Unpacking a new theory of forgiveness: Part II

By my way of thinking, forgiveness is either an action or a lack of action. Depending on circumstances, forgiveness is either 1. treating the wrongdoer as if no offense has occurred or 2. refusing to demand repayment from the wrongdoer.

Yesterday we addressed number 1. Here’s number 2.

2. Inaction.

Major offenses possess the capacity to upend our entire lives. Offenses occur on a spectrum, of course, and they may be significant without being life altering, but the potential is there nonetheless. When I say “inaction,” I mean that we refuse to retaliate. This is not the same thing as treating the wrongdoer as if no wrong has occurred. Treating the wrongdoer as if no wrongdoing has occurred implies that the relationship proceeds on the same trajectory that is was on prior to the offense. When it comes to major offenses, a “new normal” must be established. That new normal, presumably, involves relational distance. The amount of distance depends on the nature of the relationship and the nature of the offense but, in essence, inaction becomes a legitimately good thing to do when our realistic choices are either 1. retaliate or 2. do nothing. It is my opinion that doing nothing is a morally, responsibly, and faithfully good thing to do when the realistic alternative is retaliation.

Christians are not prone to give themselves credit for inaction- but I am convinced that this is both good and necessary (at times).

Unpacking a new theory of forgiveness

By my way of thinking, forgiveness is either an action or a lack of action. Depending on circumstances, forgiveness is either 1. treating the wrongdoer as if no offense has occurred or 2. refusing to demand repayment from the wrongdoer.

1. Action.

Minor offenses can be overlooked. When someone leaves dirty dishes in the sink despite the fact that you’ve asked them not to, you honestly do not need to demand repayment (in other words, retaliate). You do not need to make passive aggressive remarks (like I do) about their cleanliness or lack of respect of some such thing like that. You really can go about your business, even if you’re annoyed. It takes discipline and practice, but you can do it. And you can do it because the offense is minor and not worth the additional conflict that comes from demanding repayment. In this way, we may treat our wrongdoer (perhaps an overly harsh term when it comes to minor offenses) as if no wrong has occurred. I am considering this an “active” process because it is all about the ways in which we tangibly (and positively) respond to the wrongdoer.

We may also choose this option for larger harms, if we’re able. But, here are some issues to consider first:

Are you treating your offender as if no wrong has occurred simply to avoid confrontation? (This would be avoidance, not forgiveness.)

Are you treating your offender as if no wrong has occurred because you do not think you deserve to be heard? (This would be a sign that you do not respect yourself, not a sign of forgiveness.)

Are you treating your offender as if no wrong has occurred because you think you deserve the harm you received? (This would be a sign that you have a shame issue to confront elsewhere, not a sign of forgiveness.)

Are you treating your offender as if no wrong has occurred because you’re more concerned with that person’s experience than your own? (This would be a sign of codependency to confront elsewhere, not a sign of forgiveness.)

In short, we want to make sure we’re choosing the appropriate behavior (action vs. inaction) for the proper reason. Forgiveness is never about running away from a problem or denying that a problem even exists. If that is what drives our action (or inaction) then we have misunderstood. Forgiveness is always, always, about confronting the harsh realities of life. We may choose not to retaliate in response to the harsh realities of life but we do so consciously, knowing that this does not minimize the offense but, instead, spreads the love of God over his creation.

How can forgiveness be an action?

What if forgiveness is an action? What if forgiveness is about something as simple as not demanding compensation for wrongdoing (similar to God’s instructions about forgiving debts)? It’s not obvious that forgiveness would be an action, I understand. So, what kind of action am I talking about? I’m going to go through this slowly for the sake of clarity. Please bear with.

Over the next few days I’m going to explore a new “theory” of forgiveness that I am working on. It will be different. Some people will love it, some people will hate it. But, we’ll all be better off if we engage in the process of working through these ideas together. Comment on the posts. Let me know what the strong points are and what the weak points are. I don’t promise to agree (though I will agree at times, naturally)- but I do promise to engage. We all are better off when we engage with each other. Here goes:

What is Forgiveness about?

