Thread: Forgiveness Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029583
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
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."
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
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).
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Father forgive, seems pretty unilateral.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
Surely forgiveness requires repentance by the person who seeks forgiveness? See eg Luke 3:3, Luke 17:3
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We're both right Eutychus. But you are wrong.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on
:
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.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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).
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
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.”
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
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.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
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?
Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
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. ]
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
Whoa! I think there was a glitch in the Matrix.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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...)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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?")
Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln Imp:
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.
"Feeling solidarity" has nothing to do with whether an individual can legitimately, symbolically seek forgiveness on behalf of a group.
And what's happening in Jonah is the very opposite of one individual doing so: everyone, from king to beast (!) repents.
[edited for top-of-page clarity]
[ 23. November 2015, 06:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Reminds me of the "spiritual advice", better called "spiritual abuse", so often dealt out in confession by confessors without a modicum of common sense: "you must forgive yourself", "God will never send more than you can bear", "God does not want you to hurt" etc.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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).
Sound like a good definition of forgiveness to me. Matt 18 Jesus compares forgiveness to cancelling debt. "..don't hold this sin against them" is just that.
Interesting that you're struggling to find anything in the Scriptures to support your definition of "letting go." All you've said about confrontation, repentance and forgivrness works fine in a church context. Doesn't help Lamb Chopped or others in her position where the perp doesn't give a damn about the impact of the trauma they've caused. I come back to to what I said up-thread. If you have to wait for repentance before you can forgive, the perp's got you trapped.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Interesting that you're struggling to find anything in the Scriptures to support your definition of "letting go."
I don't think the Scriptures tell the whole story on forgiveness, especially given the range of semantic meaning ascribed to the term we've seen here.
What I object to is people championing unilateral forgiveness as though it was obvious from the Bible, whereas to my mind it quite patently isn't.
In my experience such people (not infrequently on the back of some cathartic experience of their own) often go on to order others to unilaterally forgive. For someone impressionable enough to attempt to comply, this may result in an initial sense of release but, I would contend, doesn't deal with the underlying issues at all - which take time and help - and worse still, buries them under a false impression of having dealt with them.
Should any further suffering and pain appear in the victim, the "forgiveness-enjoiners" deal neatly with this by ascribing it to the victim's refusal to forgive, or inadequate forgiveness so far, and so on.
This is spiritual abuse.
quote:
If you have to wait for repentance before you can forgive, the perp's got you trapped.
To my mind you have to get free of the "trap" before you are able to fully forgive, should the opportunity arise. This is part of the "letting go" process and I think the "unilateral forgiveness" doctrine ignores it at its peril. In the Bible, I would point to the example of Joseph.
quote:
Matt 18 Jesus compares forgiveness to cancelling debt. "..don't hold this sin against them" is just that.
To avoid any Trinitarian confusion, let's use the example of Stephen.
Stephen asking God not to hold the sin committed by his executioners against them (in your terms, asking God to cancelling their debt to him) is not the same as Stephen cancelling the debt of wrong done against him.
The executioners had a debt of sin due to God, and a debt of wrong done against Stephen. They don't get a chance to ask forgiveness of Stephen for the wrong done against him, but they do get a chance to ask for forgiveness of their sin before God. Stephen certainly embodies great-heartedness in his martyrdom, but what he doesn't do is unilaterally forgive his killers.
Simply put, if I ask my bank to cancel my enemy's overdraft, that doesn't mean he doesn't still owe me twenty quid.
[ 23. November 2015, 09:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Some people never think they need forgiveness as they don't think they have done anything wrong.
It's possible - although not easy - to forgive them, and never go near them again. They certainly don't need to know they are forgiven - this simply reinforces their skewed idea of themselves and their entitlement. I would say this is the sensible course with sociopaths and psychopaths.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Interesting that you're struggling to find anything in the Scriptures to support your definition of "letting go."
You haven't done such a stellar job of that yourself, you know.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What I object to is people championing unilateral forgiveness as though it was obvious from the Bible, whereas to my mind it quite patently isn't.
