Forgiveness: Insiders and Outsiders Part II

Let's break down this insider and outsider talk a little further.

There are different kinds of outsiders. There are: a. people who once were part of our community who are now on the outside and b. people who simply have never entered into an "in community" type of relationship with us (for whatever reason). In the case of a., there is relational baggage. There is history. In the case of b., there is no moral reason why we're not in community, we're just not, and there could be a number of reasons for this. It may be because of different faith beliefs, or a lack of time spent together, or because you don't "click," or just because you've never tried even though the relationship has great potential. There may be relational history, but it isn't negative or traumatic. There are many reasons for outsiders falling into the "b." category.

So far, I've gotten the most questions about the "a." category. In fact, multiple people have asked me specifically about relationships with abusive fathers. Family relationships begin as in-community relationships by default, it's only over time that we gain the ability to "choose," as it were. Multiple people have asked me, "Because I have no longer have relationship with my father, does that mean I'm demanding repayment?"

My response is this: What is the reason you have no relationship? What efforts at forgiveness have been tried? What has the response been? Is the reason you have no relationship because you've struggled to forgive or because your father has struggled to repent?

In the conversations I've had so far, it has always been the case that the person I was talking to had some kind of narcissistic abusive father who persisted in causing harm without ever making an amends, or even attempting an amends. Given that, Matthew 18:17 suggests Jesus himself would be comfortable treating that person as an outsider, severing relational ties.

In situations such as this, it is not demanding repayment to remove yourself from relationship if you are doing so because you've been injured, attempted forgiveness, and have repeatedly met strong resistance.

More on this tomorrow.

Forgiveness: Insiders and Outsiders

“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. 16But 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. 17If 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

Is removing yourself from a relationship the same thing as demanding repayment?

In short, no, but it depends on the circumstances. The conversation about demanding repayment was all about what we do in relationships where we desire to maintain (or restore) some level of intimacy. These are "in community" relationships where both parties are trying to remain in community with each other. If, for instance, you're trying to remain in a marriage where a great harm has taken place, and you're trying to forgive, then it's important to pay attention to the ways in which you're emotionally withholding (or emotionally aggressive).

Now, let's say we're trying to stay in community, we do everything we can to avoid demanding repayment, and we see no remorse or change of behavior from the other person. I'm talking true remorse here- not lip service. Then, even though we're dealing with what once was an in-community relationship, it becomes an outside the community relationship because the terms of intimacy are damaged (not because we have been bad at forgiving!). Not only are the terms of intimacy damaged, but they're left to rot. No repair has taken place. This person becomes like a Gentile (see verse 17 above)- relationship is severed. You haven't chosen to make this person an outsider, they have chosen to live as an outsider. It is the voice of shame that makes us feel responsible for this. Resist it.

More tomorrow.

Forgiveness with people outside of the "hut"

“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. 16But 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. 17If 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

I would suggest that, when dealing with forgiveness outside of community, our ideal is practice the same principles as within the community. That is the ideal. We strive to be willing to forgive and to offer forgiveness as much as we can and as often as we can. However, there are times where we are pushed beyond what is reasonable.

In the verses above, Jesus himself recognizes these limits even in community. If a community member is completely non-repentant and non-communicative then he acknowledges that this person becomes like a Gentile or a tax collector. In other words, this person becomes an outsider to you. This is a way of saying the relationship is severed.

When it comes forgiveness with people who are not part of our community, then this conversation about Gentiles and tax collectors is essentially our starting point. Now, to be clear, our desire is to be as gracious, forgiving, and merciful to outsiders as we would be to anyone else. But, we're not talking about everyday life here. We're talking about how to process extreme harm.

In short, here's what I'm saying: When someone who is not part of our "hut" causes us great harm, there is nothing wrong with removing yourself from that relationship. I know this is a little confusing based on our conversation about demanding repayment for the debt, so stay tuned.

More on this tomorrow.

Learning from your confrontations

Confrontation teaches us what we need to know

If you do have a conversation with the wrongdoer, it may help you figure out what forgiveness looks like. Remember, we're (roughly) deciding between two options: action (treating the wrongdoer as if no wrong has occurred) and inaction (refusing to retaliate).

We must ask ourselves, “What does forgiveness look like?" both before and after our confrontation. The conversation may go well or it may go poorly. Either way, it will give us "data" on the wrongdoer. Are they repentant? Are they willing to own the problem? Where are they? This will inform our response moving forward. Do we create distance and refuse retaliation? Do we engage and treat them as if no wrong as occurred (this is, essentially, giving the offender a gift)?

Remember, forgiveness is an ongoing process, it does not have a definitive end. These conversations where we address the problem may be the very thing that tell us what forgiveness looks like in these specific circumstances.

Discernment will be key.

Confronting Wrongdoers

When do we address harm head-on?

When do we confront "wrongdoers"?  

Based on our conversation about the limits of forgiveness, addressing the harm with the wrongdoer is something that happens in an “in community” kind of relationship.  Or, I suppose, a relationship that generally has proven itself safe to do so.  There are harms that may be addressed with people who aren’t part of our “hut” but who are mature, confident, reasonable, rational adults capable of sitting through a difficult conversation without creating any additional harm.  These are the types of situations where it is appropriate to address the harm head-on.  

Outside of these, use your best discernment and rely on your closest confidants for wisdom.