them. For it was the great poet Alexander Pope who once wrote: ‘To err is human, to forgive divine.’30 This translates to mean in this context that it is God who necessarily forgives and humanity who necessarily errs. Such is encapsulated in African religion. Hence this work observes that all wrongdoings whether committed by an individual or collectives are human. It further observed that the ritual process of achieving forgiveness and reconciliation is a collaborative affair between God and the community. It is further discovered that while the onus of forgiveness rests with God alone; humanity as children of God imitates him while performing the ritual act of forgiveness. Hence, humans also forgive so as to be like their heavenly Father. 31 Hence we can conclude that ritual process of forgiveness is an efficacious model of forgiveness genuinely practiced in communal Africa.

Bartholomew Chidili

35

__________________________________________________________________

Notes 1

James Cordova et al., ‘Behavior Analysis of Forgiveness in Couples Therapy’, International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy 2.2 (2006): 192, Accessed 15 March 2014, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ804016.pdf. 2 Geoffery Parrinder, West African Religion (London: Epworth Press, 1949), 37; Francis A. Arinze, Sacrifice in Igbo Religion (Ibadan, Nigeria: Ibadan University Press, 1970), 34-35. 3 E. E. Evans-Prichard, Nuer Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), 22. 4 Emefie I. Metuh, Comparative Studies of African Traditional Religions (Onitsha, Nigeria: IMICO Publishers, 1987), 120. 5 Michael I. Mozia, Solidarity in the Church and Solidarity among the Igbo of Nigeria (Ibadan, Nigeria: Claverianum Press, 1982), 180. 6 Mozia, Solidarity, 182. 7 Ibid., 222. 8 Gregory Adibe, The Crises of Faith and Morality of the Igbo Christians of Nigeria (Onitsha, Nigeria: Mid-Field Publishers Limited, 1992), 14-15. 9 Arinze, Sacrifice, 35. 10 Laurenti Magesa, African Religion (New York: Orbis Books, 2002), 169. 11 Ibid. 12 Arinze, Sacrifice, 35. 13 Adibe, Crisis of Faith, 16 14 Magesa, African Religion, 169. 15 ‘Forgiveness’, Wikipedia, Accessed 5 October 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness 16 ‘Do You Believe in the Forgiveness of Sins’, Catholic-Link, Accessed 5 September 2013, http://en.catholic-link.com/2013/09/11/do-you-believe-in-the-forgiveness-of-sins. 17 ‘Forgiveness’, Wikipedia. 18 Dictionary.com Dictionary and Thesaurus for iPad. Dictionary.com, LLC Version 3.2. incorrect entry. 19 ‘Forgiveness’, Wikipedia. 20 Janheinz Jahn, Muntu: An Outline of the New African Culture (New York: Grove/Atlantic, Incorporated, 1961), 18. 21 John. S. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy (London: Heinemann, 1970), 108-109. 22 Magesa, African Religion, 161. 23 Parrinder, West African Religion, 37 and Arinze, Sacrifice, 34-35. 24 Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart (New York: Anchor Books, 1994), 157-158. 25 Arinze, Sacrifice, 36. 26 Achebe, Things Fall Apart, 157-158.

36

Forgiveness as an Experience of Ritual Cleansing

__________________________________________________________________ 27

Evans-Pritchard, Nuer Religion, 22-21. Ibid. 29 Arinze, Sacrifice, 36. 30 Alexander Pope, ‘An Essay on Criticism’, Accessed 6 March 2013, http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29593.html. 31 Mk 2:7, 10; Mt. 6:14. 28

Bibliography Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Anchor Books, 1994. Adibe, Gregory. The Crises of Faith and Morality of the Igbo Christians of Nigeria. Onitsha: Mid-Field Publishers Limited, 1992. Arinze, Francis. A. Sacrifice in Igbo Religion. Ibadan, Nigeria: Ibadan University Press, 1970. Alexander Pope, ‘An Essay on Criticism’. Accessed 6 March 2013. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/29593.html. Cordova, James, Joseph Cautilli and Corrina Simon. ‘Behavior Analysis of Forgiveness in Couples Therapy’. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy 2.2 (2006): 192-214. Accessed 15 March 2014. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ804016.pdf. ‘Do You Believe in the Forgiveness of Sins.’ Catholic-Link. Accessed 5 September 2013. http://en.catholic-link.com/2013/09/11/do-you-believe-in-the-forgiveness-ofsins. Evans-Prichard, Edward Evan. Nuer Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. ‘Forgiveness’. Wikipedia. Accessed 5 October 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness. Jahn, Janheinz. Muntu: An Outline of the New African Culture. New York: Grove/Atlantic, Incorporated, 1961. Magesa, Laurenti. African Religion. New York: Orbis Books, 2002. Mbiti, John Samuel. African Religions and Philosophy. London: Heinemann, 1970.

Bartholomew Chidili

37

__________________________________________________________________ Metuh, Emefie Ikenga. Comparative Studies of African Traditional Religions. Onitsha, Nigeria: IMICO Publishers, 1987. Mozia, Michael I. Solidarity in the Church and Solidarity among the Igbo of Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: Claverianum Press, 1982. Parrinder, Geoffery. West African Religion. London: Epworth Press, 1949. Bartholomew Chidili, PhD is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Christian Religious Studies, Kaduna State University, Kaduna. He is also an adjunct lecturer of African Theology and African Religion and Society in the Good Shepherd Major Seminary, Kaduna, Nigeria.

Forgiveness in Turkish Culture Defne Erdem Mete Abstract This chapter examines forgiveness in Turkish culture from the perspectives of cultural rituals and communication. It is argued that both the rituals and the style of communication used in these rituals can be explained by collectivism as a cultural value. Religion also plays an important role in the practices of specific cultural rituals in which forgiveness is displayed. Important concepts which arise in the discussion of this paper are indirectness and face-saving. Key Words: Turkish Culture, ritual, communication, collectivism, face-saving. ***** 1. Introduction This chapter is concerned with cases in which apologising, in other words asking for forgiveness, almost became a ritual in Turkish culture and the kind of communication style used in these rituals. People are not necessarily aware of the way that they communicate in their relationships, unless they pay special attention to the way that they speak and behave. In a ritual, not only the language but also specific non-verbal behaviours are involved in communication. Both the verbal and non-verbal behaviour of apologizing rituals in Turkish culture should be analyzed together for a better understanding of their meanings. Hofstede 1 developed a framework for analysing countries according to their cultural values. Such a classification of cultural values is helpful as it provides guidelines about how an individual’s behaviour can be interpreted at a certain situation in a cultural group. Based on Hofstede’s framework of cultural value dimensions, Turkey has a collectivistic culture. Darwish and Huber2 state that in collectivist cultures people show great concern for the needs and interests of others, whereas in individualistic cultures people are mainly concerned with themselves and close family members. In collectivist cultures, people identify themselves with the group that they are a member of, therefore a threat to the group (such as one’s family, or neighbour, or close friends) is regarded as a threat to one’s own self. Whereas, in individualistic cultures independence is valued rather than interdependence. In collectivist cultures ‘saving face’ is important. Ting-Toomey and Kurogi define ‘face’ as ‘the claimed sense of favorable social self-worth and the estimated other-worth in an interpersonal situation.’3 Hence, it can be claimed that paying attention to errors and faults that would cause oneself or another person to ‘lose face’ is avoided in collectivist cultures like Turkish culture.

