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).

Forgiveness and "debts"

Today will make no sense without the past few days, so get caught up. We’re unpacking an example of how our theory of forgiveness works in practice.

If part of our theory is to view the injured party as a lender, and the wrongdoer as a debtor, we have to ask what the debt is (yesterday’s blog) so we can discover how the debt could be repaid. If we know these things, then we can discover what it looks like not to demand repayment (assuming that we simply cannot do option 1 and treat the offender as if no harm has occurred).

What would it look like to demand repayment?

What I am trying to get at with this question is this: 1. How do we try to make people repay debts that they are not interested in repaying? or 2. How do we try to make people repay debts that we say we have forgiven?

Let me expound a bit.

1. a. Some people do not know that they have caused harm. We can, of course, have a conversation with them and explain what has happened. This is the ideal, but doesn’t always happen. In such cases as this (where no conversation has taken place), what are the things we do to these people to try to make them repay the debt?

b. Sometimes they know they caused harm and don’t care. The end result can be the same, we may change our disposition towards these people to try to ratchet up their feelings of guilt in order to make them behave in a contrite manner, to make them take a repentant attitude, etc.

2. We say we have forgiven, yet we harbor ill will. We maintain feelings of resentment, hatred, and more. And, when we’re triggered, we act on those feelings.

Tomorrow I will give some examples of what it looks like to demand repayment.