|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Forgiveness
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
I read recently that whilst every religion values forgiveness, only Christianity requires it. People of all faiths and none have discovered, and promote, the personal, physical, and social benefits of forgiveness. But the ubiquity of this appreciation doesn't make it any easier to practice.
What helps you to forgive? How helpful are structured approaches like, for example, the Tutu's The Book of Forgiving: The Fourfold Path for Healing Ourselves and Our World? What others have you used?
If personal accounts of forgiveness help you, what are some of the inspiring accounts of forgiveness that have motivated forgiveness in you or others you know? What was it in particular that helped you take someone else's story and make it your own?
And are there limits to forgiveness and, if so, what are they?
And if you want a working definition of forgiveness, maybe we can start with Michael S Barry's:
"Forgiveness is a one-sided emotional transaction in which the cancellation of a person's debt results in a heartfelt sense of peacefulness for the person who forgives."
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Well, working definitions like that certainly encourage me. I'm more inspired by Marcus Aurelius than many Christian expressions of forgiveness. Any request for forgiveness is almost impossible to refuse. I've never personally had to draw or for that matter, seen, that line beyond which forgiveness is withheld.
[ 20. November 2015, 17:23: Message edited by: pimple ]
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The "almost impossible to refuse" thing is interesting. Socially that's absolutely true--you're under a huge burden to say "that's okay" when the person asks in front of others. But there have been a couple occasions where I've had the very strong vibe that the asker knew exactly that, had no intention of changing his/her behavior, and was simply manipulating me one more time. In those cases I've broken social law and said quietly, "Do you really want to be forgiven? Then we need to talk privately, when?" and got back dagger glares in response. From which I conclude I was right to feel manipulated.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
There are no limits to forgiveness. People are being who they are and doing what they do, having made choices to some extent. To a large extent, however, they are unconscious of why they are who they are or why they do what they do.
I understand myself far more than I used to, thanks to God, and I can recognise triggers that tempt me to certain behaviours. I can see that unless everyone becomes more self-conscious, they will continue to do what they always did, and get what they always got. I can love them anyway, whoever they are and whatever they have done. I am no better than they are, I have been blessed by coming to know Christ and by choosing to follow him, allowing the Holy Spirit to show me my own failings. I pray for everyone to choose to do so too.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think people forgive on their own schedules. To tell someone "you must forgive this other person now" is pointless and tyrannical. I suspect forgiveness actually has definable discrete stages (like mourning).
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I suspect forgiveness actually has definable discrete stages (like mourning).
Dennis and Matthew Linn wrote a book about that.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
"Forgiveness is a one-sided emotional transaction in which the cancellation of a person's debt results in a heartfelt sense of peacefulness for the person who forgives."
As Ship regulars will know, this is the kind of statement that has me wanting to throw my laptop across the room, it's so wrong, or at least utterly inaccurate.
OK, there is a case for "letting go".
OK, there is a case for not being vengeful or resentful, for loving your enemies, and working on yourself to being predisposed to grant forgiveness to an offender if they seek it.
OK, there are benefits in being able to forgive someone.
but:
- this perspective completely misses the point that from a Biblical perspective, forgiveness is for the benefit of the perpetrator and not first and foremost the victim (do you think God forgives us so he feels better??)
- it suggests that forgiveness is a "unilateral transaction", which is a contradiction in terms: a transaction is quote:
the act of process of doing business with another person
Unless forgiveness is sought as well as granted, no transaction can take place and nothing is settled (this pimple seems to agree with, although it is the exact opposite of what Ramarius' quote says).
For a brilliant example of how disastrous unilateral forgiveness can be, especially in the hands of Christians, rush out and buy or rent Secret Sunshine. It cost me about €10 from Amazon and was worth every penny.
[ 20. November 2015, 21:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think there's a definition problem going, as usual.
It's hard for me to know what to call it besides "forgiveness" when I'm considering a one-sided "dropping of charges" against someone who has wounded me. It isn't "letting it go" because that suggests overlooking the fault, just letting it pass into the past. It's nowhere near that easy. I need a word that is purposeful, that allows for blood, sweat, and tears as I struggle to do what Christ would have me do.
That's why I use "forgiveness" for the one-sided, basically secret transaction of removing the grudge/resentment/hatred in my heart and replacing that with at least neutrality and hopefully a positive wish for the offender's good. I can't find another word with enough guts to it.
And yes, it is secret--I don't go announcing "I forgive you" to people who haven't sought it and don't wish it, it sounds like spiritual boasting somehow. That kind of one-sided forgiveness is between me and God until the offender chooses to come to the table.
For the full thing--forgiveness asked, offered, received--I use the term "reconciliation." That really DOES require two people, as you can't reconcile with someone who is still walking away from you as fast as he can.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Father forgive, seems pretty unilateral.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
Surely forgiveness requires repentance by the person who seeks forgiveness? See eg Luke 3:3, Luke 17:3
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I suspect forgiveness actually has definable discrete stages (like mourning).