In my experience such people (not infrequently on the back of some cathartic experience of their own) often go on to order others to unilaterally forgive. For someone impressionable enough to attempt to comply, this may result in an initial sense of release but, I would contend, doesn't deal with the underlying issues at all - which take time and help - and worse still, buries them under a false impression of having dealt with them.
Should any further suffering and pain appear in the victim, the "forgiveness-enjoiners" deal neatly with this by ascribing it to the victim's refusal to forgive, or inadequate forgiveness so far, and so on.
This is spiritual abuse.
But as far as I can tell, nobody on this thread has been arguing that position, and the people (like me) who've responded to that have condemned it just as you do. Why then do you keep hammering on it as if someone were opposing you?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Stephen asking God not to hold the sin committed by his executioners against them (in your terms, asking God to cancelling their debt to him) is not the same as Stephen cancelling the debt of wrong done against him.
The executioners had a debt of sin due to God, and a debt of wrong done against Stephen. They don't get a chance to ask forgiveness of Stephen for the wrong done against him, but they do get a chance to ask for forgiveness of their sin before God. Stephen certainly embodies great-heartedness in his martyrdom, but what he doesn't do is unilaterally forgive his killers.
Simply put, if I ask my bank to cancel my enemy's overdraft, that doesn't mean he doesn't still owe me twenty quid.
This is logically true. And yet...
Seriously, does it make any sense emotionally or theologically to say, "God, forgive this person and free him of whatever punishment he has incurred before you for stealing my car," while at the same time holding the mental reservation "But I reserve the right to be pissed at you personally for what you did to me personally here on earth, and I intend to follow it up using every earthly means available to me, until you explicitly say you repent"?
I rather think God would put that in the same category as the unforgiving servant--your actions contradict your prayer and render it of no account.
It also leaves you emotionally entangled with the perp--which is why when I asked the Lord to drop his own charges, I at the same time quit my claim against X for the large sum of money he owed me. Not that I would necessarily refuse freely offered repayal (though I might), but I will neither demand it nor ever bring it up in his disfavor here or in heaven. The debt no longer exists unless he and he alone chooses to reinstate it.
Really, how else could I face God honestly and not have egg all over my face? "I want you to forgive his ass and keep him from whatever extra bit of hellfire this might entail, and oh, by the way, I'm hanging on to my personal claim for that loan I made him?" or in Stephen's case, "Forgive him, O Lord, on your account--but I'm hanging on to my personal beef with them until they repent--oh wait, I'm about to die, so they'll be on my hook forever, even if not yours!"
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But as far as I can tell, nobody on this thread has been arguing that position
Ramarius, OP: quote:
whilst every religion values forgiveness, only Christianity requires it...Forgiveness is a one-sided emotional transaction...
Martin60: quote:
Father forgive, seems pretty unilateral.
Lincoln Imp: quote:
forgiveness is one-sided and requires nothing of the perpetrator
Ramarius: quote:
Mark 11:25-26 sounds pretty unilateral
Truman White: quote:
I'd never heard anyone from a Christian perspective reckon forgiveness is conditional on repentance.
Ship's thieving rodent: quote:
The prodigal father forgave his son before he knew he had repented.
If someone has a cathartic and enduring experience of being released from the thrall of an aggression of any kind, that's great.
If they choose to call that "forgiveness" and interpret the Bible as providing a rationale for that for their own experience, well then who am I to judge.
However, there is an enduring problem which is that none of this addresses the benefits of forgiveness for the perpetrator, which to my mind is by far the dominant theme from a Biblical (as opposed to a contemporary therapeutic) perspective and crucially so in terms of understanding how God forgives us.
Worse still, if they set up "unilateral forgiveness" as the normative Biblical pattern and they or others adopt this as a preaching and/or Christian counselling model, then they are in danger of perpetrating spiritual abuse by making unilateral forgiveness the panacea and blaming the counsellee if it doesn't work.
If you don't have anybody teaching that kind of thing round your way, so much the better, but I could show you plenty round here.