40

Forgiveness in Turkish Culture

__________________________________________________________________ In terms of the communication styles, Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey4 associate communication styles with cultural values: direct style with individualism and indirect style with collectivism. As maintaining harmony in relationships is important in collectivistic cultures, indirect communication style is used in cases where there is such a concern and where saving face is required. 2. The Language of Apologizing in Turkish In terms of the language, similar to what Coulmas5 claims for the Japanese culture, it can be argued that the use of specific expressions of apology can give us clues about cultural values in Turkish culture. Different languages have different preferences of using expressions of apology. Also, the degree to which expressions of apology are accepted as a real apology rather than to serve as maintaining social harmony changes depending on the situation and from culture to culture. Although there are various expressions used for asking for apology in Turkish, one expression is commonly used especially in incidents where apologising is expected from the speaker as a social norm and for maintaining harmony. This expression is ‘Kusura bakmayın’. Expressions like these are called ‘formulaic expressions’ which mean ‘combinations of words which have become associated in everyone’s mind and are often repeated in sequence’ and their main function is to ease communication.6 Here are main apology expressions in Turkish with the type of apology strategy that they belong to given in brackets: 1. Özür dilerim = I apologize (an offer of apology) 2. Afedersiniz = Forgive me (a request for forgiveness) 3. Kusura bakmayın = Overlook my fault (a request for forgiveness) ‘Kusur’ means ‘fault’, ‘deficit’ in Turkish. In Tannen and Öztek’s study of formulaic expressions, the expression ‘Kusura bakmayın’ is translated as ‘overlook / forgive my faults.’7 Rather than an expression of regret, such as ‘I am sorry’ in English, this Turkish expression is a request for forgiveness. Apologizing by saying ‘Kusura bakmayın’ is based on the speaker accepting to be faulty, or having done something wrong, and the hearer is expected to excuse the speaker for this fault. As Ogiermann8 argues, whereas there is no acceptance of responsibility in the expression ‘I’m sorry’, there is an acceptance of responsibility in ‘Kusura bakmayın’ (overlook my fault). An important element of apologizing in Turkish language is accepting responsibility for the fault. It is worth noting that the other widely used expression for a request of forgiveness, ‘Afedersiniz’ (forgive me), although not commonly used in the specific rituals that will be mentioned in this study, also bears the exact translation of the word ‘forgiveness’ which is ‘af’. Therefore, although the word

Defne Erdem Mete

41

__________________________________________________________________ ‘fault’ is not explicitly stated in this expression, it is implied that the speaker accepts he/she has a fault and therefore asks for forgiveness. 3. Ritual Communication of Apologizing in Turkish Culture Senft9 states that the function of ritual communication is to ‘promote social bonding, block aggression, and dispel elements of danger that might affect a community’s social harmony’. In this part of the paper, it is argued that ritual communication can be observed in both the verbal and nonverbal elements of communication in Turkish culture. These elements, in the specific rituals that will be presented here, are used for maintaining social harmony, and thus give clues about the dominant cultural values in Turkish society. A. Ritual of Gift-Presentation Rituals are ‘multidimensional, social performances of collective knowledge and sense making’.10 A gift-giving ritual in Turkish culture is one that gives clues about the dominant cultural values of Turkish people. In a gift-presentation context, such a dialogue between the the gift-giver and the gift-taker is very likely to take place. It can be claimed that such a dialogue is almost a ritual conversation: Turkish Dialogue: Hediye alan: (Hediyeyi alır ve diğerini yanaktan öper) Çok teşekkürler. Hediye veren: Kusura bakma. Sen daha iyilerine layıksın. Hediye alan: Ne kusuru? Düşünmen yeter. Hediye veren: Umarım beğenirsin, güle güle kullan. English Translation: Gift-taker: (Takes the gift and kisses the other’s cheeks) Thank you very much. Gift-giver: Overlook my fault. You deserve better ones than this. Gift-taker: What fault? Even your thought of it (giving a gift) is enough. Gift-giver: I hope you like it. Use it laughingly. As argued by Olshtain and Cohen,11 there are several possible strategies to apologize. While an expression of apology is a direct apology strategy; an explanation of an account of the situation, an acknowledgement of responsibility, an offer of repair and a promise of forbearance are indirect apology strategies. In the gift-presentation ritual, the value of the gift is not an issue. Even if the gift is very valuable, the formulaic expressions of apology should be declared by the gift-giver and the gift-taker should respond in a socially accepted way, again by using formulaic expressions. The gift-giver starts with an expression of apology

42

Forgiveness in Turkish Culture

__________________________________________________________________ which is a request of forgiveness, rather than an expression of regret or an offer of apology. Then, the gift-giver acknowledges his/her responsibility by saying ‘you deserve better things than this’. It can be claimed that this is a strategy of recognizing the other person as deserving apology, which is a type of acknowledging responsibility. This is displayed by building the other person up. The gift-giver is saving the gift-taker’s face and putting himself/herself down. On the other hand, he/she is also saving his/her own face by displaying the appropriate manner of speaking at a gift-giving occasion. B. Ritual of Sharing a Meal with a Guest Just as the dialogue in the ritual of gift-presentation, the following dialogue has become a ritual between a Turkish host and a Turkish guest: Turkish Dialogue: Ev sahibi: Buyurun lütfen. Kusura bakmayın. Fazla birşey yapamadım. Misafir: Estağfurullah. Ne kusuru? Elinize sağlık. English Translation: Host: Help yourself please. Overlook my fault. I could not prepare (cook) many things. Guest: I ask pardon of God. What fault? Health to your hands. In the ritual of sharing a meal with a guest, after asking her guests to start eating, the host uses an expression of apology which is ‘forgive my fault’, and then she acknowledges her responsibility by saying ‘I could not prepare many things’. As a sub-strategy of acknowledging responsibility, this is an expression of selfdeficiency. However, the variety of food is not a real issue here. Even if the host would prepare twenty different kinds of delicious things to eat, she is expected to apologize as a socially accepted manner. The underlying meaning is that ‘you deserve a meal which has more variety of food’ and ‘this meal is not good enough for you’. In Turkish culture, showing hospitality to the guests is very important. When people have a guest in their house, they try to do their best to make the guest’s stay comfortable. Guests are seen as sent by God and they are believed to bring good fortune to the house. As in the ritual of gift-presentation, in this ritual the guest’s face is saved by implying that he/she deserves a better dining table, therefore building the guest up. At the same time, the host is also saving her face by behaving in a socially appropriate manner. In the rituals of both gift-presentation and sharing a meal with a guest, apologizing takes place at the start of the conversation. The gift-giver does not wait for the gift-taker to open the present and see whether she likes it or not. Similarly,

Defne Erdem Mete

43

__________________________________________________________________ the host apologizes before her guests start eating at the dining table without seeing whether the guest likes the food or not. Apologizing is performed in advance. This is an attempt to make the relations harmonious. What is more important is that, in both of the rituals, the gatherings are happy occasions unlike a tense situation. These are clues that show apologizing in these rituals is a social norm rather than asking for forgiveness because of a real offense. C. Ritual of ‘Hand- Kissing’ Apart from the rituals in which forgiveness is asked for as a social norm, there are also specific rituals where the speaker indeed wants to be forgiven. The main occasions in which forgiveness is displayed in Turkish culture are in religious feasts called ‘bayram’. In these cases, the Islamic understanding of forgiveness almost urges people to get together with their family members and with anyone with whom they are in dispute. The aim is to make the interpersonal relationships stronger and harmonious. The people who do not speak to each other are strongly advised to make peace. In religious feasts, there is a common cultural ritual which displays forgiveness. This ritual which is referred to as ‘hand-kissing’ is performed between two people. The one who is smaller in age kisses the hand of the other who is older than him/her and presses his/her forehead on the older one’s hand. This is because in Turkish culture, one respects people older than oneself as they are believed to be more experienced and wiser than himself/herself. Actually, this ritual is very common in Turkish people’s daily life and the main purpose is to show respect, regardless of whether there is anything to forgive or not. On the other hand, hand-kissing gains an additional meaning other than mere display of respect when it is performed by someone whose aim is to ask for forgiveness from the other. As mentioned before, according to Islam, the time of a religious feast such as the Ramadan feast or the Sacrificing feast is an ideal period for people to reconcile. However, this ritual does not have to be performed only at the time of religious feasts. The verbal communication that takes place during this ritual is not an elaborated one. The one who wants to be forgiven might simply say ‘Let me kiss your hand’ and kisses the hand of the elder in a respectful manner. If the elder is willing to forgive, he/she just offers his/her hand to the other. What is important here is that the silence of the elder just offering his/her hand is associated with acceptance of forgiveness. Here we see ‘socio-cultural silence’ as a type of silence defined by Bruneau12 in which case people remain silent intentionally to express their feelings. In some cases, both sides can remain silent during the ritual of hand-kissing. The one who wants to be forgiven bows his/her head and nonverbally makes an attempt to ask for the hand of the other. If the other offers his/her hand, then forgiveness takes place and there is reconciliation in the end. Hence, it can be claimed that in the ritual of ‘hand-kissing’, lots of things are actually communicated by keeping silent and each party’s faces are saved by avoiding

