When someone hurts us-knowingly or otherwise-we may wonder if we would be helped by forgiving the offender. When wounds are deep and scars permanent, we may ask if it is even possible to forgive. We can say, "I forgive," but still question if we have truly forgiven. We may not be able to decide if forgiveness is important or valuable.
Although the old "an eye for an eye" approach seems like a potential solution for the offended, that attitude never leads to a
complete solution with all pain gone and all wounds healed. It only substitutes another's pain for one's own. This is substitution, not resolution. Revenge is never resolution. Revenge obscures the attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices that led to the original offense, rather than eliminating them. Forgiveness allows healing to take place regardless of the location or attitude of the offender.
Those who struggle with issues of abuse and injustice may have different views of forgiveness. One person may be reluctant to forgive, fearing the process will leave him weaker and even more vulnerable. Another injured person may subscribe to a cultural or religious belief that expects her to forgive, but she doesn't know how.1 The first person may become hardened and bitter. No amount of justice is enough and the concept of forgiving is laughable. The second person may be meek, passive, and confused, with limited understanding of both the injury and forgiveness. The injured individuals may deal with the memories of their abusive experiences only superficially, unable to understand why their lives seem to be out of their control or to understand the role of forgiveness.
What is Forgiveness?
When we say, "I forgive you," we are saying "I let it go." It implies a change of heart. It also conveys a change in expectations concerning the forgiver's future thoughts and behavior. "I forgive you" does not say why or how feelings were changed, nor does it require the forgiver to pretend that his or her relationship to the offender is "normal," as though the offense never occurred, or that a relationship exists at all. Perhaps feelings changed because feeding resentment by dwelling on injuries is simply a bad idea-bad for one's health or damaging to a valued relationship.2
Genuine forgiveness is a process, not an event. It takes time and hard work. It is a voluntary act that gives meaning to the injury, disengages the offended from the offender, and frees the injured person from the ills of bitterness and resentment.3 Forgiveness is the process by which the injured person gains peace, freedom, self-acceptance, and release from self-pity, and through which wounds are healed. Forgiveness need not be connected to the offender's repentance. The offender may or may not be in a position to benefit from being forgiven by the offended person, but forgiveness definitely benefits the offended person who forgives.
Forgiving involves accepting responsibility for how one feels, acts, and responds. For example, if I loaned a friend some money and the friend didn't pay me back, I could follow that friend around forever, nagging and hounding. I could try to make him feel guilty for every pleasure he enjoys or desires-since he does not deserve pleasure while he still owes me money. I could dream about all the things I could buy if the loan were paid. No matter how small the debt, everything I thought about acquiring could somehow be linked to that hope of payment, and I could always use the unpaid debt as an excuse for not better managing my own finances.
At some point, however, I would have to decide whether to continue reminding the debtor that he owes me. I would have to balance the benefit of feeling free of the hassle and bad feelings connected to nagging the debtor against the benefit of having a vague hope and built-in excuse for my own problems, two of the advantages I enjoyed when I expected the debt to be paid. By forgiving the debt, I would not be sending the debtor a message that he somehow deserved the money-I would be freeing myself of that entanglement and empowering myself to go on without that burden. I would no longer give the debtor power to invade my thoughts and actions. By taking away that power, I would also transfer responsibility for "tending" the unpaid debt from the debtor to me. I would not take responsibility to pay the debt-that belongs to the debtor and could never be mine. But I could take responsibility to stop spending time in thought, action, or reaction concerning the debt. By taking that responsibility (as unfair as it once seemed), I
would actually be free of the burden of tending the debt because I could choose to stop caring about it. I would be in charge of my fate and I could no longer use the unpaid debt as an excuse for my own financial ills.
Although the old "an eye for an eye" approach seems like a potential solution for the offended, that attitude never leads to a
complete solution with all pain gone and all wounds healed. It only substitutes another's pain for one's own. This is substitution, not resolution. Revenge is never resolution. Revenge obscures the attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices that led to the original offense, rather than eliminating them. Forgiveness allows healing to take place regardless of the location or attitude of the offender.Those who struggle with issues of abuse and injustice may have different views of forgiveness. One person may be reluctant to forgive, fearing the process will leave him weaker and even more vulnerable. Another injured person may subscribe to a cultural or religious belief that expects her to forgive, but she doesn't know how.1 The first person may become hardened and bitter. No amount of justice is enough and the concept of forgiving is laughable. The second person may be meek, passive, and confused, with limited understanding of both the injury and forgiveness. The injured individuals may deal with the memories of their abusive experiences only superficially, unable to understand why their lives seem to be out of their control or to understand the role of forgiveness.
What is Forgiveness?
When we say, "I forgive you," we are saying "I let it go." It implies a change of heart. It also conveys a change in expectations concerning the forgiver's future thoughts and behavior. "I forgive you" does not say why or how feelings were changed, nor does it require the forgiver to pretend that his or her relationship to the offender is "normal," as though the offense never occurred, or that a relationship exists at all. Perhaps feelings changed because feeding resentment by dwelling on injuries is simply a bad idea-bad for one's health or damaging to a valued relationship.2
Genuine forgiveness is a process, not an event. It takes time and hard work. It is a voluntary act that gives meaning to the injury, disengages the offended from the offender, and frees the injured person from the ills of bitterness and resentment.3 Forgiveness is the process by which the injured person gains peace, freedom, self-acceptance, and release from self-pity, and through which wounds are healed. Forgiveness need not be connected to the offender's repentance. The offender may or may not be in a position to benefit from being forgiven by the offended person, but forgiveness definitely benefits the offended person who forgives.
Forgiving involves accepting responsibility for how one feels, acts, and responds. For example, if I loaned a friend some money and the friend didn't pay me back, I could follow that friend around forever, nagging and hounding. I could try to make him feel guilty for every pleasure he enjoys or desires-since he does not deserve pleasure while he still owes me money. I could dream about all the things I could buy if the loan were paid. No matter how small the debt, everything I thought about acquiring could somehow be linked to that hope of payment, and I could always use the unpaid debt as an excuse for not better managing my own finances.
At some point, however, I would have to decide whether to continue reminding the debtor that he owes me. I would have to balance the benefit of feeling free of the hassle and bad feelings connected to nagging the debtor against the benefit of having a vague hope and built-in excuse for my own problems, two of the advantages I enjoyed when I expected the debt to be paid. By forgiving the debt, I would not be sending the debtor a message that he somehow deserved the money-I would be freeing myself of that entanglement and empowering myself to go on without that burden. I would no longer give the debtor power to invade my thoughts and actions. By taking away that power, I would also transfer responsibility for "tending" the unpaid debt from the debtor to me. I would not take responsibility to pay the debt-that belongs to the debtor and could never be mine. But I could take responsibility to stop spending time in thought, action, or reaction concerning the debt. By taking that responsibility (as unfair as it once seemed), I
would actually be free of the burden of tending the debt because I could choose to stop caring about it. I would be in charge of my fate and I could no longer use the unpaid debt as an excuse for my own financial ills.
No comments:
Post a Comment