Dennis and Matthew Linn wrote a book about that.
Moo
Long ago, someone gave that book to me when I needed it. I'm not sure whether it would fit where I am right now, but it helped then.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
There is definitely a problem of overlapping definitions. But not all the confusion springs from that.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Father forgive, seems pretty unilateral.
Do some parsing. Only one person is talking, but they are not unilaterally granting anything, neither are they addressing the perpetrator (Stephen does exactly the same thing when being martyred).
This episode is brought up regularly in support of this "unilateral forgiveness" trend. It seems to me that it would support it a lot better if Jesus (or Stephen) had said "I forgive you". Which neither of them did.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think there's a definition problem going, as usual.
It's hard for me to know what to call it besides "forgiveness" when I'm considering a one-sided "dropping of charges" against someone who has wounded me. It isn't "letting it go" because that suggests overlooking the fault, just letting it pass into the past. It's nowhere near that easy. I need a word that is purposeful, that allows for blood, sweat, and tears as I struggle to do what Christ would have me do.
That's all very well, and of course I understand what you mean and recognise the process, but the fact is that it completely fails to take the perpetrator into account.
The idea of forgiveness is not just (or indeed initially) about the victim feeling better: I think the latter idea is the product of our individualistic cultires. First and foremost it's about how the perpetrator can be restored to the community.
Anyone in a church who has been on the receiving end of a pious "but I've forgiven you" will know that such unilateralism doesn't actually resolve anything community-wise.
Restorative justice seeks not only to place the victim at the heart of the resolution process, it considers how to re-include the offender if at all possible. If the offence is serious, that can be a difficult process for both the offender and the victim, but also a highly rewarding one.
Unilateral forgiveness deprives perpetrators of an opportunity for repentance (a genuine awareness of the wrong they've done and a change of heart) and reinclusion. As someone who spends a lot of time with perpetrators, I can report that these are very real issues for many of them.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
My understanding of the situation is this. Forgiveness is freedom, for victim and perpetrator alike. The particular insight of Christianity, I would suggest, or at least the insight of Jesus's example of forgiveness, is that it is initiated by the victim, rather than the victim standing over the perpetrator and demanding it. That offer is itself very demanding, but it acquires the authentic Christ mark of boundless generosity by being made without condition.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The particular insight of Christianity, I would suggest, or at least the insight of Jesus's example of forgiveness, is that it is initiated by the victim, rather than the victim standing over the perpetrator and demanding it.
I don't understand any of this. Can you explain further?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The particular insight of Christianity, I would suggest, or at least the insight of Jesus's example of forgiveness, is that it is initiated by the victim, rather than the victim standing over the perpetrator and demanding it.
I don't understand any of this. Can you explain further?
I'll do my best. The model of forgiveness that I'm arguing against is the model which has the victim demanding that the perpetrator ask for forgiveness before it is granted. It still has to be received by the perpetrator in order to be entirely effective, but it is initiated by an unconditional offer by the victim.
What is the effect of this on the power relations? The most profound effect is that the victim is no longer tied to the perpetrator. They are still tied to the incident itself, but they have done their bit, and the onus is now on the perpetrator to respond to the offer of forgiveness. That partial liberation can be very powerful.
What does this do to ideas of justice? This is probably the trickiest element. I hope that what it does is to take away the abstraction of justice from relationships, and put the whole exercise firmly in the arena of human relations. To that extent, it does nothing to harm the concept of restorative justice, since from what I understand this is one of the most profound effects of restorative justice anyway. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I think that the unconditional initiation by the victim increases the capacity of restorative justice to effect change on the part of the perpetrator by removing the latter's power to keep their hold over the victim for as long as they withhold consent. The incident does not lose its hold, but the perpetrator does, and this experience must be powerful if there is a way of holding the perpetrator within the process, rather than allowing them to withdraw in shock at their unexpected loss of power.
I'm not sure if that helps or not; it's the best I can do right now.
[ 21. November 2015, 08:56: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I like the way you're going Thunderbunk. In the same way that God offers unconditional forgiveness while not reducing the seriousness of sin, so may we.
I don't see it that God needs us, No Prophet, but God does love us, all of us, and would like close relationship with all of us, if we are willing.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We're both right Eutychus. But you are wrong.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'll do my best.
Much clearer, thank you.
quote:
forgiveness (...) is initiated by an unconditional offer by the victim.
I agree that this is certainly how God's forgiveness to us in Christ works.
On a human level, I think things are more complex and it really depends on the situation.
I agree that victims need to find the best way possible to no longer be tied to the perpetrator.
In my personal experience as a victim, a large part of this is an individual work on oneself, without any involvement with the perpetrator. I'd term this "letting go" or "cultivating an attitude of forgiveness". The timing cannot be imposed by anyone else and help will probably be required.
