Scapegoating and Forgiveness: Part III

We're carrying on a conversation from the past few days, feel free to get caught up before reading this one.


Empathy for offenders (when and where it's possible) begins with seeing ourselves as we truly are: people who are just as capable of creating offense as receiving it. Unfortunately, this is not something that can be taught and learned, it can only be discovered. Sadly, we tend to discover this truth only when we find ourselves on the outside of a group, banished, with no false group identity to protect us from seeing ourselves as we really are (this is, again, Girard's thought).


When we recognize the truth about ourselves, then we recognize that there is no great divide between ourselves and other people who cause harm (even, perhaps, our offenders). Now, again, I'm not suggesting there is no moral distinction between a victim of rape and a rapist but, I am suggesting that, over the course of a lifetime, all of us cause harm and are capable of much more. If we discover this about ourselves, then we don't see ourselves as people above wrongdoing.


The goal in viewing ourselves as wrongdoers is not to shame ourselves for being wrongdoers but to simply see ourselves accurately and to discover exactly how much grace and love we receive from God (and, hopefully, community). We do not need to see ourselves only as wrongdoers but as people who miss the mark, people who struggle to live out our certain way of seeing. This is what allows us to empathize with others. We recognize our struggle, and that means we can recognize that others struggle as well. Most people do not get up in the morning with the intention of ruining people's lives. There are, of course, exceptions, but most people cause harm because they are struggling. This means they are not so different from ourselves.


Side note: Of course we’re not going to empathize with every offender and we do not need to empathize with every offender. However, it never hurts to learn to view ourselves accurately and to find a more nuanced perspective on the world in the process. In this case, we discover that we are not only victims of our offenders. Our identity can be much larger, if we can see ourselves accurately. Learning to see that offenders have an identity beyond their offenses is a tangential benefit.

Scapegoating and Forgiveness: Part II

Scapegoating is s a way of placing all of the blame for a given set of circumstances on one person (or relatively few people) even though blame is always, always, always more complicated than that. The act of banishing gives the remainder of the group a false sense of security because we believe, for a time, the source of our conflict has been discovered and resolved. But it does not stay resolved, because we did not locate the true source of conflict.


According to Girard's theory of Mimetic Desire, the true source of conflict is ourselves. In other words, each person is capable of violence, harm, or wrongdoing. Each person on this planet is capable of destroying lives. Not everyone does, but we certainly have the capacity to. Recognizing this truth about ourselves removes the Scapegoat Mechanism as a possibility. Why? Because we recognize that we can’t blame one person for a problem that exists within each member of the entire group. When we recognize the truth about ourselves we find empathy for the scapegoat, knowing that scapegoating is just one more false strategy we pursue in life.


Now, this is not a way of saying that every victim and every offender are moral equivalents. That is most certainly not the case. It is more about how we see ourselves and how we posture ourselves in relation to the rest of the world. If we see ourselves as entirely innocent, as entirely pure, as only a victim of circumstances, then we will struggle with rage, we will struggle with resentment, we will lack empathy, we will be rigid, we will be isolated, and likely more.


If we see ourselves for who we are, there is the possibility that our hearts will crack open, even if it's ever so slightly, and we will discover a state of acceptance. We will find that, while life is not fair, the world is not out to get us. There is a big difference between those two things.

More on these last two paragraphs tomorrow.

Scapegoating and Forgiveness

Rene Girard developed a very popular theory for societal behavior, generally referred to as Mimetic Theory. It goes like this. People learn through imitation. We learn to imitate behaviors (obvious), but we also learn to imitate desire. I learn to want what you want. Think about keeping up with the Jones’: My neighbor wants a Porsche, all of a sudden I want a Porsche. That is mimetic desire- it is wanting what other people want- not just doing what other people do. Because we all learn to desire what everyone else wants, humans are inevitably in competition with one another. This causes conflict and chaos. The only way we’ve found to deal with the conflict and chaos is to find someone to blame and to remove this person from the society (or group). This is called the Scapegoat Mechanism.


So, in an addicted family system, it’s easy to blame the substance use disordered person for all of the family’s problems and to banish this person from the family. On a societal level, it’s easy to blame immigrants for economic problems if we aren’t doing well financially, and banish them from the country.


