© Barbara Coeyman
22 April 2001
First UU Church of Austin
4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756
www.austinuu.org
The Sunflower: A Story of Forgiveness
I want to tell you a story this morning about a man named Simon. Well, it’s actually a story about forgiveness. So before I tell you about Simon, I want to ask you:
Who could explain to me what forgiveness is?…
Could one person tell me someone you’d like to forgive, or maybe did forgive?
Could one person tell me about how you’ve been forgiven by someone else?
Well let me tell you about Simon. This story is true, and it happened about 60 years ago, during a very bad time in the world, during the Holocaust. In the Holocaust millions of Jewish people were put in Nazi prisons-what they called concentration camps-and many were killed.
Simon was a young Jewish man from Poland. Simon was confined to a concentration camp. One day he was called from his work detail at a hospital to the bedside of Karl, who was an SS officer from Stuttgart. That is, Karl was part of the people who persecuted the Jews. Karl was 21 and he was dying after being wounded in fighting.
When Simon walked into Karl’s room, Karl was clutching a letter from his mother and he was crying. He knew he was dying. He also knew that he had done many horrible things to many Jewish people, including setting a house on fire and shooting some of the people who tried to run out of the burning house. Karl felt very guilty. He wanted to talk to a Jew like Simon because he said he wanted to die in peace. So he asked Simon if Simon, on behalf of all the millions of Jews in Europe, would forgive him for all these Horrible things he had done. He thought that if Simon would forgive he, he could die in peace.
Simon was so startled by this story, that he didn’t know what to say to Karl. So he said nothing. He walked away and said he’d come back tomorrow to talk about Karl’s Request some more.
That night, when Simon got back to the concentration camp, he couldn’t stop – Talking about this scene with Karl to his friends, and he couldn’t sleep that night. He was so torn about whether he should tell Karl he forgave him.
Before I finish the story of Simon, I was just wondering: what would any of you have done if you had been Simon? Would you have forgiven this man who did many horrible things to you or your family or your people?
Well, let me tell you how the story ended. When Simon went back to Karl’s bed the next day, he found it empty. Karl had died during the night. Simon never gave Karl the chance to be forgiven before Karl died.
Simon was one of the lucky Jews. He survived the Holocaust. And he lost a lot more than one night’s sleep over Karl’s request. This incident with Karl haunted him for years afterwards, so much that he wrote a book about this. He called this book The Sunflower, because the story reminded him of fields of sunflowers that were near the hospital and the concentration camp. The sun- flowers reminded him of life and hope and beauty which can survive, even through horrible events like the Holocaust.
So I want you to take Simon’s story away with you, and think about someone you’d like to forgive, or maybe someone who you’d like to be forgiven by. And how hard forgiveness can sometimes be.
Forgiveness is Possible
Dr. Loehr is at the southwest district meeting this weekend. This is the first time I’ve been in this pulpit since I received the invitation to Portland next year. It’s hard to believe that it’s only been a little over two years since I preached my first sermon from this pulpit. I am thankful for the many opportunities this and other UU churches here in central Texas have provided me to hone my ministerial skills. I’m also looking forward to challenges awaiting me in Portland.
Recently one of my seminary profs gave a pep talk to us seniors about to enter ministry. He reminded us that worship services and sermons can vary a great deal, from individual to individual and from Sunday to Sunday. Some services, he said, seem like the finest four-star meal at Fonda San Miguel. Other services are more like take-out from MacDonalds…… I’ll leave it to each of you to decide how you are nourished this morning.
I want to frame my sermon on forgiveness with two readings. The first, by Raymond Baughan, is short, but may pull us into a framework for thinking about forgiveness.
When my anger’s over
may the world be young again
as after the rain –
the cool clean promise
and the dance of branches glistening green
– Raymond John Baughan: The Sound of Silence, 1965
I want to tell you about an experience I had about six years ago with some church friends back in Pittsburgh which could have used some forgiveness. An ad-hoc committee planned to re-organize our church’s music program. Things were going along really well, when suddenly our planning fell apart, I think largely because of a few avoidable mis-communications. Ill feelings over music carried into other parts of church life. The music program was never reorganized and several of us lost valued friendships, I suspect for good.
All five of us on the committee probably messed up. Thinking back, there were Things each of us could have done to help the mix-up. For myself, I probably took the incident more seriously than some others. I felt lots of emotion because I really liked the people on this committee and was sad to loose their friendship. I wanted to make amends, but for whatever reasons, we didn’t. I hoped for wholeness, but relationships were broken. I wanted to forgive and be forgiven, but it was not to be. But I didn’t push toward forgiveness because some others on the committee did not feel the same need I did. We had really different understandings of forgiveness. Given that we were in a church context, like Simon in our ‘Sunflower’ story, I started to feel confused about forgiveness. If you don’t find forgiveness at church, where can you find it?