To me, any encounter with the perpetrator needs to come after this process, or at least a good way into it (someone said it's a bit like grief, there are stages, you need to be at the right one).
quote:
What is the effect of this on the power relations? (...)
This is the part of your post that makes me the most nervous.
I sort of see what you mean, but I think that engaging in a process of forgiveness with the agenda of restoring a power balance, especially if not well thought-out, can be fraught with difficulties (and possibly distort the notion of forgiveness beyond all recognition).
I mentioned Secret Sunshine earlier (spoiler alert):
The (indirect) victim, full of new-found Christian zeal, goes to meet the perpetrator in prison to "forgive him". It is quite clear that she unconsciously wants to restore the power balance in her favour. When she gets there, she discovers he too has become a Christian and already (in his words) received forgiveness for what he did. Her "weapon" of forgiveness is knocked out of her hand and as a result, she decompensates big time.
quote:
The incident does not lose its hold, but the perpetrator does, and this experience must be powerful if there is a way of holding the perpetrator within the process, rather than allowing them to withdraw in shock at their unexpected loss of power.
But in restorative justice, the idea is that both the victim and the perpetrator are empowered, properly. It's not a zero-sum game.
[ 21. November 2015, 10:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I want to retract the 'you are wrong'. But ![[Smile]](smile.gif) we, the Church, MUSTN'T stop staring in to the chosenly helpless, compassionate, powerless, non-violent, reconciling eyes of almighty God on the cross.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lincoln Imp
Apprentice
# 17123
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
For the full thing--forgiveness asked, offered, received--I use the term "reconciliation." That really DOES require two people, as you can't reconcile with someone who is still walking away from you as fast as he can.
I'd go along with that: forgiveness is one-sided and requires nothing of the perpetrator (who may be dead and buried for many years), reconciliation requires both parties walking together, the perpetrator admitting guilt and the wronged party extending forgiveness to the other. It is the secret of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation.
Forgiveness is a gift from God, one cannot will it, the same way one cannot will love. One can only pray to be given it, and work together with God to receive it through Jesus Christ who was reviled, yet did not answer back.
My own most poignant experience of the emotion (outside the confessional) was when I apologised for something I did not do to the person falsely accusing me. We are not reconciled, she still continues in her "wicked ways" - having found additional targets - but I have been enabled to pray for mine enemy and actually do wish her well. Not sure quite how it came about, it was not a conscious choice and definitely not in my plan. It happened purely by the grace of God.
Posts: 30 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But in restorative justice, the idea is that both the victim and the perpetrator are empowered, properly. It's not a zero-sum game.
Indeed not, but I was starting from the aggression implicit in the act which caused the need for justice. This is intended to give the perpetrator a hold over the victim. The other side of that is the emotion implicit in expressions such as "getting justice for", i.e. the power of the wronged to withhold release from the perpetrator until something has been satisfied. This can get between the victim and willingness to engage in restorative justice.
To my mind, the point about restorative justice is precisely to restore a right relationship between the two people. This sets issues of power aside, focuses on the relationship and heals that.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I've just got back from a cell with two inmates in it, one up for murder and one up for manslaughter, so I told them about this thread. It was fascinating (but their coffee was a bit strong).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is definitely a problem of overlapping definitions. But not all the confusion springs from that.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Father forgive, seems pretty unilateral.
Do some parsing. Only one person is talking, but they are not unilaterally granting anything, neither are they addressing the perpetrator (Stephen does exactly the same thing when being martyred).
This episode is brought up regularly in support of this "unilateral forgiveness" trend. It seems to me that it would support it a lot better if Jesus (or Stephen) had said "I forgive you". Which neither of them did.
So what's going on here? Is Jesus asking the Father to forgive whilst holding onto an attitude of unforgivrmeess? Mark 11:25-26 sounds pretty unilateral:
"25 “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
For the full thing--forgiveness asked, offered, received--I use the term "reconciliation." That really DOES require two people, as you can't reconcile with someone who is still walking away from you as fast as he can.
I'd go along with that: forgiveness is one-sided and requires nothing of the perpetrator (who may be dead and buried for many years), reconciliation requires both parties walking together, the perpetrator admitting guilt and the wronged party extending forgiveness to the other.
That's well put. If we get chance to extend forgivrness that opens up an opportunity for repentance and reconciliation. But it's not always possible. As you say, the perpetrator may be dead - or they may be out of touch, or dangerous to contact because they are toxic or violent.
The other side of th coin is to ask what unforgiveness looks like. Where we don't forgive, our lives are to some extent being governed by someone else's harmful act. Forgiveness sets us free from the toxic effects and after effects of these acts. If we make that freedom dependent on someone else's response we hand the key to that freedom to someone else - the person who trapped us in the first place.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Let me give my definition and then I can discuss the limits.