You get the idea. It's a way of thinking about complex problems as if they were simple so that we don't need to find a complex solution. Simple solutions are always preferable. The problem is, they are only solutions if they actually solve the problem they are meant to solve.


When it comes to forgiveness and resentment, we may look for simple solutions when complex solutions are the only ones that will address the heart of the matter.


More on this tomorrow.

Seeing ourselves as we are

I know I have not lived a perfect life. I know all the things someone could accuse me of doing, some of which would lead to heaps of shame thrown in my direction. I know not only what I’ve done but what I’m capable of doing. We’re often capable of doing quite a bit more than we think (in a bad way).


Because I understand the depths of me, I do not feel that I occupy the moral high ground in my relationships. Because I do not have the moral high ground, when someone harms me, it is because they are similar to me, and not because they are different.


Because they are similar to me, I have the capacity to see the offenses done to me as part and parcel of life lived around (and with) other humans. This does not mean I don’t get my feelings hurt, or that I don’t get angry, or that I don’t want revenge, etc. It simply means that, with some distance, I can find some level of empathy for my wrongdoers (even if it’s not very much, and even if it takes many years and many miles to get the distance I need).


Learning to see myself accurately, as a person who has caused and will cause much harm, opens up in me the knowledge that I live in need of God's grace. When I live in awareness of that, it is harder to gang up on others and heap shame upon them. I don't live in that space all the time but, when I do, it's for the better. Seeing our own need for grace can open up the possibility of forgiveness when it otherwise might not be there.


More on this tomorrow.

Practicing Repentance: Part III

From yesterday:

Acts of repentance drive us further apart because, when we repent in our culture, we have confirmation that the wrongdoing took place, which means our anger is justified, which means we can ramp up our wrath and our shame and whatever else.

This is a grave mistake. It is a good thing when someone confirms a wrongdoing has taken place. Why? Because this is the very thing that confirms the victim’s story, a rare win when most accusations fall on deaf ears. When a victim’s story is confirmed, there is an opportunity for justice to happen. For this reason, repentance can represent the good on several fronts.

It can, theoretically, draw victim and offender back together and offer their relationship hope for a second act (or third act or fourth act). It can offer the offender hope for a new life beyond their former destructive ways of living. Let’s not forget- so often people find themselves trapped in a cycle of wrongdoing in part because they do not believe they can transcend the pattern itself.

Offenders need hope for themselves in order to stop offending. Should they stop, this would be good not just for themselves but for all possible future victims as well. It is good both for the offender and the people around the offender as he or she moves forward in life. And, lastly, failing those first two things, repentance creates the possibility for justice when such a possibility might not otherwise exist.

When someone is willing to repent and confess, be careful in how you respond. That confession may just be a good thing for all involved.

Practicing Repentance: Part II

While it’s true that our culture cares neither for wrongdoers or confessors, as we said yesterday, we also live in a narcissistic culture where it is completely normal for wrongdoers to find clever ways to avoid blame, or to appear contrite, or to victim blame, etc. These are complicated times. I am not suggesting that every appearance of repentance be met with mercy, but I am suggesting that the ability to earnestly repent is a good thing, though it may not solve the problem (depending on the scope of the offense and the relationship between the victim and the offender).

It is difficult to conceive of a particularly Christian version of forgiveness or repentance under such circumstances. It is assumed, in the Christian tradition, that forgiveness and repentance are restorative and rehabilitative both for individuals and communities. In other words, these are actions that necessarily bind us together rather than tear us apart. Such a view is not modeled for us anywhere in our culture, and only rarely in the church.

Acts of repentance drive us further apart because, when we repent in our culture, we have confirmation that the wrongdoing took place, which means our anger is justified, which means we can ramp up our wrath and our shame and whatever else.

What can we do about this?

Practicing Repentance: Part I

We live in a culture that is completely clueless about how to handle wrongdoing. Our only responses (at least, publicly) are shame and wrath, and we pour them out by the truckload. In fact, we treat wrongdoers who confess in exactly the same fashion as wrongdoers who “deny ’til they die.” In other words, it’s just as bad, if not worse, to confess to wrongdoing as it is to simply be caught in the act (or accused) because we will shame you both for the wrongdoing and the confession. Given the level of outrage we muster for those who are caught in the act, one might logically assume we would appreciate finding someone brave enough to confess that they “got it wrong” and, hopefully, desire to seek a new way of being in the world as a consequence of what they have discovered about themselves. If you assumed that, though, you’d be wrong.


