A Scandalous Forgiveness Case Study

I am continuing to unpack my “theory” of forgiveness. If you need to get caught up, it started about a week ago and you can find all posts at northstarcommunity.com/blog.

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.

An example

I’ll use a hypothetical example so I’m not treading on anyone’s personal stories here. Let’s say that Jason and Jenny are married. Let’s say Jasons’ best friend, Tiger, had sex with Jason’s wife, Jenny. Let’s also say, for the sake of dealing with a “clean” case study, that Jason and Jenny had, up until this point, a very normal and healthy marriage relationship. Jason is the aggrieved party on two fronts.

We’ve used money lending as a primary metaphor for this theory. Forgiveness is like a money lender refusing to demand repayment from a borrower.

How do we assess this example in terms of our “debt” metaphor? We have to ask this question if we are to discover how we might refuse to demand repayment (assuming that we simply cannot do option 1 and treat the offender as if no harm has occurred)..

What is the debt that is owed?

The debt is whatever used to be present in the relationship that is now missing. The debt is the offense. The debt is also the fallout from the offense. The debt, in the case of something that does not involve money, is a number of factors combined. In this case we’re dealing with betrayal, deceit, disrespect, infidelity, and more. Just as we discussed in class, the trust that was formerly present is now gone. The debt is the accumulation of all the “bad stuff” now present in the relationship in conjunction with the “good stuff” that is lost. In such a case as this, there is no single way to analyze and articulate what the debt is- other than to point to the harm done.

Another way to look at it is to say that the debt is the thing that needs to be compensated for when a wrongdoer makes amends. Now, we know right away that some debts, including the one described here, cannot be simply compensated for. At least, not in short order. But, if we imagine Jenny offered to make amends, what would she be making amends over? Likely, all the of the issues listed above and a few more.

If you’re having a hard time articulating “the debt”, ask yourself what the wrongdoer would make amends over and that will get you somewhere in the neighborhood.

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.

Returning to our metaphor

We mentioned, several days back, that one of the primary biblical metaphors for understanding forgiveness is one of money lending. In order for forgiveness to take place in a money lending scenario, the lender must refuse to demand repayment from the borrower and refuse to retaliate towards the borrower.

My way of processing this metaphor tells me that forgiveness is either an action (actively refusing repayment is an action) or a lack of action (refusing to retaliate is restraining ourselves from taking action). So, to apply the metaphor to relationships, forgiveness is either 1. treating the wrongdoer as if no offense has occurred (hang with me on this- I’m only recommending this under a very specific set of circumstances) or 2. refusing to demand repayment from the wrongdoer.

Be patient with me, if you can. I’ll unpack both of these in the days to come but, rest assured, in neither option do we ignore the damage that has been done.

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.