To me forgiveness is the relinquishing of the right to justice or redress for the wrong done. I think there is evidence that the NT model is based on debt-forgiveness, such as has been granted to some overly-indebted countries.
Where no real harm has been done, I don't think forgiveness comes into it, or at least only at a fairly trivial level. So what would limit forgiveness?
First, and to me obviously, you cannot forgive acts against third parties. As in the oft mentioned case where a dying German begged Elie Wiesel for forgiveness for the crimes against the Jews, which he refused to give. Correctly IMO.
Second, if the person has not asked for their debt, of whatever kind, to be remitted, I would see no reason to do so. So if someone were to steal from me, I would seek redress. And in cases like this, even the request for forgiveness should include some credible resolution not to repeat.
Lastly, I would say that sometimes forgiveness should still include an element of redress. If a person is a habitual sex-pest for example, it would be better to report him/her so as to force some sort of therapy or even just restriction, even if I am prepared to see it as due to a character flaw beyond conscious control and not require personal redress.
This is reflected in the doctrine of purgatory which seems to me to be eminently sensible.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So what's going on here? Is Jesus asking the Father to forgive whilst holding onto an attitude of unforgiveness?
I don't think he has an unforgiving attitude, but that he is asking his Father to forgive their sin - a thought made more explicit in Stephen's martyrdom.
To my mind, whether or not that forgiveness becomes effective and meaningful depends on the perpetrator recognising they have something to be forgiven for. We don't know how that story ends for Jesus' executioners or Stephen's killers - apart from Saul/Paul.
I agree Mark 11:25-26 sounds pretty unilateral, but the passage already quoted in Luke is unequivocally conditional on repentance. You have to consider both!
The way I resolve them is to say that the Mark passage and those like it is about not harbouring resentment and being ready to forgive minor slights without making a fuss (Eph 4:32 I see in this light too).
You are hardly going to set up a restorative justice process every time somebody is late for an appointment or something like that. But if the offence is serious, then recognition of the wrong done is an important part of granting, and receiving, forgiveness. "Forgiveness lite" is likely to do more harm than good in such circumstances. I worry about people who go on TV the day after a relative is killed and proclaim they've forgiven the killers; I think they're still in denial at that point.
Besides, I think benefiting from God's forgiveness (which we are encouraged to imitate) is indeed conditional on recognising our sin. God is disposed to forgive us, but nothing happens between us and him until we recognise our need to be forgiven.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I think that forgiveness, in Christian terms, is a much misunderstood concept. It isn't an emotional state, but is an act of will. When we forgive someone, we don't forget the hurt they caused us. We just realise that we too have hurt others, either intentionally, or through our self-centred behaviour, and so realise that all disharmony in the world is related to the ego to which most of us are subservient. This allows us to see that we must forgive as we ask forgiveness, as Jesus taught us in the Lord's Prayer. So we hold it of no account. There is a saying that to know all is to forgive all. Only God is omniscient, so He forgives all. Our ability to forgive is limited by our condition, but the closer we come to Him, the closer we are to the omniscient ability to forgive everything.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think there's a definition problem going, as usual.
It's hard for me to know what to call it besides "forgiveness" when I'm considering a one-sided "dropping of charges" against someone who has wounded me. It isn't "letting it go" because that suggests overlooking the fault, just letting it pass into the past. It's nowhere near that easy. I need a word that is purposeful, that allows for blood, sweat, and tears as I struggle to do what Christ would have me do.
That's all very well, and of course I understand what you mean and recognise the process, but the fact is that it completely fails to take the perpetrator into account.
The idea of forgiveness is not just (or indeed initially) about the victim feeling better: I think the latter idea is the product of our individualistic cultires. First and foremost it's about how the perpetrator can be restored to the community.
Anyone in a church who has been on the receiving end of a pious "but I've forgiven you" will know that such unilateralism doesn't actually resolve anything community-wise.
Restorative justice seeks not only to place the victim at the heart of the resolution process, it considers how to re-include the offender if at all possible. If the offence is serious, that can be a difficult process for both the offender and the victim, but also a highly rewarding one.
Unilateral forgiveness deprives perpetrators of an opportunity for repentance (a genuine awareness of the wrong they've done and a change of heart) and reinclusion. As someone who spends a lot of time with perpetrators, I can report that these are very real issues for many of them.
First of all, I'm not advocating "forgiveness lite." That is no forgiveness at all, IMHO--it's a delusion. If it costs nothing to forgive, it's not forgiveness. And I agree that those who declare forgiveness the day after someone murders their spouse, child, etc. are extremely unlikely to be anywhere near real forgiveness yet.