We do not appreciate confessions nor do we appreciate the spoken desire to change. Our response to confessions and the beginning of an amends is generally this: You didn’t confess enough, or you didn’t use the correct combination of words, or you’re attempting to steal a victim’s thunder, or you’re being disingenuous, or you’re silencing a victim, and so on and so forth. However the confession is framed, confessions are never good enough for us. Under these circumstances, why would anyone confess? Why would anyone repent? Why would anyone make amends? There is no good reason to do so.


Side note: When it comes to repentance, we do not, in fact, need a good reason to do so other than the desire to reflect God’s call to love and to do so through living in truth and attempting to compensate those we have harmed (by whatever means are available to us). Yet, at the same time, it’s easy to see how quickly repentance can be de-incentivized with the appropriate level of negative reinforcers.


More on this tomorrow.

What do we do with our feelings?

We’ve talked a lot about the fact that forgiveness is not primarily an emotional effort, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t important.


What do we do with our feelings, then?


Seek out the appropriate level of care that best fits the context of what you’re dealing with. Feelings can be handling in a support group. They can be explored in a meaningful friendship. They can be examined with and by a skilled therapist or a spiritual advisor. There are plenty of ways in which to go about processing and dealing with our feelings and emotions. Just because they are not the focus of our forgiveness work does not mean there is nothing we can do, nor does it mean there is nothing to be done. It simply means that forgiveness is forgiveness and feelings are feelings and dealing with them requires different kinds of work (though there may be overlap, of course…it’s not hard to imagine forgiveness coming up in a therapy office, for instance).


Let’s deal with each in the appropriate context.

Forgiveness: Insiders and Outsiders Part IV

Is it demanding repayment to remove myself from relationship with someone?


If the relationship was an outside the community relationship, then things get a little complicated. Are we talking about a complete stranger? Are we talking about someone with whom you have negative history and baggage? Are we talking about an acquaintance with whom there is no particular baggage or trauma?


I'll go in reverse order. If there is no baggage or trauma, then we have an opportunity to model God's love through addressing the issue with love and compassion and seeing how the other person responds. They may very well become an "insider" if they respond well.


If it's an outsider with whom you have enough history to know that conversation about harm caused will only lead to more harm, then it is best to do nothing. It is in these situations where we are not obligated to explore forgiveness (because we've followed Jesus' recommended order of events and the person has become an outsider through being obstinate). Withdrawing from relationship may even be best for all parties, particularly if we're tempted to get revenge.


You see, what concerns me most with outsider relationships is not so much being emotionally withholding or withdrawing but the act of seeking revenge. Maybe most of you would say that you've never really tried to get revenge. If so, good for you. That is a legitimately good thing. If you have traumatic forgiveness situations with outsiders, and you have not sought revenge, then you have not demanded repayment. As far as this theory of forgiveness is concerned, you have forgiven. Even if you have no relationship.


That seems so counter-intuitive when we've spent so much time thinking that forgiveness is all rainbows and butterflies and happiness and joy. The reality is, forgiveness is far messier than that, particularly when we're talking about life's deepest traumas and tragedies.

Forgiveness: Insiders and Outsiders Part III

Is it demanding repayment to remove myself from relationship with someone?


Yesterday we talked about the challenge that some in our community have had processing the way this theory of forgiveness applies to their relationship with their abusive fathers. We said this: it is not demanding repayment to remove yourself from relationship if you are doing so because you've been injured, attempted forgiveness, and have repeatedly met strong resistance. That was the case for each of those people I had spoken to about their fathers.


Moving beyond that particular example, we may ask, when would it be demanding repayment to remove myself from a relationship? When would that be evidence of a lack of forgiveness?


It is, in part, a question of motivation.


Are you removing yourself from relationship in order to punish someone (not because the harm caused is too great to remain relationally close)? Are you removing yourself from relationship in order to inspire a change of behavior in the other person (and, again, not because the forgiveness process itself has broken down)?