Forgiveness is about what we do or don’t do in response to an offense. Notice what I did not include here: I did not include feelings or emotions language. I’m not suggesting feelings are unimportant when it comes to forgiveness, I am merely suggesting they are of secondary importance to our actions. We have been trained to think of forgiveness only in emotional terms but, it’s my theory, based on the dynamics of biblical metaphors (go back a few days to see our readings of Deut. 15 and Matt. 18 on this), that forgiveness is primarily the action we take towards (or against) our wrongdoers. I’ll unpack this tomorrow.

Why is this important?

It frees us from worrying over that which is beyond our control: our feelings. And, it forces us to focus on what we can control: our actions towards our offenders.

Generosity

I have not always appreciated generosity for the gift it is.  Generosity isn’t just about sharing the last cookie or perhaps making a sacrificial financial donation to a worthy cause - I understand that kind of generosity and have myself been the grateful recipient of such generosity.

Generosity from Brown’s perspective is new to me.  Here’s what she says, “Learning how to set the boundaries that allow us to be generous in our assumptions about others.  The challenge is being honest and clear with others about what’s okay and not okay.”  p. 150 Braving the Wilderness

What does this mean?

Here’s how it works with me.  If my husband does something that irritates me, I am quick to assume the worst.  I might think - he did that to irritate me.  He doesn’t care about me.  He doesn’t understand me.  My husband is a jerk.  This is the opposite of Brene’s call to generosity.

When my husband does something to irritate me and I remember to be generous in my assumptions - I might think:  Huh.  What’s that all about?  I wonder what he was thinking and I am curious to ask him about his choice.  Is he doing okay?  Is he tired?  Does he need help?

Generous assumptions result in curiosity and inquiry, not judgment.

As I am learning to practice Brene’s kind of generosity, our conflict has decreased and my sense of love and well-being has increased.  It’s really lovely.

For the most part, my husband does not wake up in the morning and set out to drive me nuts.  He is doing the best he can and it is quite wonderful.  Living generously, I can say the same about me.  

Why not live more generously?  How can it possibly hurt?

Giving and receiving

Asking for help is not a sign of weakness; it is actually a by-product of practicing the spiritual discipline of not judging.  I don’t know why, but I am often astonished at how quickly someone is able to help me if I ask.

Problems that seem confounding to me often have clear, often simple solutions that others can explain to me.  I hope this is also true in the reverse.

Once I learn, through trial and error and often a fair amount of failing, who can be helpful in situations that I find impossible to understand, the beautiful side-effect is a deepening cache’ of folks I can call on in my time of need.

This frees up my time for the things that I can help someone else with - time I previously wasted spinning in uncertainty and a skills deficit in areas of life where I really, truly need to ask for help in order to resolve an issue.

This doesn’t have to be major stuff.  For example, when I study and prepare for a message series, I always cram too much into a single outline for a weekend message.  I will ALWAYS have this tendency.  Twenty years in and I STILL CRAM TOO MUCH IN TO A SINGLE MESSAGE OUTLINE.  What I have learned is that Scott, our co-pastor at NSC, can read my notes in 3 minutes or less and suggest to me what he thinks is my strongest point, what is extraneous information, and where in the outline I stop one message and go on to a completely new message.  I rely on Scott to help me in my weakness.  He never has this problem, and that’s great, because I could not be helpful in solving it for him.  But he has another area of message delivery that I can sometimes provide advance feedback on and I hope he finds it as helpful as I find him in my own preparation.

This is no big deal.  The world will no crash down around us if we do not practice this exchange of feedback.  If I go way too long in a message, the checked out faces in the room will teach me to stop talking.  But this kind of mutuality is helpful.  The scripture refers to this I think when it says, “Love covers a multitude of sins.”  It is not suggesting a cover up.  But it is saying, I think, that when we love and trust one another, it is a natural thing to rely on one another to cover our perennial weaknesses.  This strengthens the whole of a community.  It is helpful.

If Scott were to judge my over-preparedness, then I could not ask him to help me and in fact, he wouldn’t be very helpful even if I asked.  His judgment would negate his capacity to help.  

Is judgment getting in the way of love in your life?