The other stuff you're referring to--restoring the perpetrator--is what I refer to as "reconciliation." And reconciliation is far rarer than forgiveness for the simple reason that it requires both parties to be willing, present, and able. I can never be reconciled to X in this life, because X harmed me grievously and then died. But I can forgive him and hope to complete the reconciliation in the next world. I could not in fact be reconciled to X here for some years before his death, as he was suffering from encephalopathy and had no capacity to recognize reality anymore, or admit it was other than he falsely remembered it. So forgiveness was my only option then, too. And even in the far-off, misty days before X succumbed to dementia, I could not be reconciled to him because he was abusive, toxic and dangerous, and even being around him placed me in danger. So there you've got all three reasons why one-sided forgiveness was the only way to go. (It took me 20 years.)
Reconciliation is forgiveness offered-and-received. It does restore the perpetrator, at least in relation to the victim (though not necessarily to the exact same relationship as before). If the whole community can come to that same place together, it restores the perpetrator wholly.
But it is a rarer thing, because even among those perps who are living, non-demented, and non-dangerous, there are few who will face up to the truth of what they've done honestly enough to take part in such a process. Easier to go on denying the whole thing, even to themselves. The ideal is a lovely, beautiful, breathtaking, tearfully awesome thing--when it happens (and I've seen it a few times). But human beings being what we are, one-sided forgiveness (NOT lite!) is as much of a miracle as many of us are granted.
Oh, and as for the asshole who told his victim he didn't need her forgiveness because God had already forgiven him--that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what sin, and guilt, and forgiveness are all about. Rather like the forgiven servant who then goes out and chokes a fellow servant over a few dollars. His behavior shows that the forgiveness process between him and the king has gone badly awry. Something wasn't right, and the problem didn't lie with the king! When the king revokes his mercy, that's the natural outworking of the servant's refusal to forgive another. And anyone who blows a raspberry at a victim's forgiveness because he thinks he no longer needs it (having already been forgiven by God) is IMHO giving evidence of being on the same road to disaster. Better backpedal fast.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
reconciliation is far rarer than forgiveness for the simple reason that it requires both parties to be willing, present, and able.
Actually now you come to mention it I think the last time round we had this debate, I decided forgiveness and reconciliation were on a continuum. Obviously there are some circumstances when direct reconciliation is impossible. However I think that present emphasis is far too much on unilateral forgivenes at the expense of seeking restoration and reconciliation, whereas Jesus enjoins us to be "reconciled quickly with our adversary". quote:
(It took me 20 years.)
I agree this kind of thing can take a long time and sometimes I think time is all it takes. I recently met someone of whom I was a victim and with whom I was not reconciled, many years after the fact, only to discover I had no more animosity for him (I did throw out the suggestion of meeting up to talk it through though; still waiting...)
quote:
because even among those perps who are living, non-demented, and non-dangerous, there are few who will face up to the truth of what they've done honestly enough to take part in such a process.
My rule of thumb, based on observation, is that the more serious the crime, the more likely the person is to face up to it. Whether the retributive justice system gives them the space for restoration to take place is another question. quote:
Oh, and as for the asshole who told his victim he didn't need her forgiveness because God had already forgiven him--that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what sin, and guilt, and forgiveness are all about.
As explained, that was a fictional example. And the point of it is not only to show that he had an inadequate understanding of forgiveness (or was deliberately trolling the victim), the would-be forgiver did too. She was trying to use forgiveness as a weapon and had objectified the perp to that end, which is why she lost it when she couldn't use her "weapon" as planned.
That might be fiction, but I fear it is a typical outcome of the issues surrounding forgiveness not being properly thought through.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Some thought provoking stuff (well, for me anyway).
I'd never heard anyone from a Christian perspective reckon forgiveness is conditional on repentance. The Luke 17 passage doesn't really say this. Have a look at 17:1-4. Here you go:
Jesus[a] said to his disciples, “Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come! 2 It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive. 4 And if the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.
Sounds more like an exhortation to forgive rather than criteria for withholding it.
The heart of all this, IMHO is getting straight the grounds of forgiveness. The parable of the unmerciful servant in Matt 18 is pretty clear on that. Matt 18:33 Jesus has the King saying "Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?" Looks to me like, as Christians, we forgive because we have been forgiven. The perp gets forgiven whether they want it or not. They have to answer for their behaviour to judicial authorities, the community, God ultimately, but they don't answer to me any more.
Now this begs another question. Come to that in a mo'. I'm with Eutychus that forgiveness gives a chance to get the perp to face up to what they've done. The perp's humanity's been damaged by their action as well as the victim. But I'm with Lamb Chopped et al that if you make that the main reason for forgiveness you've got a problem. If I don't forgive until the perp asks for it, I can't get closure until they decide to give it to me. The perp's free to carry on making my life a misery for as long as the like. That sounds less like justice, more like licence for continued abuse.
That aside, here's my wider question. As a Christian I know why forgivrness is important both for me and the perp. But what if I'm not? Why should I care a tinker's cuss about the person who hurt me? What's a good reason for me to decide to forgive them?