44

Forgiveness in Turkish Culture

__________________________________________________________________ direct confrontation. This ritual is a good example of how silence is valued in Turkish culture. This is reflected in a commonly used Turkish proverb: ‘If speech is silver, silence is golden’. Although not obligatory, it is also common that in such a ritual of forgiveness, a third person, preferably an older one, is present as a mediator. In Turkish culture mediation is encouraged for the settlement of dispute. This actually originates from Islam. Islam advises everyone to act as a mediator where there is a dispute between two people. Especially being a mediator between a married couple and helping them to solve their problems is considered a good behaviour, as family relations are very important. When a dispute wants to be settled by the help of a mediator, a slightly different communication takes place in the ritual of hand-kissing. The one who is going to kiss the hand and the one who is going to offer the hand just remain silent. The mediator says ‘X wants to kiss your hand’. While not directly stated, this means ‘X asks for your forgiveness’. If it is accepted, reconciliation is achieved by no need of verbal communication but only by the elder’s offering his/her hand and performing the non-verbal hand-kissing ritual. It is clear that there is an indirect way of communication in mediation. The two parties do not talk about the dispute and avoid accusing each other. In this way, their faces are saved. In Turkish culture, mediators are respected. Therefore, even the presence of a mediator can be enough for feeling obliged to forgive. D. ‘Helalleşme’ (Asking for One’s Blessing) as a Religious Ritual of Forgiveness In Islam, everyone is advised to perform the ritual of ‘helalleşme’ (asking for one’s blessing) with the ones whom they might have offended in the past before he/she dies. It is believed that if someone is offended to a person for some reason, God does not interfere with it. Therefore, the offender primarily has to ask for the forgiveness of the person that he offended, rather than demanding forgiveness from God. If the person who was offended says ‘helal olsun’, then there is reconciliaton. The communication that takes place in the ritual of ‘Helalleşme’ (asking for one’s blessing) is as follows: Turkish Dialogue: Af dileyen: Hakkını helal et. Affeden: Helal olsun. (El sıkışılır ya da kucaklaşılır) English Translation: The one who wants to be forgiven: Give me your blessings. The one who is expected to forgive: I give you my blessings. (They shake hands or hug each other). There is indirectness in this ritual as by only using formulaic expressions of asking for one’s blessing, a lot of things are stated. The speaker does not state explicitly

Defne Erdem Mete

45

__________________________________________________________________ what he did wrong. He expects the hearer to understand by only uttering one sentence. 4. Conclusion In this study, specific examples of rituals of apologizing in Turkish culture were presented. Verbal and nonverbal elements of communication used in these rituals reflect the cultural value of collectivism. While the rituals of giftpresentation and sharing a meal with a guest are only seemingly performed for forgiving, their actual purpose is to save face and maintain harmony. On the other hand, the ritual of ‘hand-kissing’ and ‘helalleşme’ (asking for one’s blessing) is performed for a real demand of forgiveness in which both indirectness and a concern for face-saving are displayed. In terms of the language used for apologizing, the two widely used expressions used in Turkish, ‘Afedersiniz’ and ‘Kusura bakmayın’, have ‘forgiveness’ and ‘fault’ as explicitly stated words in them. Therefore, there is an acceptance of responsibility in both of them. Hence, it can be claimed that the linguistic choices used for apologizing in Turkish is a reflection of collectivism as a cultural value as we see acceptance of responsiblity for the sake of maintaining social harmony and for saving face. In the rituals of gift-presentation and sharing a meal with a guest, the preferred expression used for apologizing is ‘Kusura bakmayın’ (overlook my fault) which is a formulaic expression. In these rituals, this expression is accompanied with indirect strategies of apologizing such as recognizing the other person as deserving apology and expressing self-deficiency. The function and meaning of such expressions that are used in everyday life would be better understood when they are studied in conversation, rather than in isolation. Therefore, not only what the speaker says for apologizing, but also how the listener responds is important. In this respect, the context is an important issue. Apologizing in a happy gathering serves the function of making interpersonal relations stronger by speaking in a way that the social norm requires. Whereas, depending on the context, apologizing can even be interpreted as having a totally different underlying meaning, such as a boastful manner of the host indirectly drawing attention to what she did well. A foreigner who is not familiar with such examples of rituals as well as the verbal and nonverbal behaviour present in them is likely to have problems in intercultural occasions. Therefore, it is important to be aware of certain types of ritual behaviour. As in the case of the ritual of ‘hand-kissing’, even the preference for keeping silent in some rituals of forgiveness can function as an indirect way of communication, as well as the mere presence of a third person as a mediator.

46

Forgiveness in Turkish Culture

__________________________________________________________________

Notes 1

Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations (London: Sage, 2001). 2 Abdel-Fattah E. Darwish and Günter L. Huber, ‘Individualism vs. Collectivism in Different Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Study,’ Intercultural Education 14.1 (2003): 47-56. 3 Stella Ting-Toomey and Atsuko Kurogi, ‘Facework Competence in Intercultural Conflict: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory,’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22.2 (1998): 188. 4 William B. Gudykunst and Stella Ting-Toomey, Culture and Interpersonal Communication (Fullerton: Sage, 1988). 5 Florian Coulmas, ‘Poison to Your Soul: Thanks and Apologies Contrastively Viewed,’ in Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, ed. Florian Coulmas (Netherlands: Mouton, 1981), 87. 6 Deborah Tannen and Piyale Cömert Öztek, ‘Health to Our Mouths: Formulaic Expressions in Turkish and Greek,’ Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 3 (1977): 516. 7 Ibid.,528. 8 Eva Ogiermann, On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures (Netherlands: John Benjamins, 2009), 107. 9 Gunter Senft, ‘Trobriand Islanders’ Forms of Ritual Communication,’ in Ritual Communication, eds. Gunter Senft and Ellen Basso (Oxford: Berg, 2009), 82. 10 Helga Kotthoff, ‘Ritual and Style across Cultures,’ in Handbook of Intercultural Communication, eds. Helga Kotthoff and Helen Spencer-Oatey (Berlin: Mouton, 2007), 173. 11 Elite Olshtain and Andrew D. Cohen, ‘Apology: A Speech Act Set,’ in Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, eds. Nessa Wolfson and Elliot Judd (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983), 18-35. 12 Thomas J. Bruneau, ‘Communicative Silences: Forms and Functions,’ in Basic Readings in Communication Theory, ed. C. David Mortensen (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), 306-334.

Bibliography Bruneau, Thomas J. ‘Communicative Silences: Forms and Functions.’ In Basic Readings in Communication Theory, edited by C. David Mortensen, 306-334. New York: Harper and Row, 1979.

