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.

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.