[ 23. November 2015, 13:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, does it make any sense emotionally or theologically to say, "God, forgive this person and free him of whatever punishment he has incurred before you for stealing my car," while at the same time holding the mental reservation "But I reserve the right to be pissed at you personally for what you did to me personally here on earth, and I intend to follow it up using every earthly means available to me, until you explicitly say you repent"?
No. But does make sense (at least to me) to start praying that they be forgiven from the get-go, but take some time emotionally to get to the place where you sincerely can yourself.
Let me adjust my example so that instead of owing you £20, the enemy in my example broke your nose. Your initial reaction is little more than pain. You have to come to terms with how long it's going to take to get better, how it affects your social life, whether you need time off work and will suffer financially as a result, and so on.
(ETA I would be highly suspicious of any "I forgive you for breaking my nose" talk at this point)
If you are a good little Christian, I can imagine and indeed expect that you start praying for God to forgive that person their unprovoked attack on you (and if perchance there were extenuating circumstances, e.g. you insulting them day in day out, I would expect your conscience to convict you in due time), but not that you feel ready to sit down and resolve the matter with them, still less forgive them, especially if they appear entirely unconcerned by what happened.
Does that make sense?
[ 23. November 2015, 13:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
We've given the unilateral/conditional issue a good airing. Mind if we move on to some other aspects of forgiveness?
What does unforgiveness look like? How do we recognise it? What impact does it have on the person who is holding onto unforgiveness?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius, emphasis mine:
What impact does it have on the person who is holding onto unforgiveness?
That kind of vocabulary gives me the heebie-jeebies.
The immediate connotation for me (although I recognise this may not be the case for you) is someone presuming themselves to be in some kind of position to pronounce that someone else is "holding onto unforgiveness" and that this is in some way connected to that person's woes. I refer you to my comments on spiritual abuse above.
On an individual level, if one accepts that "letting go" is a valid, internal process prior to any forgiveness that may occur, being unable to find it within oneself to as yet forgive an offender is not a reason to further compound the situation with feelings of guilt. It's an entirely normal response to being hurt.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm with Eutychus here. We can't fill in what 'unforgivingness' means for someone else.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm with Eutychus here. We can't fill in what 'unforgivingness' means for someone else.
Really? I'd have thought that, at the very least, we could agree that unforgiveness is refusing to cancel the moral debt of someone who asks for it. Given Jesus's dire warning in Matthew 18:35 to the person who "doesn't forgive his brother from his heart" we need to be very clear as to how unforgiveness is expressed.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Given Jesus's dire warning in Matthew 18:35 to the person who "doesn't forgive his brother from his heart" we need to be very clear as to how unforgiveness is expressed.
Who is "we", and for whose benefit do "we" need to be clear? I don't see much need except between you and the Lord.
Besides, "forgiving from the heart" is an action, whereas unforgiveness (whatever that is, can you find the word in the Bible?) is an attitude.
[ 23. November 2015, 17:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What does unforgiveness look like? How do we recognise it? What impact does it have on the person who is holding onto unforgiveness?
Here's an example, from a woman who discovered her husband had been molesting one of her very young female relatives for a number of years.
quote:
Also, bizarrely, my decision to divorce was viewed by many as me breaking my marriage vows. The reality is that I needed to get divorced in order to protect my children and myself from my husband’s deceptions and frightening compulsions. My husband’s actions had shattered our marriage covenant long before the divorce papers were filed.
Through this whole process, I learned that much is required of those victimized, while little is asked of sex offenders. When my husband began to spin his story, it was received with affirmations of how courageous he was. He was even placed on the worship team within a few months of his confessions.
In contrast, I was expected to never be angry, bitter, or wrestle with forgiveness. I needed to heal quickly and quietly. And, of course, I couldn’t ever question his “recovery.” His was a wondrous redemption story, and to question his trustworthiness was to question God’s work in his life.
One of the problems with the emphasis on forgiveness is the way it tries to artificially speed everything along past the messy, complicated, and often time-consuming process of justice for the victims (i.e. making them whole, or at least as close to whole as possible).
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Really? I'd have thought that, at the very least, we could agree that unforgiveness is refusing to cancel the moral debt of someone who asks for it. Given Jesus's dire warning in Matthew 18:35 to the person who "doesn't forgive his brother from his heart" we need to be very clear as to how unforgiveness is expressed.