So here's my wider question to our other-than-Christian ship mates. What makes youz reckon that it's a good idea to forgive someone?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lincoln Imp
Apprentice
# 17123
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
First, and to me obviously, you cannot forgive acts against third parties. As in the oft mentioned case where a dying German begged Elie Wiesel for forgiveness for the crimes against the Jews, which he refused to give. Correctly IMO.
... nor seek forgiveness on behalf of others. It does indeed seem obvious, and I tend to agree. There is, however, another side to it.
You might remember the "kneefall" of German Chancellor Willy Brandt when he visited Warsaw in 1970. Brandt had left Germany in 1933 and spent the whole Nazi era in exile abroad, even having his nationality revoked by the Nazis. He only returned to Germany at the end of 1946 - well after the war when the re-building of the country was under way. Apart from his nationality he had absolutely no connection with any of the Nazi atrocities. It must have been much easier for him to make this dramatic gesture in acknowledgment of the guilt of a nation than for someone who had stayed in the country and was therefore tainted even if only by the most tenuous association.
The gesture was hugely significant. It gained him the Nobel Peace Prize but it nearly led to his political downfall at the time in a vote of no confidence. The German nation was divided about this gesture from some-one who had not been involved, and some felt he had no authority to make it. However, for the Polish it was a first step on the road to reconciliation and enormously valued, and it seems to be a gesture that is still expected from Japan by the British.
We should not underestimate any word or action that takes responsibility for crimes committed to aid the process of healing. In the light of this one example from history it is interesting to note the reluctance of the church today to own up to even historic failures.
--------------------
There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds. (Tennyson)
Posts: 30 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
The Luke 17 passage doesn't really say this. Have a look at 17:1-4.
Your bolds are not my bolds.
quote:
If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive
Yes, there is an injunction to forgive, but in this passage it is unequivocally conditional on the repentance of the perp.
quote:
The parable of the unmerciful servant in Matt 18 is pretty clear
What, as to the obvious need for confrontation with the wrongoing before you can ask for, and receive, forgiveness? Absolutely! You'll note the servant did not beg for mercy until confronted with his debt and inability to pay - which he acknowledged.
[ETA and Lamb Chopped please note, this is much more than some "inner forgiveness", since it had tangible consequences for both creditor and debtor]
[ETETA: cross post with Dave W., whom I unilaterally forgive for saying more or less exactly what I said ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ]
[ 22. November 2015, 16:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Some thought provoking stuff (well, for me anyway).
I'd never heard anyone from a Christian perspective reckon forgiveness is conditional on repentance. The Luke 17 passage doesn't really say this. Have a look at 17:1-4. Here you go:
Jesus[a] said to his disciples, “Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come! 2 It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive. 4 And if the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive.
Sounds more like an exhortation to forgive rather than criteria for withholding it.
But what about the parts that say "if there is repentance" and "if the same person [...] says 'I repent'"? Sounds exactly like criteria for deciding whether you must forgive or not. quote:
The heart of all this, IMHO is getting straight the grounds of forgiveness. The parable of the unmerciful servant in Matt 18 is pretty clear on that. Matt 18:33 Jesus has the King saying "Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?"
Again, you're gliding past key clauses in verses 26 (where the first servant begs for mercy:"‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’") and 29 (where the second servant begs for mercy: "His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’"
And furthermore, if forgiveness is supposed to be unconditional, why does the master himself (evidently supposed to represent God in this parable) react so savagely to the unmerciful servant? "In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed."
I don't think your position is at all supported by the verses you cite.
[ETA: cross-posting is the slow typer's curse.]
[ 22. November 2015, 16:58: Message edited by: Dave W. ]
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
Whoa! I think there was a glitch in the Matrix.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Truman White:
quote:
If I don't forgive until the perp asks for it, I can't get closure until they decide to give it to me.
OK but that's not the case with me. What do you mean (or does anybody mean) by "closure"?
If somebody does me harm, the emotional effect on me will vary with the circumstances, but I will not necessarily suffer because of it. OK so if I pursue somebody through the courts for defrauding me, the incident still has an ongoing effect in time, and if this is what you mean by "not closing" then just possible you have an over-reaction to any conflict that makes it preferable for you to never have any.
In any case I will get closure in time, since pursuing legitimate redress doesn't take forever, and I would definite say that if I fail in getting the redress, I need to forget about it and get on with my life. But that is not the same as forgiving.
Lincoln Imp:
quote:
nor seek forgiveness on behalf of others. It does indeed seem obvious, and I tend to agree. There is, however, another side to it.
Well I have no disagreement about your post, or the value of what Willi Brandt did. But it is not really connected. Refusal of a person to grant forgiveness for crimes committed to others, is nothing similar to feeling solidarity in guilt for crimes done by a group which in some way you feel part of.