This music incident certainly was not as serious as the harm of Jews Simon was asked to forgive. In our musical problems, no one was physically hurt, even though there was emotional distress. But the incident started me thinking about forgiveness. Why did forgiveness seem so remote, so ungraspable? What is the role of forgiveness in the personal, social, religious, and political communities we live in?
As part of a course on liberal ethics at the UU seminary Meadville/Lombard in Chicago this past January, I returned to the topic forgiveness. I was quite surprised when my research yielded little about forgiveness in the context of liberal religion and ethics. I looked in various Unitarian Universalist materials. For example, forgiveness is not mentioned in our seven principles: like the word ‘love,’ which is also not in the principles, ‘forgiveness’ seems like an allusive quality. There are several hymns and readings on forgiveness in the UU hymnal, but there’s also not much about forgiveness on the UU web- site. Even that liberal ethics course included very little on forgiveness.
What was this all about? Was this situation in Pittsburgh purely personal and isolated: that is, was that break-down just something about us? Or was there something about that particular church context? Or, is there something more pervasive in liberal ethics and religion which skirts the topic of forgiveness?
CHARACTERISTICS OF FORGIVENESS
I thought I might find better answers to my search if I understood better what forgiveness looks like. Forgiveness can be situated in so many different contexts-in spirituality, in ethics, in religion, in psychology. Forgiveness is explained by a variety of criteria. Let’s review some of these.
For one, the theologian Paul Tillich explains forgiveness as continuing to accept one who has hurt us. Forgiveness is a process involving two individuals or groups between whom there has been an injury, trespass, other offense significant enough to require resolution (Kushner). Forgiveness can occur between individuals, or in a community such as a church, or among larger units such as nations. One-sided forgiveness is possible, but not as effective as mutual forgiveness. Forgiveness can also be of the self, as if the self is divided into two parties. Sometimes self-forgiveness is the most difficult: we tend to be hard on ourselves, we often have trouble lightening up. Tillich also keeps forgiveness in check. Some harms are not severe enough for forgiveness: it’s important to know which harms should be forgotten, not forgiven. Clearly, Karl’s offenses against Jews were not forgetable.
Second, Forgiveness involves both admitting wrongdoing and accepting admission of wrongdoing from the other: forgiving and being forgived. Harold Kushner hopes that admission of wrongdoing takes the form of guilt-that is, judgment of self about the act precipitating forgiveness-and not shame-judgment from others that the core nature of other people is rotten.
Circumstances calling for forgiveness are often located in parts of ourselves involving intense creativity or emotion: like work, parenting, sex, and mortality. These areas are all very much a part of the human condition. Nevertheless, we often tend to apologize for wanting forgiveness in these core parts of life.
Also, Forgiveness is intentional. We CAN choose not to forgive. Mutual intentionality is best-both parties want forgiveness-but sometimes forgiveness is for one side only, as already mentioned. For example, incest is often described in terms of one-sided forgiveness, important for the victims but not the perpetrators. Sometimes forgiveness is not appropriate at all- there may be serious injury we choose not to forgive (Rodney Jones poem). But it is also important to remember that forgiving is NOT forgetting. If we forget, we risk repeating past wrongs. If we forget, we miss the process of transformation which forgiveness makes possible.
Finally, thus we see that forgiveness is practical, or I like to describe it as performative. We can’t just think forgiveness, we need to do it. Doing for- giveness brings about changes to relationships. Forgiveness can re-stabilize a temporarily broken relationship. Forgiveness leads to RECONCILIATION. Forgiveness makes a future possible. Forgiveness helps us get rid of grudges and find peace.
FORGIVENESS IN LIBERAL THOUGHT
Even after considering all these dimensions of forgiveness, I still wonder about the absence of forgiveness in liberal religious and ethical thought. I admit that as I read Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower I sensed that forgiveness was a much more common part of both Jewish and Christian cultures in the 1940s than I know today in our postmodern culture. In fact, maybe forgiveness is not so much a religious or ethical issue today, but instead a culture one. Maybe we postmodern humans just don’t do forgiveness these days?
At the risk of over-generalizing, could we critique a collective liberal position regarding forgiveness for a few minutes. Is there something about a liberal mindset which is less than compatible with forgiveness? Can you see your- self in any of these possibilities?
Historically, liberal faith has represented self-reliance and independence of the human spirit. Might these qualities work against admitting culpability and wrongdoing in situations which require forgiveness?
Also, if we misunderstand forgiveness to mean forgetting, we might thus equate forgiveness with giving up control. My Pittsburgh friends could not accept MY forgiving them because to do so would have meant admitting that THEY were also affected by our broken relationship: they would have had to admit that they too were vulnerable, to being hurt and also to hurting others.
Also, while the principles of Unitarian Universalism theoretically promote respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all persons, is there ever any time when we exercise our respect categorically? Do we decide that some per- sons may be more worthy of respect and thus forgiveness than others? Sometimes I wonder if we confuse inherent worth with tangible worth.
