Brummer's Reconciliation
In Brummer’s writing for reconciliation, certain conditions and aspects of forgiveness control the effectiveness and the realness of the apology. Such as, a broken fellowship is restored through one not condoning the wrongness done to him or her, but when the wrongness is acknowledged and the forgiveness is freely given, the reconciliation can begin to start in that fellowship. For the reason that, forgiveness was given in spite of a crime done to hurt the relationship. Brummer then describes how forgiveness will only be effective if one is truly sorry about the action done and longs to fix the relation that was broken by him or her. This means restoration of a relation cannot be done single-handedly. Forgiveness must be given, but the other
…show more content…
He expresses the point that reconciliation does not come freely. Reconciliation requires penitence and a change of actions from the transgressor, so it also requires forgiveness from the victim. The transgressor must admit his or her wrongdoing and wish to have fellowship with the victim again by changing his or her actions. One must not try to share blame if one is truly seeking forgiveness. Also, forgiveness must be given without seeking retribution or revenge. Brummer then gives two examples of how reconciliation not working both concerning German soldiers. One describing De Graf having to resign after shaking hands with a Nazi, and the other describing Tutu being targeted after asking a Jewish community why they could not forgive German soldiers. This examples are to show that forgiveness and penitence are equal in difficulty. Brummer puts forth the reason that Wiesenthal gave to not forgive a German soldier. The first argument is that the living have no right to accept forgiveness for the dead, and the second is Wiesenthal believed to give forgiveness would in some way lessen the actions done. However, Wiesenthal did not forgive on account of his own resentment,and he seemed to have mixed condonation with forgiveness. A third argument for not forgiving is to enact some kinda of justice, but there is restorative justice. It seems in all three of these arguments the victim did not want to pay the price of reconciliation. For these reasons, the price of reconciliation is an arduous price to pay, and it is hard for anyone to
He expresses the point that reconciliation does not come freely. Reconciliation requires penitence and a change of actions from the transgressor, so it also requires forgiveness from the victim. The transgressor must admit his or her wrongdoing and wish to have fellowship with the victim again by changing his or her actions. One must not try to share blame if one is truly seeking forgiveness. Also, forgiveness must be given without seeking retribution or revenge. Brummer then gives two examples of how reconciliation not working both concerning German soldiers. One describing De Graf having to resign after shaking hands with a Nazi, and the other describing Tutu being targeted after asking a Jewish community why they could not forgive German soldiers. This examples are to show that forgiveness and penitence are equal in difficulty. Brummer puts forth the reason that Wiesenthal gave to not forgive a German soldier. The first argument is that the living have no right to accept forgiveness for the dead, and the second is Wiesenthal believed to give forgiveness would in some way lessen the actions done. However, Wiesenthal did not forgive on account of his own resentment,and he seemed to have mixed condonation with forgiveness. A third argument for not forgiving is to enact some kinda of justice, but there is restorative justice. It seems in all three of these arguments the victim did not want to pay the price of reconciliation. For these reasons, the price of reconciliation is an arduous price to pay, and it is hard for anyone to