Defne Erdem Mete

47

__________________________________________________________________ Coulmas, Florian. ‘Poison to Your Soul: Thanks and Apologies Contrastively Viewed.’ In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, edited by Florian Coulmas, 69-91. Netherlands: Mouton, 1981. Darwish, Abdel-Fattah E. and Huber, Günter L. ‘Individualism vs. Collectivism in Different Cultures: A Cross Cultural Study.’ Intercultural Education 14 .1, (2003): 47-56. Gudykunst, William B. and Ting-Toomey, Stella. Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Fullerton: Sage, 1988. Hofstede, Geert. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. London: Sage, 2001. Kotthoff, Helga. ‘Ritual and Style across Cultures.’ In Handbook of Intercultural Communication, edited by Helga Kotthoff and Helen Spencer-Oatey, 173-197. Berlin: Mouton, 2007. Olshtain, Elite and Cohen, Andrew D. ‘Apology: A Speech Act Set.’ In Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, edited by Nessa Wolfson and Elliot Judd, 18-35. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983. Ogiermann, Eva. On Apologising in Negative and Positive Politeness Cultures. Netherlands: John Benjamins, 2009. Senft, Gunter. ‘Trobriand Islanders’ Forms of Ritual Communication.’ In Ritual Communication, edited by Gunter Senft and Ellen Basso, 81-101. Oxford: Berg, 2009. Tannen, Deborah and Öztek, Cömert Piyale. ‘Health to Our Mouths: Formulaic Expressions in Turkish and Greek.’ Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 3 (1977): 516-534. Ting-Toomey, Stella and Kurogi, Atsuko. ‘Facework Competence in Intercultural Conflict: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory.’ International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22.2, (1998): 187-225. Defne Erdem Mete studied and taught as a Fulbright foreign language teaching assistant at Syracuse University, USA where she got interested in intercultural communication. Her other research areas include teaching English as an international language and teaching Turkish as a foreign language.

Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness Angela Kueny and Sandra Cardenas Abstract Forgiveness provides the opportunity for mending and strengthening relationships between individuals and groups, forming stronger communities. Channels in which forgiveness is taught in communities outside of church services/activities are not well understood. The Old Order Amish (referred to as Amish) are a religious, insular group of people living in the United States. Forgiveness is an essential pillar in Amish spirituality. It is deeply ingrained in Amish life based on the belief that in order to be forgiven (by God), one must forgive the offenses/transgressions of others. Within the Amish community, only men have formal leadership roles as ministers and bishops, preaching about religious values such as forgiveness to other Amish members. However, other approaches to promoting forgiveness within the Amish community are also utilized but not as well known. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the findings of a focused ethnographic study examining how the Amish intentionally instill forgiveness in their members through multiple networks and strategies. Interviews and observations were used to gather information with Amish bishops, teachers, family members, and community members. Participants in this study emphasized that children should be taught about forgiveness at an early age. Participants expressed a belief that discipline, humility, and the message conveyed in the Golden Rule teach Amish children to understand and respect the perspectives of others, humble themselves, and forgive the offenses of others. Parents, teachers, children’s books, and even cookbooks focus on discipline, humility, and the Golden Rule. These strategies allow children to develop a strong foundation for forgiveness, increasing the willingness and capacity to forgive in Amish adults and the community as a whole. An increased understanding of this model of forgiveness can help to identify proactive strategies that will provide multiple approaches to building communities with a readiness to forgive. Key Words: Amish, Old Order Amish, Forgiveness, Humility, Golden Rule, Discipline, Teaching children, Forgiveness values, Community forgiveness. ***** 1. Forgiveness in the Amish Community One morning, in 2006, an English man entered an Amish one-room schoolhouse, killed five children, injured five more, and killed himself. Within days, the Amish community reached out to the shooter’s family, with readiness to forgive him of his actions.1 This immediate peaceful reaction from the Amish

50

Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness

__________________________________________________________________ community and parents made the United Stated headlines and initiated conversations about the possibilities of forgiveness after such tragedy. What is it about a community that can train its members to be so readily forgiving? The Old Order Amish (referred to as Amish) are a religious, insular group of people living in the United States. The Amish live self-reliant lifestyles separate from the mainstream. Seeking religious freedom during the religious reformation of the 16th Century, they formed a tight-knit religious community that exists today. They live simply and as naturally as possible, resist modernization, and restrict the use of technology, such as driving automobiles.2 Their relationships with each other are necessary for their survival together. Their faith is of utmost importance, and their spiritual practices are blended throughout their daily lives. Forgiveness is an essential pillar to Amish spirituality. It is deeply ingrained in Amish life because it is believed necessary to forgive each other in order for God to then forgive them. Donald Kraybill, Steven Nolt, and David Weaver-Zercher wrote a book describing Amish community aspects that help explain their tremendous act of forgiveness after the tragic school shooting.3 Their book highlights that Amish members learn about forgiveness through the Lord’s Prayer, parents’ demonstration of forgiveness, and their acceptance of God’s will, called Gelassenheit.4 Within the Amish community, only men have formal leadership roles as ministers and bishops, preaching about religious values such as forgiveness to other Amish members. However, other approaches to promoting forgiveness within the Amish community are also utilized but not as well known. Our research team intended to gain a deeper understanding about how all members of the Amish community learn and practice forgiveness in their everyday lives. 2. Contextual Backdrop to Promoting Forgiveness Forgiveness provides the opportunity for mending and strengthening relationships between individuals and groups, forming stronger communities. After a transgression occurs, an individual moves through a process to make a decision to release the transgressor from their action and forgive the transgression.5 Individuals who work towards forgiving a transgression experience a decreased stress response, resulting in wellness and health benefits described thoroughly across the literature. 6 Interpersonal benefits of forgiveness also come when individuals consider and respect others’ perspectives, potentially work through reconciliation, or avoid revenge and violence.7 Values that are connected with forgiveness, such as empathy, allow individuals to consider other perspectives than their own in order to release the transgressor from their actions.8 Elizabeth Gassin, Robert Enright, and his associate research group reported that children who received forgiveness education not only demonstrated less depression than children who did not receive this education, they demonstrated prosocial touching behaviors, such as hugging, during the program.9 Practicing forgiveness can potentially remove some of the

Angela Kueny and Sandra Cardenas

51

__________________________________________________________________ barriers to building healthy community relationships such as the desire for revenge, violence, or feeling unsafe. 10 Given the potential benefits for individuals and communities, it is important to understand how individuals are inspired to practice forgiveness and develop a sense of forgiveness at a young age, such as the Amish. Although it is widely understood as a value within the Christian tradition, channels in which forgiveness are taught in communities outside of church services and activities need further explanation. A study by Kathleen Lawler-Row and colleagues, involving 270 United States college students, identified contextual factors motivating people to forgive. Students mentioned religion, the philosophical/moral teachings of doing good to others, and whether or not someone apologizes as reasons to forgive. 11 Multiple resources and instruction for forgiveness are available through workshops, psychotherapy, or educational programs.12 However, limited research has explored contextual factors that motivate the practice of forgiveness. 13 We sought to provide more in-depth description of cultural contextual factors related to motivating individuals to forgive within the Amish community. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the findings of a focused ethnographic study examining how the Amish intentionally instill forgiveness in their members through multiple networks and strategies. This can be used as an example to other communities who are seeking ways to influence the practice of forgiveness through multiple avenues. 3. Methods We collected data over 12 months on a part-time basis. In order to gain entrée into this Amish settlement we first met with two non-Amish community members who have close ties within this Amish community. These individuals connected us with our primary gatekeepers, the bishops, into the community.14 Through network connections, we were able to meet with 17 community members, shown in Table 1. Prior to any data collection, our research project was reviewed and approved by the Luther College Human Subjects Review Board. Table 1: Participants Participants Bishops/Ministers Parents (not including bishops) School Teachers Amish Community Members Non-Amish Neighbors

Number 2 5 (Male =1; Female = 4) 1 Full-time, 2 part-time 3 4

This Midwestern community involved in this research project identified themselves as Swartzentruber Amish, some of the most conservative Amish in the