I totally accept the sincerity of WB's action. I hope and probably believe, however, that he would not feel it obligatory for others who had no part at all in the crimes.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Refusal of a person to grant forgiveness for crimes committed to others, is nothing similar to feeling solidarity in guilt for crimes done by a group which in some way you feel part of.
Agreed. But I'd like to point out feelings aside, Willy Brandt had some legitimacy to express solidarity by virtue of being Chancellor.
"Identificational repentance" was a fad a while back, whereby Christians would start apologising for the sins of their nation on the nation's behalf, based on the actions of Daniel, Nehemiah and co. But unlike a head of state, they have no legitimacy for repenting on behalf of the nation they happen to be in (not to mention the fact that on that basis Daniel, Nehemiah and co. should have been repenting for the sins of the Babylonians et al...)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Dave, just because your critique of Truman is logically valid as far as it goes, doesn't make the utter, outrageous, unconditional, unjust forgiveness, grace, mercy, therapy, restitution of God invalid, does it.
That's not a question.
I mean, you're not extrapolating from Jesus' Iron Age parables to the way God is. You couldn't possibly be.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Surely forgiveness requires repentance by the person who seeks forgiveness? See eg Luke 3:3, Luke 17:3
The prodigal father forgave his son before he knew he had repented.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Surely forgiveness requires repentance by the person who seeks forgiveness? See eg Luke 3:3, Luke 17:3
The prodigal father forgave his son before he knew he had repented.
Evidence?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My rule of thumb, based on observation, is that the more serious the crime, the more likely the person is to face up to it. Whether the retributive justice system gives them the space for restoration to take place is another question.
This may very well be true of crimes, especially when they are marked out as such in front of everybody as the result of a public legal trial. But I really doubt it applies to cases like mine, where the courts were never involved, the issues never became fully public, and the perpetrators find it so much easier to lie to themselves and to others about their guilt.
Such people have almost everything to lose by facing up to their guilt and approaching the victim for forgiveness. By doing so they lose their own self-respect (and I know some have lied to themselves to the point where they appear truly to no longer remember the actual events); they lose the hope that the victim somehow missed the true nature of the sin, or how serious it was ("If I say nothing, perhaps she'll think it was all in fun, or a misunderstanding"); and they run the risk of the victim taking that opportunity to do the opposite of forgiving and instead making the whole thing (along with the perp's confession) public. Which would lose them the community's respect--however much of that might remain, due to public confusion over what exactly happened and who precisely is the liar.
Seriously, I think the only way X, Y, and Z are ever going to approach me (or allow me to approach) for any kind of restorative justice scenario is if the Holy Spirit decides to do a major miracle. They've got too much to lose. And ten years after the actual events, they've found ways to live with whatever nagging guilt they might feel.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think the only way X, Y, and Z are ever going to approach me (or allow me to approach) for any kind of restorative justice scenario is if the Holy Spirit decides to do a major miracle. They've got too much to lose. And ten years after the actual events, they've found ways to live with whatever nagging guilt they might feel.
FWIW it took two of the people that hurt me seven years, but they did.
I'm not much of a "hearing God's voice" type of person, but when some time prior to that I complained in prayer "why haven't they repented yet?" the answer came back in a flash: "because you're not ready yet". Ouch.
[ 23. November 2015, 05:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Eutychus, what would you call the inner process with the help of God that must go on if a Christian is to remain sane (and non-bitter), in the face of non-repentant perpetrators of
... child abuse?
... public destruction of a pastor's reputation resulting in loss of income and position along with credible threats of physical harm?
... a reckless, intentional act of running a family (with young child) off the road, in the dark, at 70 miles per hour? Not strangers either--she had some serious hatred going on toward us, and damn nearly killed us and her own young son as well.
In all of these cases I have had to come to terms with what was done to us. No human justice has been done, and none of the perpetrators have suffered any bad result I am aware of from their self-chosen actions. We have confronted all of them, sometimes multiple times, often with a mediator present. Shit all was the result. God knows what's going on in their heads, but their reaction was either to deny the whole thing, or to go even further on the attack.
I see no possibility of any of them coming to their senses at this late date and coming to the table with us. But I've got to cope with the sheer weight of fear, anger, and downright hatred inspired by people who meant us all the harm they could come up with. And that process has involved a huge amount of prayer, Bible reading, talking with Christian friends and counselors, keeping my eyes on what Christ has done for me, a deliberate dropping of all claims on that person (financial or otherwise) and going to communion. I call that process forgiveness, and it's a damnably hard process, and takes years to show results. But it's the only way I can stay spiritually sane.
What should I call it, if not forgiveness? It most certainly is NOT "letting it go." Nothing like so easy.
ETA: if the Lord's waiting for me to be ready, he's going to be waiting a lot longer. Certain of these events go back over 40 years.