Perhaps most persuasively, for seekers in liberal religion, forgiveness may be associated with other religious experiences based on admission of original sin, confession, and general human inadequacy. Usually in religions which advance such theologies, forgiveness is generated only by God rather than humans. In contrast, the liberal view grants humans much more agency and control in forgiveness, but we may shy away from talking about forgiveness at all because of past experiences with this more incriminating approach.
FINDING VIABLE SOURCES
While any of my proposals about forgiveness and liberal views might be theoretically true to some extent, I also know that there are many forgiving persons in our community, indeed, in this sanctuary this very Sunday morning. So rather than categorize or rationalize too much, I’m willing to chalk up that Pittsburgh incident to individual circumstances. However, I also don’t want to back down on my observation that forgiveness could be much more in evidence in our written materials and our worship practices. I’m beginning to find many resources which I think could be applied to and adopted by Unitarian Universalism.
I’ve had some moving forgiveness experiences recently in both Yom Kippur and Christian worship services, and read about forgiveness in bestsellers such as Gary Zukav’s The Seat of the Soul. But the most stimulating ideas about forgiveness I’ve found recently appear in two books. The first is a rather scholarly work by Donald Shriver, former president of Union Seminary in New York City. In a book called An Ethic for Enemies, Shriver discusses forgiveness in Politics-and he doesn’t mean just in Florida. Shriver envisions forgiveness between nations and other large groups of people. Forgiveness and justice are closely related. His thesis is that ‘the leftover debris’ which ‘clogs the relationship of diverse groups of humans around the world’ will never clear up until forgiveness enters these relationships. – Shriver refers frequently to Rodney King’s plea after the Los Angeles race riots that we all get along. Without forgiveness, Shrivers reminds us, we will repeat the crimes of our ancestors.
Shriver’s theory is already being implement in South Africa, where forgiveness is the core of Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Tutu derived forgiveness from his Ubuntu (U-BUN-tu) theology. Ubuntu theology might be a worthy inspiration for liberal western forgiveness. Meaning ‘humanity,’ ‘Ubuntu’ theology believes that religion and politics cannot be separated. Ubuntu promotes community, interdependence, and mutual support, unlike the typical western ideology of independence, self-sufficiency, and hierarchy. Ubuntu’s central tenet sounds a lot like UU’s 7th principle: that we promote respect for the interdependent web of life of which we are all a part.
Wrote Desmond Tutu: –
… I have gifts that you do not have, so, consequently, I am unique. You have gifts that I have, so you are unique. God has made us so that we will need each other. We are made for a delicate network of interdependence. (Tutu 35).
However, Community cannot be sustained without forgiveness, even forgiveness toward perpetrators of apartheid. Desmond Tutu’s recent book title tells it all: No Future without Forgiveness. There is no future if we don’t confront past hurt and injury. Unresolved conflict will destroy God’s community. The humans in God’s community must take responsibility for forgiveness. –
*******
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
How can we become even more forgiving? Since love and forgiveness are integrally related, a proactive mentality toward forgiveness can help us live more lovingly with everyone, even if we do not have specific wrongdoing to work through. Sherrill’s song?
If I had known Desmond Tutu’s vision of forgivenness a few years ago, how might I have dealt differenlty with my friends in Pittsburgh?
-Tutu’s political base might have reminded me not to shy away from issues which require forgiveness, even if we suspect that the other party could hold power over us. In not confronting these issues, we actually reinforce the power and never find forgiveness. – –
– Tutu would have reminded me not to forget about the incident. Forgetting risks repeating past wrongs. – –
– Tutu may have reminded me that if one person hurts, all persons of a community hurt. Ubuntu might have inspired me to re-write our seventh principles, to read something like this: we promote ‘respect for the interdependent web of existence which is sustained by hope for the future through forgiveness and reconciliation.’
So as we asked the children earlier, let us ask ourselves again, who would you like to forgive? Is there anyone you would like forgiveness from? Forgiveness IS possible, and thus a future of reconciliation, hope, and love. For our closing frame, listen to these words of Sara Moores Campbell: – –
… when we invite the power of forgiveness, we release ourselves from some of the destructive hold the past has on us. Our hatred, our anger, our need to feel wronged – those will destroy us, whether a relationship is reconciled or not.
But we cannot just will ourselves to enter into forgiveness, either as givers or receivers. We can know it is right and that we want to do it, and still not be able to.
However, We can be open and receptive to the power of forgiveness, which, like any gift of the spirit, isn’t of our own making. Its power is rooted in love.a transcendent power that lifts us out of ourselves. It transforms and heals; and even when we are separated by time or space or death, it reconciles us to ourselves and to Life. For its power abides not just between us but within us. If we invited the power of love to heal our personal wounds and give us the gift of forgiveness, we would give our world a better chance of survival. (Montgomery 43).
***********
CONCLUSION
Archbishop Tutu believes we have no future without forgiveness. What lies in your future, in your personal relationships, in your community and church life, in your hope for our state and our nation and the world.