52

Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness

__________________________________________________________________ country. This community organizes itself into six church districts, and a district consists of the number of families who will fit into one home for church services. Five bishops lead these six districts; the community of approximately 900 people foregoes using modern conveniences such as cars or electricity in order to maintain a more simplistic and tight-knit community. Each church district may vary slightly in their respective cultural rules (referred to as the Ordnung).15 Within this community there are 10 one-room Amish schoolhouses.16 Data was collected through interviews and participant observation. Observations took place in schools, in the community shops and other public places, in family homes, and community gatherings, such as Emotions Anonymous. When possible, interview notes were taken during the interview itself, and transcribed within 48 hours. The data was analyzed using qualitative thematic content analysis. The primary investigator, Dr. Kueny, and two research assistants coded all of the transcripts and conferred on a coding system, using Atlas.ti as supportive software. Once these codes were developed, networks, themes, and commonalities were discussed with the research team.17 With the initial analysis, the majority of codes prominently supported the code, ‘teaching children’. Some of the codes connected to ‘teaching children’, with the number of times coded, included: Discipline (16), Golden Rule (7), Necessity for Life (6), Obedience (3), School codes (Rules (4), Teaching (8), Books (7), Environment (16), comparing to Home (5)), Siblings (6), Values (13), Values-Humility (3). The goal of the analysis for this presentation was to focus in on this theme of teaching children to describe how the Amish community instills forgiveness in children as one strategy to build a community ready to forgive. 4. Findings: Teaching Children Forgiveness Participants in this study emphasized forgiveness as a necessity to life. Continually, participants stressed that forgiveness involved moving on, or letting go after being hurt; that process provides the greatest benefits. One mother said, ‘The Amish need forgiveness to live the way that we live.’ There isn’t a prescribed training model, but a way of life that encourages the development of forgiveness because of its felt necessity. The unique approach of the Amish community is proactive in teaching values that underlie forgiveness at all stages of life, emphasizing its introduction to children at an early age. The two major themes discussed here include a) the values taught to children that Amish members associate with forgiveness, and b) the networks and individuals within the community involved in teaching forgiveness. In order to practice forgiveness as an adult, it is of great importance to train children from an early age to forgive. The wife of one of the bishops told us,

Angela Kueny and Sandra Cardenas

53

__________________________________________________________________ You have to learn it [forgiveness] from when you are growing up as a young child. People learn it when they are young and then they can keep using it when they get older. This way of life allows children to develop a strong foundation for forgiveness, increasing the willingness and capacity to forgive in Amish adults and the community as a whole. A. Values Taught to Children Participants expressed a belief that discipline, obedience, humility, and the Golden Rule teach Amish children to understand and respect the perspectives of others, humble themselves, and build a practice ready to forgive the offenses of others. Parents see discipline as a way to remove some of the willpower of a child, so they learn to listen and obey. An Amish woman reflected on learning forgiveness through obedience saying, When we were little, one of us would hit the other and then the other would hit back. And my mom would say, ‘No! You don’t do that.’ In my family no meant no. They taught us that you don’t try and get even, when a person does something to you they have to carry that with them, you don’t. When a child has less willpower, they are more open to seeing other perspectives as important as their own perspective. This is a key development in building empathy, an underlying value necessary for forgiveness to take place. 18 One father told us the story of starting discipline even when a child is learning to eat with the family. He said, ‘…they will learn that it’s not just up to them…Forgiveness is part of that. If a child doesn’t know discipline, then they don’t know about forgiving others.’ Children learn to work hard with their families in teams, learning humility through respecting others and negotiating. One father mentioned, ‘When a child has those chores every day, it teaches that sense of responsibility that's important for forgiving.’ And another woman reflected on learning humility and teamwork growing up, ‘I had to learn it’s okay if she [sister] doesn’t do it your way, as long as it gets done’. When children learn humility, they learn to think of others first. A popular saying, found in one of the children’s books at school called Lessons From the Clock, read: ‘Jesus first, Others next, Yourself last.’19 This quote shows that children are taught in school that faith and others are important. Thus, furthering the notion of forgiveness at an early age. Almost every single participant brought up the Golden Rule. The ‘Golden Rule’ originates from Luke 6:31 (NRSV) and reads, ‘In everything do to others as

54

Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness

__________________________________________________________________ you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.’ It is foundational in developing forgiveness in these Amish children. When discussing with a bishop and his wife about how they teach children forgiveness, they immediately mentioned that they start with the Golden Rule. They told us, ‘When the kids get in little scuffles or fights we remind them about this [Golden Rule] and make sure apologies and forgiveness occur.’ When children learn and experience these values, adults within the Amish community expect they will be more likely to forgive as adults. This proactive approach instills values that underlie forgiveness even before hurts, transgressions, or anger occurs. B. Community Support Teaching Children Forgiveness Parents, teachers, children’s books, coloring books, and even cookbooks focus on these values intended to teach children about forgiveness. Because the Amish live in self-sustaining communities, they can work together intentionally to thread forgiveness informally and formally into everyday life. Participants mentioned that children learned about forgiveness from their parents and school as the most common sources. Bishops mentioned that they intentionally spoke about forgiveness in church sermons; however very few participants referred to church services as a source of learning forgiveness. Parents explained that they would teach children about values related to forgiveness informally on a daily basis (as described above, even at the dinner table) and formally. One bishop and his wife told us, We draw from Biblical stories and make sure to explain what the Bible teaches to kids. Church is only every other Sunday so on the off Sundays…we spend that time at home reading together, to get those stories too. Participants also mentioned that Amish parents’ transparency also helped children to witness their parents forgiving. One participant mentioned, ‘Amish parents are much more transparent around their kids, they don’t shield them from things like English parents might.’ One research assistant clarified, ‘So when an Amish parent makes a mistake they don’t hide it, they apologize and forgive and let their kids see how it works.’ To this, the respondent said, ‘Yes, it is hard if you try to ask them about learning something like that because it’s difficult to explain something that you learn by experience.’ Other Amish parents agreed, saying that it was important to allow children to see them make mistakes, apologize, and forgive. In addition to parents, participants focused on the schools providing lessons on forgiveness. The schools are separate from the United States public school system, and Amish schoolteachers teach the values of their community within their

Angela Kueny and Sandra Cardenas

55

__________________________________________________________________ schools.20 Schools provide a focused environment for children to learn these values associated with forgiveness. A poster on the wall of one school was about the Golden Rule, clearly identifying the school’s focus on it. Teachers impressed upon us that formal public apologizing was part of the forgiveness process as well. After two students have a fight, or scuffle, both students stand in front of the whole class to apologize and forgive. Teachers also use small quotes or sayings to help students practice their handwriting (a lesson called ‘Teacher Says’). When one teacher was asked that morning’s lesson, it was the Golden Rule, showing again the importance of humility, thinking of others, and practicing forgiveness. Books also help to support Amish teachings about the values mentioned above. Two of the common school books used in this community include Seeking True Values and Lessons from the Clock.21 Stories within these books include children working through not only apologizing but also forgiving, teaching children the thought process for forgiveness from a children’s perspective. Coloring books also include pictures and sayings about forgiveness and respect for others. One coloring book found in a store in this settlement had a page that read, ‘Misfortune happens to everybody. If we accept it in the right way, we will become a better person.’22 These books provide value-based lessons for Amish children, specifically including forgiveness. Popular sayings within the community help to identify the importance and practice of forgiveness. These sayings are learned from family members, cook books, or other community texts. One woman remembers her father saying, ‘When you learn to love your enemy, it’s like putting coal on a fire’ and ‘A grudge is the biggest load a man can carry.’ Cookbooks were strewn with quotes and stories about forgiveness in between the recipes, infusing these thoughts into the daily practice of cooking. One cookbook included sayings such as: Carrying a grudge can wear a person out very quickly; Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as Christ God forgave you (Ephesians 4:32, NIV); Two marks of a Christian are giving and forgiving; and I’ve found a little remedy to ease the life we live, that costs the least and does the most – it is the word forgive. 23 Girls help their mothers to cook, and these cookbooks provide an opportunity to pass along tips about forgiveness through female generations. It was clear that the message about teaching forgiveness came from multiple sources intentionally for children to learn this practice for the hardships they may one day encounter. The participants gave examples of hardships within the community, such as members who had addictions, a school being vandalized, or older children’s behavior while deciding whether or not to become Amish adult members, testing the limits of their Amish lifestyle. Bishops and parents alike