Surely we what we need in that case is to know how unforgiveness is expressed for ourselves, not for others.
And in the example you've given here you are no longer positing forgiveness as a unilateral transaction.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Ramarius: Really? I'd have thought that, at the very least, we could agree that unforgiveness is refusing to cancel the moral debt of someone who asks for it. Given Jesus's dire warning in Matthew 18:35 to the person who "doesn't forgive his brother from his heart" we need to be very clear as to how unforgiveness is expressed.
Yes, really and absolutely. We're not Jesus. If Jesus can see inside someone's heart and say something about what unforgiveness means to them, and perhaps even judge that, that doesn't mean that we can. Or should.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Really? I'd have thought that, at the very least, we could agree that unforgiveness is refusing to cancel the moral debt of someone who asks for it. Given Jesus's dire warning in Matthew 18:35 to the person who "doesn't forgive his brother from his heart" we need to be very clear as to how unforgiveness is expressed.
Matthew 18 abuse needs to stop.
quote:
The problem here is not with the passage itself, but with how it is used and abused. Christians who have treated others badly — who have, in fact, sinned against their brothers and sisters — treat this text like it’s their Miranda rights. They appeal to a legalistic application of this passage to distract from the wrong they have done. And thus Matthew 18 has become a refuge for scoundrels.
That’s Jesus speaking there in Matthew 18:15-17 — the same Jesus who also said things like this, from Matthew 5:39: “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” Imagine you’re greeting the pastor after the service on Sunday. You reach out to shake his hand and he wallops you on the right cheek. And then he does it again, and again, and again. And as he’s standing there, hitting you in the face, he piously reminds you that as a good Christian you’re required to “follow the Matthew 5:39 process” and turn the other cheek.
That’s exactly how Matthew 18:15-17 is usually invoked. That is the primary function of “the Matthew 18 process.” It has been twisted into a device for putting the onus on the victim — and for preventing any discussion of getting this person to stop hitting you in the face.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Given Jesus's dire warning in Matthew 18:35 to the person who "doesn't forgive his brother from his heart" we need to be very clear as to how unforgiveness is expressed.
Who is "we", and for whose benefit do "we" need to be clear? I don't see much need except between you and the Lord.
Besides, "forgiving from the heart" is an action, whereas unforgiveness (whatever that is, can you find the word in the Bible?) is an attitude.
I take "not forgive" and "unforgiving" as practically synonymous. So that's my working definition.
The "we" I refer to here is both "me personally" and "other people." I need to know what not forgiving someone else looks like so I can avoid it, and need to be able to recognise it in other people to help them through the process of forgiveness.
I'll come back to that later - interested for now in how others see this aspect.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
As I see it, there are three distinctions: forgiving, not-there-yet, and holding a grudge. Not-there-yet is the usually long struggling intermediate period between "WTF did you do, seriously?" and "I forgive you." Holding a grudge is a deliberate refusal of that process, a wrong turn off of the road.
I don't see anything in Scripture that says the person who is struggling at this moment is in spiritual danger. That person is just going through a normal human spiritual and emotional process, which takes different lengths of time for everyone.
Which is, by the way, my argument against the "instant forgiveness" types. I think real instant forgiveness is so rare as to constitute a near-miracle, unless the harm done was very very minor. And when I'm counseling someone who claims to have managed instant forgiveness, I try to put the brakes on everything, as I'm fairly sure we've got someone in denial and/or confusion. (And any self-righteous asshole who takes it upon himself to lecture a "not-there-yet-but-struggling" person on how they really ought to be moving faster, needs to be introduced to a rusty farm implement.)
Holding a grudge is what is spiritually dangerous. And by that I mean the situation that arises when someone flat-out refuses to let the Holy Spirit and time do their usual work--instead, cherishes the anger, ruminates on it day and night without any wish or slightest attempt to avoid doing so, and actively goes out of their way to pay back the other person evil for evil. This is a choice of the will, not a state of emotions or memory.