It also depends, again, on the type of relationship. The limits Jesus puts on forgiveness (in community relationships) assumes we have tried to come to some understanding about the harm that was caused. If we haven't attempted to come to some kind of understanding then perhaps we're being hasty to withdraw.


If the relationship was an outside the community relationship, then things get a little complicated. Are we talking about a complete stranger? Are we talking about someone with whom you have negative history and baggage? Are we talking about an acquaintance with whom there is no particular baggage or trauma?


I'll unpack these questions tomorrow.

Forgiveness: Insiders and Outsiders Part II

Let's break down this insider and outsider talk a little further.


There are different kinds of outsiders. There are: a. people who once were part of our community who are now on the outside and b. people who simply have never entered into an "in community" type of relationship with us (for whatever reason). In the case of a., there is relational baggage. There is history. In the case of b., there is no moral reason why we're not in community, we're just not, and there could be a number of reasons for this. It may be because of different faith beliefs, or a lack of time spent together, or because you don't "click," or just because you've never tried even though the relationship has great potential. There may be relational history, but it isn't negative or traumatic. There are many reasons for outsiders falling into the "b." category.


So far, I've gotten the most questions about the "a." category. In fact, multiple people have asked me specifically about relationships with abusive fathers. Family relationships begin as in-community relationships by default, it's only over time that we gain the ability to "choose," as it were. Multiple people have asked me, "Because I have no longer have relationship with my father, does that mean I'm demanding repayment?"


My response is this: What is the reason you have no relationship? What efforts at forgiveness have been tried? What has the response been? Is the reason you have no relationship because you've struggled to forgive or because your father has struggled to repent?


In the conversations I've had so far, it has always been the case that the person I was talking to had some kind of narcissistic abusive father who persisted in causing harm without ever making an amends, or even attempting an amends. Given that, Matthew 18:17 suggests Jesus himself would be comfortable treating that person as an outsider, severing relational ties.


In situations such as this, it is not demanding repayment to remove yourself from relationship if you are doing so because you've been injured, attempted forgiveness, and have repeatedly met strong resistance.


More on this tomorrow.

Forgiveness: Insiders and Outsiders

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


Matthew 18:15-17, NRSV

Is removing yourself from a relationship the same thing as demanding repayment?

In short, no, but it depends on the circumstances. The conversation about demanding repayment was all about what we do in relationships where we desire to maintain (or restore) some level of intimacy. These are "in community" relationships where both parties are trying to remain in community with each other. If, for instance, you're trying to remain in a marriage where a great harm has taken place, and you're trying to forgive, then it's important to pay attention to the ways in which you're emotionally withholding (or emotionally aggressive).


Now, let's say we're trying to stay in community, we do everything we can to avoid demanding repayment, and we see no remorse or change of behavior from the other person. I'm talking true remorse here- not lip service. Then, even though we're dealing with what once was an in-community relationship, it becomes an outside the community relationship because the terms of intimacy are damaged (not because we have been bad at forgiving!). Not only are the terms of intimacy damaged, but they're left to rot. No repair has taken place. This person becomes like a Gentile (see verse 17 above)- relationship is severed. You haven't chosen to make this person an outsider, they have chosen to live as an outsider. It is the voice of shame that makes us feel responsible for this. Resist it.

More tomorrow.

Forgiveness with people outside of the "hut"

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


Matthew 18:15-17, NRSV


I would suggest that, when dealing with forgiveness outside of community, our ideal is practice the same principles as within the community. That is the ideal. We strive to be willing to forgive and to offer forgiveness as much as we can and as often as we can. However, there are times where we are pushed beyond what is reasonable.


In the verses above, Jesus himself recognizes these limits even in community. If a community member is completely non-repentant and non-communicative then he acknowledges that this person becomes like a Gentile or a tax collector. In other words, this person becomes an outsider to you. This is a way of saying the relationship is severed.


When it comes forgiveness with people who are not part of our community, then this conversation about Gentiles and tax collectors is essentially our starting point. Now, to be clear, our desire is to be as gracious, forgiving, and merciful to outsiders as we would be to anyone else. But, we're not talking about everyday life here. We're talking about how to process extreme harm.


