Forgiveness of Island Sins

I was trying to explain the concept of "forgiveness of sins" and some aspects of Christianity to some non-Christians the other day.

There were a few easy matters, for example, the Easter idea, mentioned in the creed that Jesus "is seated at the right hand of God". That is metaphorical language, and a local example would be to say that a "high-up official" in Jersey would not necessarily be found on the top floor of Cyril Le Marquand House!

Forgiveness of sins, however, is a very strange idea. How can one person somehow take away the sins of many others? There is no definite understanding of that in history, only various people's attempts to come up with analogies which help to point the way. For what it is worth, here is a modern one, which is presented in a dialogue.

What has happened in Australia recently?

The Prime Minister has issued an apology on behalf of the Australian government and people, for the policies that were in practice against the aboriginal peoples.

How has this been received?

For the most part, with satisfaction that something has at last been done.

Is the Prime Minister guilty of any of these practices?

No, and he was probably also born after they were dismantled.

So he is completely innocent of these offences?

Yes

How then, can he offer apologies to the aboriginal peoples? He is just one man.

Because of who he is, because of the unique position he has, as Prime Minister, he can take on this role, and offer apologies on behalf of others.

Has everyone been happy with this?

No, a few have rejected his apology.

That, in a nutshell, is one way of looking at forgiveness of sins, how one individual can stand in for many, even though innocent himself. Of course, the analogy should not be pushed too far, but it does supply a good way of looking at things, without any convoluted religious terminology.

Why have I headed this blog, forgiveness of Island Sins?

Because, curiously, what has happened in Australia, that kind of model, does not seem to apply to Jersey over the child abuse case at Haut de la Garenne. Time and again those in a position to offer an apology, the Chief Minister, the Bailiff, have said that it is not necessary, that it is not needed, that there is no need to apologise. They are innocent.

All the more reason, perhaps, why they are in the best position to give such an apology?