This post is good food for thought.
The more I read and think about forgiveness, the more perplexed I am. But for what it's worth, here's one (provisional) thought about the notion of "total forgiveness."
Seems to me that whatever else forgiveness is, it can't be a washing away or even an absolution of the recipient's transgressions. (Absolution MAY be possible, but it oughn't to be conflated with forgiving.) Otherwise, forgiving seems irrelevant, since its necessary (but not sufficient) condition is the presence of a transgression. The act of forgiving doesn't magically erase the transgression. On the contrary, it spotlights it.
There are, of course, psychological, social, and (perhaps) theological dimensions of forgiving. But from an ethical perspective, forgiving seems (minimally) to be a recognition on the forgiver's part that the transgressor is still a human subject, and can't be written off and treated as a "thing" outside the moral community. From the standpoint of the transgressor, being forgiven (minimally) is (1) an opportunity to acknowledge that being a subject, a member of the moral community, carries responsibilities, (2) a recognition that one has fucked up in the past, and (3) a resolution to do better in the future. The fucked-up history always remains. Nothing, neither my forgiveness nor sweet Jesus's, washes it away. But it need not definitively determine one's moral character.
If any of this is correct, I'd think that genuine forgiveness would foster deep-seated humility rather than sanctimoniousness, because the necessary conditions for forgiveness would be a constant reminder to both forgiver and forgiven of their own on-going woundedness. Everybody has fucked up somewhere along the line, and the fact that we can never authentically disown that history tends to deflate a sense of superiority or self-righteousness.
Which makes the evangelical magical trick of getting washed in the blood of the lamb even more pernicious.
Not being familiar with the book, it is difficult for me to comment on its substance and message. However, as to the question of piousness exhibited by some evangelical Christians, I can offer my opinion. Let me also state that I am an evangelical Christian.
Yes, there are a great many evangelicals who just don't get it. They are quick to jump in front of a camera and denounce the poor, downtrodden, homosexual, etc. and quickly forget their own sins. Sins that they committed before accepting Christ, as well as the sins they commit every day. And lets be honest, we (all) commit sin every day. True Christianity, as intended by Jesus Christ, can be distilled into two simple commands - love God and love thy neighbor. Obviously, this is the collective community, not just the persons living next door to you.
Ultimately, loving your neighbor demands foregiveness and humility. The humility of knowing that you are a sinner and need to change yourself and that you are also no better than anyone else. This requires you to accept responsibility for your own actions.
Becoming a believer in Christ also doesn't give you the "right" to turn on your fellow human beings. If anything, it requires that you lend a hand and become an example. Unfortunately, far too often these days, evangelicals in the news are bad examples.
Commenting by HaloScan
