Heather N. feels strongly about forgiveness: That it shouldn’t be mandated, and in some cases can be harmful.
—
So, yesterday I read Tom Gualteiri’s article at GMP titled, “Should We Forgive the President of ‘Gay Conversion Camp’ Exodus International?” My very short answer to that question is, “no.” The longer answer is, of course, a little more complicated. My “no” isn’t an objection to forgiving Alan Chambers; my “no” is an objection to the idea that we should forgive Alan Chambers. I generally find it problematic whenever we ask whether the public should forgive a public figure for whatever unacceptable thing they have done. In these sorts of situations, there are no shoulds. Forgiveness is a highly individual act dependant on a highly individual relationship (or lack thereof) between you and whomever you are being asked to forgive.
My position is not one in which I can really give or withhold forgiveness from Chambers. Or rather, my doing so (one way or the other) has no real effect; it is an empty gesture. I do not know Chambers and I have not been directly harmed by Exodus International, though I have been indirectly harmed by the ideas Exodus International promoted. I am part of the group maligned by Exodus and Chambers, but I was not an individual harmed by them. For it to have any real weight, forgiveness would need to come from the individuals harmed, not from others who share the same identity as those harmed.
In fact, in some ways my forgiveness of Chambers could be harmful, in the long run. The one effect my forgiveness would have would be to perpetuate the notion that if you say and do horrible things and then apologise for them, there is an expectation that those harmed by you will forgive you. I reject that idea because I don’t think the onus is on those who were harmed to forgive those who did the harming. Plus, if every time someone apologises we forgive them that really takes all meaning out of the act of forgiveness.
To be fair, Gualteiri’s article points out that Chambers saying “sorry,” isn’t really enough. Chambers’ opinions about homosexuality are still potentially harmful and still steeped in “traditional” notions of homosexuality as a sin. For Gualteiri, Chambers’ sincere apology is enough for him to be forgiven, if not forgotten.
————-
Gualteiri’s article talks about forgiveness as being a necessary step to living a life of self-love and peace. It also implies that the only other option is angry resentment, which is an undesirable state of being. As with most binaries, I reject it; I disagree that those are the only two options.
I am, in many ways, an angry person. Anyone who has read much of what I’ve written here at GMP has probably seen my anger bleed through to my writing on occasion. To quote the character Anita Blake in Cerulean Sins, “I enjoy my anger.” Though, that’s not entirely true; it’s more accurate to say I am familiar with my anger. I understand my anger; I know where it comes from and where it is directed.
I am not, however, a resentful person. I do, of course, sometimes feel resentment; I am human after all. But I wouldn’t describe myself as particularly prone to resentment, not like I am anger. In this particular instance I am angry but not resentful. I’m angry that Exodus International was ever founded. I’m angry it kept its doors open for so many decades. I’m angry that Chambers and the others in charge took so long to finally figure out the harm they were causing. I’m angry that Chambers still thinks that homosexuality is a sin, even after all that. And I am angry to such an extent that I have no forgiveness for Chambers or anyone else at Exodus International. The thing about forgiveness is that it requires active effort on the part of the person who forgives and I just cannot be asked to make that effort.
I do not resent them, though. I don’t wish harm on any of them. I’m not secretly hoping Chambers and the rest get into a car crash or something like that. I recognise that, as Gualtieri’s article mentions, Chambers and the others at Exodus have been influenced by social, cultural and religious ideologies which they are not responsible for creating.
I feel pity for Chambers because he still views his own sexuality as a cross to bear and a demon to be wrestled with. I pity him in the same way I pity Steve Gersham, who is a Catholic man who wrote an article about his struggle with his sexuality. The difference, of course, is that Gersham isn’t running a huge ex-gay ministry, though he is promoting those ideas on his website. The thing is, I can pity Chambers and Gersham without forgiving them, and I can be angry with them without resenting them.
—
photo by 2Thin2Swim / flickr
Just want to be clear that I’m not really saying we SHOULDN’T forgive Chambers. It’s one of those things where I might be disagreeing with Tom Gualteiri’s piece, but I’m not really critiquing it either. It’s just two different ways of looking at it, I guess. Just want to throw that out there.
Good article, Heather. I think you’re right, there is a tendency for forgiveness to be used (in both the public and private arenas) in this one-sided, rather cheap way. In this case, it seems to be manifesting in a tendency to treat the public apology for Chambers as the only necessary criterion for forgiveness to take place. In practice, it’s much more complicated than that. I was the cause of some hurt to a dear friend of mine recently. How I handled this situation was by clearly acknowledging that I was at fault, apologising as unfancifully and unambiguously as possible,… Read more »
“It’s more accurate to say I am familiar with my anger. I understand my anger; I know where it comes from and where it is directed.”
Myself, (as someone who doesn’t often like to admit I get angry) I really admire someone who takes a moment to look at their anger objectively, and to even acknowledge anger in general; and not just pass it off, or try to dress it up as righteousness (even when they are right), or emboss it with so much more hyperbole. Insight fosters trust, and trust fosters empathy. IMHO.
“The thing about forgiveness is that it requires active effort on the part of the person who forgives”
Not to play devil’s advocate, but shouldn’t it also require reciprocal effort from the one seeking pardon, as well? Specifically, not just effort, but again -reciprocal- effort. Otherwise, it’s still just two people talking past each other, forgiveness or no. Not that I want to make an argument for pure intransigence either…
Thank-you Heather, I found your whole piece and your reasoning very compelling, especially: “Forgiveness is a highly individual act dependant on a highly individual relationship (or lack thereof) between you and whomever you are being asked to forgive… In fact, in some ways my forgiveness of Chambers could be harmful, in the long run. The one effect my forgiveness would have would be to perpetuate the notion that if you say and do horrible things and then apologise for them, there is an expectation that those harmed by you will forgive you… {Gualteiri’s article} talks about forgiveness as being a… Read more »