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.

A Scandalous Case Study Continued

Today will make no sense without yesterday, 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).  

How could the debtor repay the debt?

What I am trying to get at with this question is this:  How would someone make an amends in such a case as this?  Were we to talk about Jenny, one of the primary issues needed to be compensated for is trust.  Again, there isn’t “one” answer to the question.  One can imagine, perhaps, that a skilled therapist could construct any number of strategies for rebuilding trust in relationship.  Perhaps the first step, then, is finding a skilled therapist.  The debtor, by virtue of committing themselves to the project of rebuilding trust, repays the debt.  This is assuming, of course, that the debtor is truly interested in repaying the debt.  

When we’re dealing with this question, we’re specifically talking about a scenario where someone desires to “right” his or her “wrong”.  In such cases as this, offended and offender work collaboratively to figure out how to make repayment a possibility, and that is the work of forgiveness.  

We’ll continue to unpack the example tomorrow.

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.