56

Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness

__________________________________________________________________ described how individuals need to work through forgiveness on their own; if one does not forgive they are more likely to be hurt, carry a grudge, and potentially hurt others. After instilling the appropriate values, or demonstrating forgiveness, the Amish understand that forgiveness is more likely to come. 5. Conclusions and Implications The participants in this study showed us through their behaviors and our conversations that forgiveness was considered a necessity to an Amish community member. It is necessary for them to forgive others in order for God to forgive them of their sins. They also recognize the spiritual value of forgiveness for their own mental health, keeping peace within the community, and connecting this to their salvation with God. There were limitations in this study that are important to note. These findings are based on a small group of participants within a small community, with limited diversity across districts. However, we reached a saturation of responses from our participants, and overwhelmingly received a message that there were intentional ways that families, school teachers, and the greater Amish community teach children about forgiveness in order for them to practice forgiveness as Amish adults. This reflects the findings of Donald Kraybill, Steven Nolt, and David Weaver-Zercher, and provides additional examples focused on forgiveness in children.24 Popular models of forgiveness trainings or interventions are available for all age groups. Robert Enright, Frederick DiBlasio, and Everett Worthington, Jr. are a few of the researchers focused on training children about forgiveness.25 The Amish provide a supportive model to these interventions, but take a proactive approach even before children experience transgression. It begins as they are learning to eat at the table with their families. The Amish cultural context shows us that men and women are intentionally involved, in complementing ways, with instilling the values that underlie forgiveness and practicing forgiveness on a daily basis. While Amish forgiveness and faith are interwoven within all aspects of daily life, the ways in which they infuse forgiveness might be an example for others to use as a model of proactive training for forgiveness in non-religious, spiritual, or even secular communities. This model provides a proactive approach of teaching values, using discipline to develop empathy and humility, and developing the skills of forgiveness.

Notes 1

Donald B. Kraybill, Steven M. Nolt, David L. Weaver-Zercher, Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006).

Angela Kueny and Sandra Cardenas

57

__________________________________________________________________ 2

John A. Hostetler, Steven Nolt and Ann Hostetler, The Amish (Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press, 2013); Steven M. Nolt, A History of the Amish: Revised and Updated (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003). 3 Donald B. Kraybill, Steven M. Nolt, David L. Weaver-Zercher, Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006). 4 Ibid., 100-103. 5 Everett L. Worthington Jr., Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Theory and Application (New York, NY: Routlegde, 2006). 6 Fred Luskin, Forgive for Good: A Scientifically Proven Prescription for Leading a Healthier Life and Happiness (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc, 2002); Loren Toussaint, David Williams, Marc Musick, and Susan Everson-Rose, ‘The Association of Forgiveness and 12-Month Prevalence of Major Depressive Episode: Gender Differences in a Probability Sample of U.S. Adults’, Mental Health, Religion, and Culture 11.5 (2008): 485-500; Kathleen Lawler-Row, Larua Hyatt-Edwards, Karl Wuensch, and Johan Karremans, ‘Forgiveness and Health: The Role of Attachment’, Personal Relationships 18 (2011): 170-183. 7 Worthington Jr., Forgiveness and Reconciliation, 2006; Marie E. Gambaro, ‘School-Based Forgiveness Education in the Management of Trait Anger in Early Adolescents’ (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2002); Dino Zuccarini, Susan M. Johnson, Tracy L. Dalgleish, and Judy A. Makinen. ‘Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Emotionally Focused Therapy for Couples: The Client Change Process and Therapist Interventions’, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 39.2 (2013): 148-162. 8 Michael Barry, The Forgiveness Project: The Startling Discovery of How to Overcome Cancer, Find Health, and Achieve Peace (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal Publications, 2011). 9 Elizabeth Gassin, Robert D. Enright, and Jeanette Knutson, ‘Bringing Peace to the Central City: Forgiveness in Milwaukee’, Theory into Practice 44.4 (2005): 319-328. 10 The Reverend David Couper, ‘Forgiveness in the Community: Views from an Episcopal Priest and Former Chief of Police’, in Exploring Forgiveness, ed. Robert D. Enright, Joanna North, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 121-130; Marina Cantacuzino, ‘The Forgiveness Project’ last modified 2014, Viewed 16 May 2014, http://theforgivenessproject.com; Vincent Waldron and Douglas Kelley, Communicating Forgiveness (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2007), 11-19. 11 Kathleen A. Lawler-Row et al., ‘The Varieties of Forgiveness Experience: Working towards a Comprehensive Definition of Forgiveness,’ Journal of Religion and Health, 46.2 (2007): 233-248.

58

Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness

__________________________________________________________________ 12

Michael Barry, The Forgiveness Project, 2011; Frederick DiBlasio, Everett Worthington, Jr., and David Jennings, ‘Forgiveness Interventions with Children, Adolescents, and Families’, in Spiritual Interventions in Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy, eds. Donald Walker and William Hathaway (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2013), 233-258; Fred Luskin, Forgive for Good, 2002. 13 Gregory Paul, ‘‘We Must Not Think Evil of This Man’: A Case Study of Amish and English Forgiveness’, Communication Quarterly 60.3 (2010): 424-444. 14 Michael H. Agar, The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography (2nd ed.) (Bingley, UK: Emeral Group Publishing Limited, 2008). 15 Stven M. Nolt, A History of the Amish, 159. 16 Refer to the following for more information on Amish schooling and schoolhouses: Mark W. DeWalt, Amish Education in the United States and Canada (1st ed.) (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Education, 2006) 17 John Lofland et al., Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis (4th ed.) (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006). 18 Michael Barry, The Forgiveness Project, 2011 19 Miriam Zook, Lessons from the Clock and Other Helpful Poems for Happy Children (Crockett, Kentucky: Rod and Staff Publishers, Inc., 2004) 20 Mark W. Dewalt, Amish Education in the United States and Canada (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Education, 2006), 25-42; John Wittmer, The Gentle People: An Insider View of Amish Life (3rd ed.) (Washington, IN: Black Buggy, Inc., 2006). 21 Seeking True Values, (LaGrange, IN: Pathway Publishers, 2010); Miriam Zook, Lessons from the Clock and Other Helpful Poems for Happy Children, (Rod and Staff Publishers, Inc., 2004), 50-51. 22 Vella Deitsch, Kollah Buch Coloring Book Containing Small Stories in Pennsylvania Deitsch, (Y.B.S. and Co.) 23 Tasteful Treasures Cookbook Harmony, MN 24 Donald Kraybill et al. Amish Grace, 85-122. 25 Gassin et al., ‘Forgiveness Education in Milwaukee’, 324-325; Frederick DiBlasio, Everett Worthington, Jr., and David Jennings, ‘Forgiveness Interventions with Children, Adolescents, and Families’, in Spiritual Interventions in Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy, eds. Donald Walker and William Hathaway (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2013), 233-258; Robert Enright. ‘Giving Forgiveness Away to Our Children and in Our Communities’, in The Forgiving Life: A Pathway to Overcoming Resentment and Creating a Legacy of Love, ed. Robert Enright (Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2012), 311-329.

