A Critical Response to Heidi C. Giannini

Abstract

In a recent article in this journal, Heidi Giannini (2017) has argued that the Christian doctrines of love and of hope require Christians to endorse universal, unconditional forgiveness, understood in terms of the renunciation of “negative reactive attitudes.” She also addresses criticisms of this interpretation. It is argued that Giannini has failed to provide a Christian justification for universal, unconditional forgiveness. Part of the problem is that she espouses a definition of forgiveness and an understanding of the nature of forgiveness that, as a result of neglecting the teaching of the New Testament, exhibits a number of incoherencies and theological weaknesses. Her account is also vulnerable to philosophical and moral criticisms of a serious nature.

Clearing Up Some Misunderstandings: A Reply to L. Philip Barnes

“…At the core of our perceived disagreement is the definition of “forgiveness.” Barnes attributes to me the view that “the full meaning of the sentence ‘I forgive you’ is captured by saying, ‘I am not angry with you’” and that this is how scriptural discussions of God’s forgiveness should be understood (Barnes , 786). Barnes rejects this, especially as an adequate understanding of what is going on in scripture.…”

“…At the least, further reasoning is needed to link my claims to the conclusions Barnes draws. For example, many of Barnes’s subsequent criticisms seem to hinge on the idea that, by forswearing anger, victims are precluded from “recalibrat[ing] the nature of the relationship between victim and offender as a consequence of offenses” (Barnes , 784–792). But I don’t see why, for I see no reason why forswearing anger is incompatible with the victim taking some “negative actions” toward the wrongdoer .…”

“…I maintain that giving attention to the hoped‐for outcome (the wrongdoer becoming good) will prevent us from seeing the wrongdoer solely as an antagonist to be opposed and thus foster the forswearing of anger. Barnes takes this to imply that wrongdoers should be “viewed as good persons” (Barnes , 784–792). But that is precisely what I deny.…”

“…I would like to add one final point of clarification. In passing, Barnes remarks that I want to “defend the notion that unconditional, universal forgiveness upholds self‐respect in all cases” (Barnes , 784–792). Perhaps I was unclear on this point in my original essay, but this isn’t quite right.…”

“…Barnes asks that I provide examples of actions that express negative reactive attitudes in order to “help the interpretative task” (, 784–792). Here are some everyday examples: yelling while the listener is nearby, glaring dramatically, slamming one’s fists into things to no practical end, and all the rest of the signs that communicate anger and resentment in our day‐to‐day lives.…”