In short, here's what I'm saying: When someone who is not part of our "hut" causes us great harm, there is nothing wrong with removing yourself from that relationship. I know this is a little confusing based on our conversation about demanding repayment for the debt, so stay tuned.


More on this tomorrow.

Learning from your confrontations

Confrontation teaches us what we need to know

If you do have a conversation with the wrongdoer, it may help you figure out what forgiveness looks like. Remember, we're (roughly) deciding between two options: action (treating the wrongdoer as if no wrong has occurred) and inaction (refusing to retaliate).


We must ask ourselves, “What does forgiveness look like?" both before and after our confrontation. The conversation may go well or it may go poorly. Either way, it will give us "data" on the wrongdoer. Are they repentant? Are they willing to own the problem? Where are they? This will inform our response moving forward. Do we create distance and refuse retaliation? Do we engage and treat them as if no wrong as occurred (this is, essentially, giving the offender a gift)?


Remember, forgiveness is an ongoing process, it does not have a definitive end. These conversations where we address the problem may be the very thing that tell us what forgiveness looks like in these specific circumstances.


Discernment will be key.

Confronting Wrongdoers

When do we address harm head-on?

When do we confront "wrongdoers"?  


Based on our conversation about the limits of forgiveness, addressing the harm with the wrongdoer is something that happens in an “in community” kind of relationship.  Or, I suppose, a relationship that generally has proven itself safe to do so.  There are harms that may be addressed with people who aren’t part of our “hut” but who are mature, confident, reasonable, rational adults capable of sitting through a difficult conversation without creating any additional harm.  These are the types of situations where it is appropriate to address the harm head-on.  


Outside of these, use your best discernment and rely on your closest confidants for wisdom.  

Further limitations on Forgiveness

3 Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive. 4 And if the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.”


Luke 17:3-4, NRSV

I think that Jesus’ point, from the verses used in the past two days, is to live as a person ready and willing to forgive. Does that (or can that) happen under any and all circumstances? Of course not. But it is my opinion that we’re being pointed towards a disposition (readiness to forgive) rather than a strict formula (rebuke -> repentance -> forgiveness). We would be missing the point to treat this as a formula or to analyze the exact number of times we are obligated to offer forgiveness. Jesus’ goal is for his disciples to become forgiving types of people. It is assumed that forgiveness is the regular, daily fare of God’s followers and it is that mentality we chase.


Keep in mind, though, that we’ve been given at least two potential boundaries here: 1. community and 2. repentance. And, to be even more limiting, the repentance, in this context, refers to an “in community” person being the one doing the repenting. It does not say you’re obligated to forgive any repenter whatsoever. We are trying to become forgiving types of people, of course, and I believe the willingness to forgive can potentially apply to anyone. But, when it comes to life’s biggest hurts, we tend to be dealing with “outsiders” who are unrepentant. This can stretch us beyond what we can bear and, in so doing, may make forgiveness extremely difficult, if not impossible. There is no need to shame ourselves for that as those situations are simply not being covered by Jesus’ instruction here.


What do we do with those scenarios? Stay tuned- we'll address that in a future day.

The Limits of Forgiveness: Part II

3 Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive. 4 And if the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.”


Luke 17:3-4, NRSV


We're unpacking the "limits" of forgiveness. Yesterday we talked about the fact that Jesus' vision of forgiveness applies to those who stand in God's community. The second limit is this:


Repentance


The passage says, “…if there is repentance, you must forgive.” Is it true, then, that a lack of repentance does not oblige us to forgive? It's unclear to me how much to read into this because I believe the most fundamental point being made is that we remain ever open to forgive those who repent (in community). Remember this instruction is to people who are in community together. This instruction that obligates forgiveness, then, is a secondary limitation (because you are only obliged to follow this procedure in community).


But, all the same, it is certainly possible that a lack of repentance does not oblige us to forgive. Repentance itself may be a limitation of forgiveness in in community relationships.


A word of caution: It's important how we use this information. It's probably not a great idea to use these limitations as excuses or loop holes. I'm pointing out these limitations not so that we can get off the hook, but so that we can stop shaming ourselves for how difficult forgiveness can be. These limitations help us see that there is not something wrong with us when we struggle to forgive. It is so often the case that it is forgiveness itself that has limits, and not that we are "bad" at forgiving.