Angela Kueny and Sandra Cardenas

59

__________________________________________________________________

Bibliography Agar, Michael H. The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography (2nd ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2008. Baskin, Thomas and Robert Enright. ‘Intervention Studies on Forgiveness: A Meta-Analysis’. Journal of Counseling and Development 82 (2004): 79-90. Barry, Michael. The Forgiveness Project: The Startling Discovery of How to Overcome Cancer, Find Health, and Achieve Peace. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal Publications, 2011. Cantacuzino, Marina. ‘The Forgiveness Project’ last modified 2014, Viewed 16 May 2014, http://theforgivenessproject.com. Couper, David, Rev. ‘Forgiveness in the Community: Views from an Episcopal Priest and Former Chief of Police’, in Exploring Forgiveness, edited by Robert D. Enright, Joanna North, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 121-130. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998. Dewalt, Mark W. Amish Education in the United States and Canada. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Education, 2006. DiBlasio, Frederick, Everett Worthington Jr., and David Jennings. ‘Forgiveness Interventions with Children, Adolescents, and Families’, In Spiritual Interventions in Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy, edited by Donald Walker and William Hathaway, 233-258. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2013. Deitsch, Vella. Kollah Buch Coloring Book Containing Small Stories in Pennsylvania Deitsch. Y.B.S. and Co. Enright, Robert. ‘Giving Forgiveness Away to Our Children and in Our Communities’, In The Forgiving Life: A Pathway to Overcoming Resentment and Creating a Legacy of Love, ed. Robert Enright, 311-329. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 2012. Gambaro, Marie E. ‘School-Based Forgiveness Education in the Management of Trait Anger in Early Adolescents’. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2002.

60

Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness

__________________________________________________________________ Gassin, Elizabeth, Robert D. Enright and Jeanette Knutson. ‘Bringing Peace to the Central City: Forgiveness in Milwaukee.’ Theory into Practice 44.4 (2005): 319328. Hostetler, John A. Amish Society (4th ed.) Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Hostetler, John A., Steven Nolt, and Ann Hostetler. The Amish. Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press, 2013. Kiefer, Rebecca P., Everett Worthington, Jr., Barbara J. Myers, Wendy L. Kliewar, Jack W. Berry, Don E. Davis, Jordan M. Kilgour Jr., Andrea J. Miller, Daryl R. Van Tongeren, and Jennifer L. Hunter. ‘Training Parents in Forgiving and Reconciling’. The American Journal of Family Therapy 38 (2010): 32-49. Koenig, Harold G. Medicine, Religion, and Health: Where Science and Spirituality Meet. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008. Kraybill, Donald B., Steven M. Nolt, David L. Weaver-Zercher. Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006. Kueny, Angela. ‘‘Both Sides Now’: Considering Forgiveness in Religious and Communal Old Order Amish Traditions’. Agora 26.2: 27-33. Lawler-Row, Kathleen A., Laura Hyatt-Edwards, Karl L. Wuensch, and Johan C. Karremans. ‘Forgiveness and Health: The Role of Attachment’. Personal Relationships 18 (2010): 170-183. Lawler-Row, Kathleen A., Johan C. Karremans, Cynthia Scott, Meirav EdlisMatityahou and Laura Edwards. ‘Forgiveness, Physiological Reactivity and Health: The Role of Anger’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 68(1) (2008): 51-58. Lawler-Row, Kathleen A., Cynthia A. Scott, Rachel L. Raines, Meirav EdlisMatityahou and Erin W. Moore. ‘The Varieties of Forgiveness Experience: Working towards a Comprehensive Definition of Forgiveness’, Journal of Religion and Health 46.2 (2007): 233-248.

Angela Kueny and Sandra Cardenas

61

__________________________________________________________________ Lofland, John, David A. Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006. Luskin, Fred. Forgive for Good: A Scientifically Proven Prescription for Health and Happiness. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc, 2002. Nolt, Steven M. A History of the Amish: Revised and Updated. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003. Paul, Gregory. ‘‘We Must Not Think Evil of This Man’: A Case Study of Amish and English Forgiveness’. Communication Quarterly 60.3 (2010): 424-444. Seeking True Values, LaGrange, IN: Pathway Publishers, 2010. The Power of Forgiveness. Directed by Martin Doblmeier. Documentary Film. Raleigh, NC: Horizon Video Production, 2008. Toussaint, Loren, Mary Overvold-Ronningen, Ann Vincent, Connie Luedtke, Mary Whipple, Tina Shriever, and Frederic Luskin. ‘Implications of Forgiveness Enhancement in Patients with Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’, Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy 16 (2010): 123-139. Touussaint, Loren, David R. Williams, Marc M. Musick, and Susan A. Everson. ‘Forgiveness and Health: Age Differences in a U.S. Probability Sample’. Journal of Adult Development 8.4 (2001): 249-257. Toussaint, Loren L., David R. Williams, Marc. A. Musick, and Susan A. EversonRose. ‘The Association of Forgiveness and 12-Month Prevalence of Major Depressive Episode: Gender Differences in a Probability Sample of U.S. Adults’. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture 11.5 (2008): 485-500. Waldron, Vincent and Kelley, Douglas. Communicating Forgiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2007. Wittmer, John. The Gentle People: An Insider View of Amish Life (3rd ed.), Washington, IN: Black Buggy, Inc., 2006. Worthington, Jr., Everett L. Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Theory and Application. New York, NY: Routlegde, 2006.

62

Old Order Amish Approaches to Teaching Community Forgiveness

__________________________________________________________________ Worthington, Jr., Everett L. The Power of Forgiving. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2005. Zook, Miriam. Lessons from the Clock and Other Helpful Poems for Happy Children. Crockett, Kentucky: Rod and Staff Publishers Inc., 2004. Zuccarini, Dino, Johnson, Susan M., Dalgleish, Tracy L. and Makinen, Judy A. ‘Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Emotionally Focused Therapy for Couples: The Client Change Process and Therapist Interventions’. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 39.2 (2013): 148-162. Angela Kueny is an assistant professor of nursing at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, United States. Her passions lie in providing culturally appropriate care to populations to improve public health. Sandra Cardenas is a nursing student at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, United States. She hopes to pursue a career in research in hopes to decrease barriers between patients and medical staff.

Part II Forgiveness and Revenge: Crimes and Offenses

An Exploration of Relationships between the Propensity to Forgive Severe Offenses, Individual’s Moral Rationales and Their Preferences for Restorative and Retributive Justice Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martínez Abstract Colombia has experienced an internal and long lasting low intensity conflict. Ongoing peace talks between the national government and the main guerrilla groups suggest that this violent conflict may be over during the next years. Post conflict peace building and recovery efforts would imply dealing with reconciliation and forgiveness issues. Therefore, studies to understand the relationship between the propensity to forgive of the population and other factors are important to propose policies that can help in the forthcoming reconciliation process. In this chapter we explore the relationship between the propensity to forgive of individuals who put themselves in the situation of experiencing harm as a result of war actions and their different levels of sociomoral perspectives. In particular, we study the relationship between the propensity to forgive and Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Additionally, we investigate the relationship between the propensity to forgive and people’s preference for either retributive or restorative justice. This chapter also examines within a war context how does the propensity to forgive severe offenses is affected by several circumstances associated with the offense such as the degree of severity of the consequences, the offender’s intention to cause harm, and the presence or absence of transgressor’s actions to repair the consequences of his/her actions. The relationship between the propensity to forgive and several demographic variables was also examined. In contrast with other studies carried out in the past, this study explores new relationships between the propensity to forgive and other factors (such as people’s moral reasoning) involving situations closely related to civil war. A sample of 187 individuals participated in the study. Interviews and questionnaires were used to collect the required data. Key Words: forgiveness, moral development, retributive justice, restorative justice, Colombia, propensity to forgive. ***** 1. Introduction Several empirical studies have been conducted to explore conditions that increase individual’s probability to forgive as well as reasons that make it easier to forgive.1 These conditions include the intent to be harmful, the severity of the consequences, the cancellation of the consequences, and the offender offering an apology.2

