Hope as Grounds for Forgiveness

Abstract

It is widely assumed that Christianity enjoins its followers to practice universal, unconditional forgiveness. But universal, unconditional forgiveness is regarded by many as morally problematic. Some Christian scholars have denied that Christianity in fact requires universal, unconditional forgiveness, but I believe they are mistaken. In this essay, I show two things: (1) that Christianity does enjoin universal, unconditional forgiveness of a certain sort, and (2) that Christians, and perhaps other theists, are always justified in exercising unconditional forgiveness. Though most philosophers treat forgiveness as grounded in our beliefs about the offender's current state, I argue that we might more fruitfully ground forgiveness in hope for the wrongdoer. Christianity's commitment to the existence of an omnipotent God who is concerned about the moral status of His creatures always justifies such hope and thus always justifies forgiveness.

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

“…Forswearing is committing myself to work against my anger. I made this point, though briefly, in my article (Giannini , 78). And here again it seems I agree with Barnes: one can be angry with someone while loving them.…”

“…Following Eleonore Stump (, 325–6), I distinguished two senses of the English word “forgiveness.” Sometimes it is used to nominate the forswearing of negative reactive attitudes (for brevity’s sake, I will sometimes refer to all of these as “anger”); sometimes it is used to nominate reconciliation (Giannini , 63–4). I stressed that both usages are correct and that forgiveness, in the latter sense of reconciliation, may well be conditional.…”

“…I stressed that both usages are correct and that forgiveness, in the latter sense of reconciliation, may well be conditional. I also acknowledged that scriptural discussions of forgiveness appear to be about something more like reconciliation and to advocate conditional forgiveness (Giannini , 60–1).…”

“…And here again it seems I agree with Barnes: one can be angry with someone while loving them. Forswearing anger toward a person is incompatible with deliberately stoking my anger towards them, or even being ambivalent about it, but not merely experiencing it (Giannini , 66). Thus I did not, as Barnes seems to think, take the position that experiencing any anger toward a person is incompatible with having forgiven them.…”

“…I take it for granted that, given the value Christianity places on loving one’s neighbor, Christians ought to hope that wrongdoers become good. Contemporary analyses of hope have persuaded me that hope includes giving attention to the hoped‐for outcome as well as a “hedged reliance” on that outcome (Martin , 24; Giannini , 75). 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.…”