If we've been wronged, there may be a great deal of shame that comes with that. If we've been wronged, and we cannot "forgive" (in our culture's definition), then we're living in the shame of being a person who is wronged and the shame of being a "bad" forgiver. That just is not right.

Regarding Debts and The Limits of Forgiveness

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


Matthew 18:15-17, NRSV


It is not appropriate to forgive every debt, whether we’re talking relationally or monetarily. We all remember the 70 times 7 instruction and often assume that forgiveness must apply to every situation regardless of circumstances. We do not often remember the context of that passage, and the context contains limits.

What are these limits?


Community

This series of instructions applies to those who stand "in community" with one another. In community relationships, there is an assumed level of trust, mutual respect, security, responsibility, and accountability. If a particular relationship in your life does not possess these qualities then we would not consider that an "in community" relationship.


Please note: Just because someone says they share your faith does not mean they actually do. Or, rather, it does not mean they actively apply that way of seeing to their lives. Do not be fooled by someone who uses faith language. The language is meaningless if they don't demonstrate their commitment to spiritual principles in their lives.

Are we making forgiveness too easy? Heck no.

Go back and read yesterday’s list of what un-forgiveness looks like, then let’s get real.


Okay, let’s get real for a second. If you say you’ve forgiven someone but you do any of those things on that list, you are having a non-forgiveness moment. It’s okay to have moments of non-forgiveness. It’s part of being human. I think it does us a disservice to think about forgiveness solely in terms of “it happened” or “it didn’t happen.” You can have moments of either. You can oscillate back and forth. It’s quite fluid.


The number one criticism I’ve received with this theory so far is that it makes forgiveness “too easy.” I think that’s wrong. There’s not a person I know who avoids every item on this list. You may think your emotions are totally in line, and you’ve totally forgiven someone, but if you do any of these things to the wrongdoer, you’re not as “good” as you appear to be in your mind (this is also okay- I’m not interested in the appearance of goodness. I’m interested, as we all should be, in honesty.). This is not an easy theory at all. It is a much higher level of accountability than any other theory I’ve seen.


Forgiveness is something we have to continue to choose over time. So, I’m not suggesting that doing any of those things on the list automatically makes you a bad forgiver, or that you’re in trouble. I’m suggesting that it’s easy to overlook our actions when it comes to the people we say we’ve forgiven, and we tend to let ourselves off the hook. We’re going to slip up and we’re going to make mistakes. The point is, don’t act high and mighty about what a good forgiver you are. Exercise a little humility, and acknowledge that forgiveness must continue to be chosen and displayed if we are going to view ourselves as forgiving types.


Now I’m guessing the theory sounds too hard. Not worry. Tomorrow we’ll discuss the limits of forgiveness.

Refusing to forgive, demanding repayment

Here are some examples, to my eye, of what it looks like to demand repayment. In other words, this is what refusing to forgive looks like.


* We say or do cruel things to the wrongdoer with the intent of breaking them down through inspiring feelings of guilt or shame.

* We continue to bring up the past harm that we say we’ve forgiven in order to put the other person in his or her place.

* We make passive aggressive comments in public that give other people “clues” that the wrongdoer has done something wrong with the intent to expose the wrongdoer so that he or she, once again, feels ashamed.

* We make passive aggressive comments in private with the intent, again, to inspire shame. This is the human-to-human equivalent of rubbing your dog’s nose in his own pee.

* We may intentionally withhold affection from the wrongdoer, hoping that they recognize our coldness while believing they deserve it because of what they’ve done.

* In the case of a literal money-lending scenario, what we would be thinking about here is not just repayment of the debt, but cruelty in the process. So we would be thinking about demanding unfair or predatory interest rates that we don’t really need. We’re just demanding it for the sake of punishing the debtor.

* In our example, Jason could demand repayment in any of the above ways. He could also decide to go out and have his own affair with Tiger’s wife as an act of revenge. Demanding repayment can be either passive or active. Revenge, as it were, can be its own demand for repayment.


The bottom line is, there are many ways to demand repayment inappropriately and that is what we need to pay attention to if we’re attempting to forgive a specific debt (or debtor).