66

An Exploration of Relationships

__________________________________________________________________ In this study, we draw upon the work of several researchers 3 that are based on a developmental model of forgiveness initially developed by Enright et al.4 which in turn is underpinned by Kohlberg’s conception of the stages of moral development. Nonetheless, this study differs from previous ones on several aspects. The population of interest lives in Colombia, the material used to elicit people’s responses to issues of forgiveness was related to a war context, we aimed at relating the propensity of individuals to forgive to conceptions of retributive and restorative justice, and we attempted to relate Kohlberg’s stages of moral development to the individual’s propensity to forgive. 2. Conditions that Favour Forgiveness Principally based on a study carried out by Murcia-Pinilla and Rojas-Berrío5 in Colombia, we decided to study the effect of the following factors on the propensity to forgive: a. Severity of the consequences. The less severe the consequences were, the easier it would be for the victim to forgive. b. Intention to be harmful. The absence of an intention to cause damage favours forgiveness. c. Reparation. If the individual who causes the damage takes actions to repair this damage, it would be easier for the victim to forgive. Additionally this study examines the relationship between the following variables and the propensity to forgive: age, religious beliefs, attendance frequency to religious services, gender, parent’s education level, and dependency level on parents. By dependency on parents we meant to measure if students were still living with them. 3. Retributive and Restorative Justice We distinguish between two types of justice: retributive justice and restorative justice. While retributive justice focuses on punishing the offender, restorative justice intends to bring victim and offender to talk and develop an agreement about how to ‘make things right’ for both victims and offenders.6 The following image, based on Zehr’s work,7 presents a contrast between the restorative and retributive justice paradigms. 4. The Measurement of Moral Judgement We used the so-called Standard Moral Judgment Interview and Scoring System as a means of measuring position on a developmental sequence developed by Kohlberg (1984). As a result, we are focusing on the subject’s moral interpretations and not on the moral quality of their behaviour, although both elements may be correlated. Moral interpretations might affect a subject’s moral conduct and this conduct can affect his/her moral beliefs.

Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martínez

67

__________________________________________________________________

Image 1: Contrast between the restorative and retributive justice paradigms © 2014. Courtesy of Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martínez Kohlberg8 proposes six moral stages that might be grouped in three levels: ‘preconventional level (Stages 1 and 2), conventional level (Stages 3 and 4), and principled or postconventional level (Stages 5 and 6)’.9 While individuals at the preconventional level have not truly understood and uphold socially shared moral expectations and norms, subjects at the conventional level fully understand and uphold socially shared systems of moral norms, rules, and roles.10 Colby et al. 11 argue that only a minority of adults reach the postconventional level and that happens usually after the age of 20-25. Those who reach the post-conventional level, base their acceptance of society’s rules on general moral principles. Therefore, when society’s rules come into conflict with the moral principles that underlie them, they use the principles to make their judgements and take relevant decisions. A detailed description of the stages can be found in Colby et al. 12 Colby et al.13 developed a set of dilemmas and a standardized scoring technique that allows each individual’s classification according to their answers. In this study, we employed Dilemma VIII, which is focused on morality and conscience. Dilemma VIII was of particular interest because it is about a man, who has broken the law, and is trying to reincorporate himself into society after escaping from jail without completing his sentence.14 5. Material and Procedure The material that was given to the interviewees included:

68

An Exploration of Relationships

__________________________________________________________________ - Part A. Eight stories were written on cards, where the interviewee had to answer if he/she would have forgiven the offender under the circumstances described in each story. - Part B. A moral dilemma and a set of questions that allow researchers to classify the answers according to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. For Part A, each story involved three elements that could be modified in the next order: (a) the degree of severity of the consequences (consequences could slightly or strongly affect the victim), (b) the degree of intent to do damage (no intent at all or clear intent), and (c) intention by the offender to repair the damage he/she has done (no intent to repair or an intent to repair the damage). Hence, each of the aforementioned elements involves two possible values. Therefore, eight combinations (2 x 2 x 2) were possible, so eight stories were used. Below is the representative story used.15 During the Colombian internal conflict anti-personnel mines, bombs, machine guns, grenades, and other types of guns have been used by illegal armed groups. One day Mr(Mrs) Alejandro(a) went up to pick his/her son/daughter Camilo(a) from school. Close to the place they were walking, an explosion occurred and caused some injuries to Alejandro(a) (degree of severity of the consequences). Daniel(a) is a member of an illegal group and he/she put the explosives. It is unknown whether or not he/she decided by himself/herself to put the explosives and the anti-personnel mines close to Camilo(a)’s school (intent to do damage). No one in the community knows if Daniel(a) is willing to speak with Mr(Mrs) Alejandro(a) to find out how he/she could repair the damage he/she did to the victim (information about an intention to carry out reparative actions). Each interviewee had to opportunity to answer each question on a scale printed under each story. The response’s extremes were labelled: ‘Definitely not willing to forgive’, and ‘Definitely willing to forgive’. On Part B each interviewee was first shown a version of Kohlberg’s moral dilemma VIII.16 This version was adapted to the Colombian context to be feasible and local to the interviewees. After reading the moral dilemma, the interviewees were asked to answer eight questions recommended by Colby et al. (1987b). A stratified random sample of 187 university students was selected to answer the interview. The strata were based on the number of semesters that a student has been enrolled at the university. Well known statistical methods were used to calculate the sample size.17 All students studied at the Universidad de los Andes, a university located in Bogota, Colombia.

Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martínez

69

__________________________________________________________________ 6. Results After verifying all relevant statistical assumption, we analysed both Parts A and B of the interview, using their answers to classify the students according to their tendency to prefer retributive or restorative justice. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test statistics were used to study the relationship between the demographic variables and the propensity to forgive. The assumptions that are required to use ANOVA were tested. For instance, Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were used to verify the normality of the distribution of the residuals and Levene tests were employed to assess the equality of variances. When p-values were found to be less than 0.05, the results were considered statistically significant and the null hypotheses were rejected. The data shows a positive correlation between the interviewee’s age and his/her propensity to forgive (p-value=0.0009). The older the person, the higher is his/her propensity to forgive (see Image 1). The analysis of the data also revealed a positive association between the interviewee’s frequency of attendance at religious services and her/his propensity to forgive (p-value=0.0105). The higher the individual’s frequency of attendance at religious services, the more their tendency to forgive (see Image 1). The data also revealed that those students who live with both parents have a higher propensity to forgive in comparison to other students who do not live with both parents (p-value=0.0035) (see Image 1). On the other hand the following factors did not show any statistically significant correlation with the propensity to forgive: number of semesters that a student has been enrolled at the university, religion, gender, socio-economic level, education level of father, and education level of mother. On the other hand we studied which factors exercise the strongest effect on the propensity to forgive. Although all the factors were statistically significant, the reparation of the damages and the intent to harm had the strongest effect (see Image 2). In brief, it appears that if the individual who causes the damage takes actions to repair this damage, it would be easier for the victim to forgive. Also, the absence of an offender’s intention to cause damage favours forgiveness. Finally, the less important or severe the consequences were, the easier it would be for the victim to forgive. No interactions between the factors were statistically significant. Hence, the forgiveness schema seems to be additive. This result agrees with previous studies.18 The answers to part B of the interview allowed the researchers to classify the answers according to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Image 4 shows the distribution of the interviewees according to these stages of moral development.

70

An Exploration of Relationships

__________________________________________________________________

Image 2: Means of the propensity to forgive based on the interviewee’s a) age, b) frequency of attendance at religious services, and c) level of dependency on parents © 2014. Courtesy of Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martínez

Image 3: Main effect of the factors on the propensity to forgive © 2014. Courtesy of Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martínez

Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martínez

71

__________________________________________________________________

Image 4: Distribution of the interviewees’ answers according to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development © 2014. Courtesy of Luis Arturo Pinzon-Salcedo, Natalia Silva and Silvia Martínez Statistical tests, such as the chi-square test for independence, were applied to find out the relationship between Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and the following variables: age, number of semesters that a student has been enrolled at the university, religious beliefs, frequency of attendance at religious services, gender, socio-economic level, education level of parents, and level of dependency on parents. The results suggest a relationship only between Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and the following two variables: age (p-value=0.009) and education level of parents (p-value=0.008). All the other aforementioned variables seem to be independent of the stages of moral development. We also studied the relationship between the propensity to forgive and Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Before studying this relationship using ANOVA, we tested the required assumptions using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and Levene’s test. The data did not fail the assumptions. The ANOVA test rejected the hypothesis of independence of means between the propensity to forgive and Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (pvalue