[ 23. November 2015, 05:35: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In my own story I call it "cultivating an attitude of being disposed to forgive readily and immediately should the opportunity arise". Or "letting go", a phrase which does not cheapen the process to my mind.
Getting a little closer to the Scriptures, I might take Stephen's "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" which, while it does not in my book constitute unilateral forgiveness, is a conscious decision not to wish suffering on perpetrators (which can be quite hard work).
Just to be clear, I wasn't telling my story to imply any superiority over your experience, just ponting out that this stuff can take longer than we could imagine.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In an unrelated development, we've just had a course purporting to train people in counselling touted in our church.
Brief examination suggests that the teacher is someone who, in the course of a counselling process, is very likely to delve into their Bible and proclaim that God's offer for the counselee (which "evil modern psychology" has failed to come up with) is freedom/deliverance/healing, provided that the counselee unilaterally forgives (and of course if they don't, well...)
To my mind this is a) bullshit b) ripe ground for spiritual abuse and the emergence of gurus, and I want nothing to do with it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
No, I never thought you were (this was to previous post). But in turn I need to say that in my experience you were unusually fortunate to have any perpetrator come back and repent in a non-public criminal situation. It makes me suspect the perp might have been a Christian. (Which is a thing I'm having grave doubts about in the case of almost all of ours)
Seriously, the only case I've ever known of someone doing serious harm and then repenting it to the victim's face involved a Christian. And yes, I forgave him. Immediately and fully. It was a damn sight easier than the process I'm having to go through with the other folks. Much cleaner and more comforting in every way. If only it could all be like that!
I'm sorry, but there's no way I can use "letting it go" to carry the sheer weight of the spiritual work involved in forgiving my family's almost-murderer. I just can't. And the "being disposed" phrase sounds as though nothing has actually happened yet--no change has taken place at all in my heart or in my disposition toward the perp. But it has.
[ 23. November 2015, 05:58: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In an unrelated development, we've just had a course purporting to train people in counselling touted in our church.
Brief examination suggests that the teacher is someone who, in the course of a counselling process, is very likely to delve into their Bible and proclaim that God's offer for the counselee (which "evil modern psychology" has failed to come up with) is freedom/deliverance/healing, provided that the counselee unilaterally forgives (and of course if they don't, well...)
To my mind this is a) bullshit b) ripe ground for spiritual abuse and the emergence of gurus, and I want nothing to do with it.
This I can totally agree with. Plus it offers no hope whatsoever with the difficult part of the whole mess, which is where the victim says "Yes, but HOW do I forgive X?"
At which point most of the idiots of this brand just go on repeating that you HAVE to, without any practical advice whatsoever on how to actually do it.
Grrrrrrrrr.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
On my own tangent, then--
Being perhaps too much influenced by Charles Williams, I have wondered if maybe my forgiveness actually DOES benefit the perp in a real way, whether he accepts it or not, or even knows about it. I'm thinking of Jesus' "Father, forgive them", and Stephen's variant on that. I don't think that could be simply a nice sentiment--a fitting platitude to die with. Surely the Father hears the Son and takes his prayer seriously! Which leads me to wonder if God the Father did in fact say, "All right, because you ask me, I hereby cancel this sin in the heavenly courts" or similar.
That would not of course get the perps completely off the hook and into heaven without faith or repentance or etc. etc. Without repentance and faith in Christ, they'd still be under condemnation, but not for that particular sin. And elsewhere in his teaching Jesus seems to make a distinction in levels of punishment--so perhaps the eventual punishment of that perp (assuming no faith, etc.) would still be lighter than if Jesus had asked no such thing?
Obviously I can't make a doctrine out of this, since it's far from clear in the Scripture. But on the off chance that I might be right, one of my personal steps toward forgiveness of my own perps is to ask God to drop the charges that are doubtless pending against the perps on account of what they've done to me. There's no way of knowing whether God will agree to my request, but it allows me to do the most Christ-like thing I'm capable of to my perp under the circumstances--and that can only be good. Certainly for me, hopefully for them.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'd draw a distinction between sin (the moral wrong which God forgives) and wrong (the harm done by one human to another). The former is God's prerogative; but receiving forgiveness of sin does not mean that the wrong done to others is righted. That requires human interaction.
(Again, Secret Sunshine is very good on this. The victim asks (well, screams, actually) "how can God have forgiven [the perp] before I did?")
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lincoln Imp
Apprentice
# 17123
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well I have no disagreement about your post,(... )Refusal of a person to grant forgiveness for crimes committed to others, is nothing similar to feeling solidarity in guilt for crimes done by a group.
But it is: it is about collective repentance, that repentance which the OT prophets demand and of which we have a prime example in the Book of Jonah.
[fixed code]
[ 23. November 2015, 06:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds. (Tennyson)
Posts: 30 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
