On my wall at home I have a newspaper with the headline from that attack 79 years ago. The day, according to FDR, would be a day that would live in infamy. And, to some extent, it has. We still remember the stories, at least. We still have a memorial over the battleship, the USS Arizona, sunk in a surprise attack on a Sunday morning in 1941. "Infamy" is being "infamous" -- well-known and not in a good way. But we aren't as outraged at the Japanese anymore. And that's not a bad thing.
In 1941 Japan sent an attack force 4,000 miles from their home to sneak in and launch an air raid on unsuspecting American armed forces in Hawaii. They sunk or damaged 21 naval vessels (including 8 battleships) and destroyed more than 188 aircraft, but more than that, 2,400 Americans were killed -- roughly the same number as the deaths from the 9/11 attack. They say time heals all wounds. Well, maybe. Perhaps it is time that has healed the anger Americans felt after that attack on Pearl Harbor. But "forgotten" isn't necessarily forgiven. I suppose it's just that the event is so far removed that it isn't personal anymore.
In our current climate, though, it seems odd that we'd let that go. It seems odd that we'd be trading partners with Japan. It seems odd that we'd be allies with Japan ... and Germany and Italy. It seems odd because we are long past forgiveness for modern sins. A "microaggression" or a youthful crime or a view that was acceptable at the time but is no more will get you fired, frozen out, and flamed. Say goodbye to any more work. We can forgive the Japanese for 2,400 deaths and we can forgive the terrorists from 9/11 for so many deaths but we will not forgive a modern sexist or even an historic one. Strange sense of righteous indignation.
Jesus said, "If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matt 6:14-15) We don't decide what others will do, but we ought to be careful, as believers, to forgive. Often. From the heart. Whether it's a Japanese attack 79 years ago or a terrorist attack from 2001 or a personal slight from this morning.
9 comments:
Though I know your point concerns forgiveness, I can't see how I could feel any personal affront by the attack on Pearl Harbor. I wasn't even alive at the time, so I don't see how I have any reason to hold animosity toward those who themselves are mostly not alive now.
The idea that one might hold a grudge against another for crimes against one's people also strikes me as inappropriate. I can be wary of those who are aligned with criminal perpetrators...say, radical muslims aligned with those who perpetrated the 9/11 crimes...but that's not the same as lacking forgiveness. Again, I wasn't a victim of that crime personally, so forgiving someone for committing a crime not perpetrated against me personally doesn't seem to be my obligation.
On a side note, I've always struggled with the "forgive and forget" platitude. Is that Biblical? Is there some verse which comes to mind which addresses the "forget" half of that equation (I've never tried to research it thus far)? Is it even possible to at some point in time actually forget a transgression has occurred (I'm referring to serious examples specifically) as if it never happened? It's clearly irrational given how it makes one vulnerable to a second occurrence, but I would imagine such a thing is merely a posturing we're to assume.
On the side note, I've always been fascinated by those that argue that God forgets our sins. "Wait," I think, "you mean I know something He doesn't?" The "forgive and forget" concept comes from a passage in Isaiah. God speaking says, "I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins." (Isa 43:25) There it is, plain as day. Except that it violates Scripture (God knows all things). As it turns out, "not remember" is not the same as "forget." The actual intent of the word is "call to mind." He says in that passage that He won't call it up again and not that He will forget it. (We used to word the term "remember" that way, too. Like, "Hey, Bob, remember me to your wife.") So, like you, I discard the "forgive and forget" requirement, but I shouldn't be calling it up every time we meet, so to speak. "I've forgiven you, but that doesn't mean I need to make the same stupid mistakes and trust you," might be what it looks like sometimes.
Well said. It aligns with my general sense of the issue. I'm left wondering if the expression was ever intended to mean anything else. That is, too proceed as if forgotten as opposed to literally forgotten.
I don't think it was intended to be anything else, taking into account the description of love (1 Cor 13) that includes, "does not keep account of wrongs." (1 Cor 13:5) Not "erases," but "not keeping accounts."
Now I'm confused. If "not remember" is not the same as "forget", then "forgive and forget" isn't Biblical. Just the same, I'm still more interested in the actual intended meaning of the phrase, which I believe means only to act is if the transgression is forgotten...to treat the transgressor as if the transgression was never perpetrated, so as to fully move on from the episode in which it took place and to re-establish the trust the victim once had for the transgressor. This would be an observable manifestation of the victim's forgiveness toward the transgressor.
I would also add that it seems to me there's a very fine line between not keeping an account of wrongs and erasing them. If one is wronged a second time, one will surely recall the first time, and thus the account was kept after all. More so should a third take place. Thus, I think it's a posturing we're to assume, regardless of the origin of the phrase.
Now I'm confused. I was agreeing with you and simply expanding the idea. "Not remember" is "I won't bring it up to you; I won't throw it in your face." It is not "forget" as in "I retain no knowledge of it." "Forgive and forget" is not biblical. But it would now appear that you are suggesting that "forget" is the right thing, that "does not keep accounts of wrongs" means "erases them from my mind." I guess I just can't keep up.
It seems like "not remember" is a choice that God makes which is to our benefit. A God who "can't remember" or "forgets" is a God who is not omniscient. A God who knows, but chooses not to bring our sins up, seems supremely merciful.
I think the "not remember" is in regards to His relationship with us. That is, "I won't bring it up to you again" as opposed to "I've completely forgotten about it." In the same way, we're supposed to "not take into account wrongs" which doesn't mean "I've completely forgotten about them," but "I won't bring it up to you again." It does not mean -- for God or us -- "I don't know what manner of person you are." If someone (say, me) has a problem with the sin of X, I want God to remember that so He can help me out of the problem of X rather than forgetting.
I completely agree. I've had that conversation with one of my kids where I had to say to him something like, "I'm choosing to draw a line right here and I'm choosing to focus on the future not the past.". That's why I said that God "not remembering" is an act of grace toward us. I was emphasizing the fact that I see it as Him making a choice not to remember as opposed to Him being unable to remember.
I probably didn't express it well.
Post a Comment