Forgiveness as a Solution: The Only Sufficient Response

Moral dilemmas arise when inter-human conflicts collide with intra-human struggles. When faced with such a dilemma, the individuals involved are forced to choose a solution. The choice they make depends on both their belief system and their past experiences. For Simon Wiesenthal, as expressed in his book The Sunflower, the dilemma came to an impasse when a dying German SS soldier asked him for forgiveness. Wiesenthal found himself incapable of either granting or denying the request and so remained silent. Throughout the essay, Wiesenthal traces the belief system that resulted in such an impasse: Judaism, the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps, and the societal attitudes of the day. By telling his story, Wiesenthal explains exactly why he could not reply. This does not mean, however, that no other response is possible for an individual caught in such a situation. In this essay, I will seek to answer Wiesenthal’s question from my modern, young, evangelical Christian belief system: when confronted with evil, the only sufficient response is to forgive.

The first clue to this response lies in the very fact that Wiesenthal asks of the reader: “What would you have done?” This question is rooted in the problem of inter-human conflict. By remaining silent, Wiesenthal helped to prolong such a conflict between the Nazis and the Jews and, consequently, between the SS soldier and himself. It is not in human nature, as God created it, to seek conflict. From the earliest Biblical accounts, when Adam and Eve hid from God to avoid confrontation (Genesis 3:8), humans have felt the anguish that discord brings. This is not to deny that humans, as fallen creatures, voluntarily bring conflict into the world. It is to say, however, that those who create or prolong conflict are painfully aware of their decisions. He who has done nothing wrong has no regrets.

Care must be taken when applying this principle to Wiesenthal’s situation. Defining those who have regrets as wrongdoers could easily be misconstrued to accuse Wiesenthal himself of sinning by remaining silent. The answer to this is found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Christ did not condemn those who failed to seek peace, yet called the peacemakers blessed (Matthew 5:9). Wiesenthal committed no wrong by remaining silent, yet he did not seek the ideal. He maintained the status quo when the status quo was clearly unacceptable; remaining silent offered no progress towards the end of conflict. This is why Wiesenthal found himself questioning whether or not his decision was correct.

There are those who would raise the objection that the magnitude of the conflict between humans with which Wiesenthal was faced prevented any individual from progressing toward its solution. To the Christian, however, there can be no gradations of sin. Every human—Nazi or Jew, Christian or atheist—has sinned (Romans 3:23) and is morally equal. This idea can be incredibly difficult to accept in light of the horrendous atrocities committed by the Nazis, yet it is a prerequisite for forgiveness. In the face of dehumanizing evil, it enables both the perpetrator and the victim to once again become human. It is impossible for a victim to truly forgive someone he or she perceives to be on a different moral plane from his or herself. Thus, the establishment of moral equality leads to the possibility of forgiveness.

Others would argue, as Josek in The Sunflower does, that the difference between the individual and the group prohibits the individual from granting forgiveness for the group. If such is the case, it would have been morally impossible for Wiesenthal to grant forgiveness to the soldier. Wiesenthal himself, however, addresses this very argument when he speaks of the German nation. He tells the soldier’s mother that “no German can shrug off the responsibility. Even if he has no personal guilt, he must share the shame of it” (93). Similarly, no Jew could shrug off the burden which the Holocaust laid upon the Jews. The very fact that they were Jewish made individual Jews responsible to answer those questions which society is compelled to ask the victims of such atrocities.

This linkage between the individual and the group gives rise to the other side of the moral dilemma: the intra-human struggle. Despite all attempts to deny it, every individual is inextricably linked with the society of which he or she is a member. The dying SS soldier understood this when he sought forgiveness; if he was only responsible for his own actions, then he could only be forgiven by those he had wronged. By seeking absolution from any Jew, he showed his understanding of the collective nature of the sin he was party to. Thus, his membership in the SS created an internal struggle between his personal beliefs and those beliefs propagated by the group.

Wiesenthal also struggled to reconcile his individuality with the identity of the Jewish group to which he belonged. When this internal struggle collided with the inter-human conflict between Jews and Nazis, Wiesenthal found himself at an impasse. His experiences in the concentration camp, where “God [was] on leave” (8), came face to face with the responsibility to act as a member of the group.

In moral dilemmas such as that faced by Wiesenthal, there are always multiple courses of action available, including the choice to remain silent. Yet forgiveness is the only option which addresses both the inter-human conflict and intra-human struggle found in such a dilemma. Forgiveness makes clear the victim’s desire to end the conflict, restores the victim and perpetrator to the same moral level, recognizes the linkage between individual and group, and gives the individual the ability to speak for the group. No other option—whether it be to refuse to forgive or to remain silent—is able to address each of these issues.

If the individual thus makes the choice to forgive, the only remaining question is where he or she draws the strength to forgive. The answer is again found in the belief system which underlies the decision. For the Christian, the ability to forgive cannot be drawn from human strength because all humans are on the same moral plane. Humanity must therefore turn to a higher power to find forgiveness, as written in the Psalms: “If you, O Lord, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness; therefore you are feared” (Psalm 130:4). Christ’s atoning death enables Christians to extend this forgiveness to all who surround them in this world.

My answer to Wiesenthal’s question is to forgive. I choose forgiveness because only forgiveness can sufficiently address both the inter-human conflict and the intra-human struggle found in the dilemma. And I choose forgiveness by drawing on God’s power and love demonstrated through Christ’s death on the cross for all humanity.

---

This essay was written for my Senior Seminar in response to the question posed by Simon Wiesenthal at the end of his book The Sunflower. I may eventually redraft it in response to the professor’s critiques or your comments here. If so, I’ll probably post it again in the Writings section of the website.