By James Strong
When former NBA all-star Gilbert Arenas sent out an Instagram telling Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling “I’ll be the first to accept ur apology,” his tone seemed more suited for his own self-gratification than as an expression of forgiveness in its highest and most sublime sense. And his conclusion that “forgiveness will destroy racism,” sounds more like a joke a snitch would tell his handler than a comment a child would make to his parent.
The Jesus who cried “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34), is not the Christ because he voiced Arenas’ low standard of forgiveness, but because His authentic and divine sincerity is superior. And the Mohammed who wrote down “Allah forgives what is past” (Qur’an 5:95) and “when angered they forgive.” (Qur’an 42:37), is not the prophet because he had a selfish love for himself that turned his love for God into a soap opera.
Forgiveness in this sense is like a lion’s roar that everyone can hear, but no one requests. It includes no preconditions, it contains no requirements, it incorporates no provisions. Its dewdrops fall on the gentle, as well as the brutal. Its fog encircles the loving as tenderly as it does the hateful.
This kind of forgiveness forgives when you don’t ask for forgiveness and pardons when you don’t want forgiveness. It is completely unconditional and unmerited. You don’t have to cry for it or plead for it, as when a mountain climber falling from a cliff yells for help.
But there is another form of forgiveness, which some may see as more human than divine. This form is closely associated with restorative justice. Restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing harm caused by or revealed by criminal behavior rather than exclusively imposing punishment for the behavior. Punishment is not necessarily abandoned, but some form of restitution is recommended.
Thus, a judge may sentence a 15-year-old who steals paint balls from a Wal-Mart to working at the store for six weeks rather than going to jail for six years. Or a court may order a man who deliberately rams his car into a fruit stand to wash dishes in a soup kitchen rather than spend time in the penitentiary.
Restorative justice is not only practiced in the legal provision, but has now found a home in the backyards of religion and human rights, especially as it relates to forgiveness. And in this arena must we place the issue of whether we should forgive Sterling for his racist remarks. He began the human process of forgiveness when he apologized for his remarks, thus putting forgiveness in the realm of restorative justice.
However, we now know that Sterling made a public apology that seemed sincere on the surface, but which beneath the soggy veneer of blood vessels and veins was insincere. How do we know that? Because Sterling apologized for his first racist remarks by turning around and making a second racist remark.
That is, after issuing a statement apologizing for the racist remarks he made about Blacks to his mistress Vanessa Stiviano and asking for forgiveness, he went on CNN’s Anderson Cooper show and said “some of the African-Americans, maybe I’ll get in trouble again, they don’t want to help anybody.” And about basketball great Magic Johnson, he said that “[Jews] want to help people. If they don’t have the money, we’ll loan it to you. If you don’t have interest, one day you’ll pay us back. I’m just telling you. [Johnson] does nothing, it’s all talk!”
I guess you could say that was a sincere apology, as it showed that his first apology was clothed in the torn and tattered slogans of deception. It also confirms what discrimination lawsuits against Sterling over the years filed by former NBA basketball star Elgin Baylor and others have claimed:
That Sterling’s gifts of free Clippers basketball tickets to inner city kids were motivated by deceit; that his relationship with his basketball players was tainted with guile; and that the awards he received from the NAACP and other civil rights groups were grounded in false impressions.
All these revelations make Arenas’ statement that he forgives Sterling seem like the utterance of man with a smudge of ignorance on his lips. If a person’s apology is sincere, then we are obligated to forgive. But if a person’s apology is insincere, we should not forgive. Hence, because Sterling’s apology was insincere, we should not accept his apology or forgive him for the racist remarks that occasioned the apology,
Furthermore, while forgiveness in the higher sense, as evidenced by Christ and the prophet Mohammed, does not require punishment, forgiveness in this lower sense, which is based on restorative justice, may require punishment.
In Sterling’s case, because his dishonesty, deception, racism and insincerity date back to the 1970s and beyond, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver was correct in giving him a lifetime ban from the NBA, fining him $2.5 million and ordering him to sell his ownership rights in the Clippers.
Besides, if you don’t punish Sterling, you might as well give murderers and child molesters a sentence of probation when they make insincere apologies regarding their crimes. Just return them to the streets to shoot another innocent bystander in the head or kidnap another 10-year-old girl near her school and take her to an abandoned house to rape her.
So, was Arenas’ expression of forgiveness to Sterling ill-advised? Yes, it certainly was. Was Sterling’s apology for his racist remarks so insincere that if he soaked it in further regret we should still accept it? I think not. And would we be wrong to forgive Sterling if we are unable to substantiate the truthfulness of any future apologies he makes? Given his all-encompassing character flaws, I think so.
Copyright © 2014 by James Strong. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of this column, or any part of this column, without permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Send your comments to strongpoints123@gmail.com.