Being furious and hurt and sick and disgusted does not constitute holding a grudge. Being unable to stop thinking about it does not constitute holding a grudge.
The problem comes in when there's finally a choice in the matter--where the person begins to regain some control over his/her own life, even the tiniest bit--and then has to make a choice whether to cherish the wrath and hatred, fanning the flames to keep it alive... or to do something else.
Forgiveness can start with something as small but momentous as "I'm not going to think about him right now, I'm going to look at kittens on the internet."
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Ramarius, you talk of helping other people through the forgiveness process. I'm assuming you're a pastor or trained counselor? Because it's a pretty dicey thing to take on, especially if you have no divine or professional mandate for doing so. The last thing you want to do is shove someone drowning in pain further under. And if it's not your own crisis, it's a very delicate matter to say to the person-in-pain, "You should do this or that." It's the reason I'm staying the hell out of my sister's cancer crisis ("Oh, you should take more vitamins"/"find a new doctor"/"burn this candle and pray to St. Whatsit"). She'd likely skewer me for making things worse.
IMNSHO the best thing you can do is to listen as lovingly and nonjudgementally as you can, and then (if you can't take it anymore or suspect things are going on too long) offer some sort of distraction. Take the person to a movie. Get icecream. Ask how their son/daughter/parakeet/crazy aunt is doing. Anything to get their mind running on more positive tracks, at least for a moment.
And of course, pray for them. God can do so much more for them than you can.
[ 23. November 2015, 19:49: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
IMNSHO the best thing you can do is to listen as lovingly and nonjudgementally as you can, and then (if you can't take it anymore or suspect things are going on too long) offer some sort of distraction...Anything to get their mind running on more positive tracks, at least for a moment.
And of course, pray for them. God can do so much more for them than you can.
FW my view IW, and speaking as a furious in-danger-of-doing-myself-in-by-giving-myself-over-to-being-a-grudge-holder, I consider this to be excellent guidance.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Personally, I see the intention toward forgiveness, or as LC says "not-yet-there" as being acceptably on the forgiveness highway. Emotions are not totally governable, but the will and intentions are more so. With the help of the Spirit, perhaps as with all our other short-comings we will be cleaned up for Heaven.
Fortunately I've never been hurt the way LC and others have been hurt. But I do have a long time friend to whom I lent money (I know! I know!) that I could ill-afford who proceeded to insist that she only owed me a fraction of what I had given her. And she did give back that fraction. I'm still her friend and that took a conscious decision on my part, even though she never did and I don't think ever will admit to me or herself that she was in the wrong. She has since asked to borrow a smaller amount and I firmly refused. But we still see each other a few times a month to do mutually enjoyable activities. Yes, the situation sometimes comes to mind but it is no longer in the forefront when I am with her. That's where the Spirit has gotten me, thanks be.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
ETA: to Mark--
Yeah, well, been-there done-that still-doing-that, which is how I know.
[ 23. November 2015, 20:21: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I need to know what not forgiving someone else looks like so I can avoid it
In my view there is no better way to know this than the voice of your own conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit. You don't need a book, a counsellor, a course, or anything like this.
Basing yourself on someone else's tick-box list is about as good a way of deceiving oneself in this respect as I can think of. quote:
need to be able to recognise it in other people to help them through the process of forgiveness.
A thousand times what Lamb Chopped said. Job's friends stopped being helpful the moment they opened their mouths, and pretty soon they started doing damage.
The first precept of the Hippocratic Oath should be taken by all pastors and counsellors: first do no harm.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
@Lamb Chopped. Amongst other things, I work with various teams, part of whose role involves helping people on the forgiveness journey. And yes, we have all had various kinds of relevant professional training.
For many (most in fact) the forgiveness journey involves giving people an approach to forgiveness - a model if you like - which helps them understand the various stages of that journey, where they are on it, and the kinds of activities that help them navigate it. I have a particular role in that process, know where my limitations are, and when to involve others.
What people find helpful in this process depends on the extent of the trauma they have faced. As I think you said upthread, just telling people "you need forgive" is almost always unhelpful and counter productive.
A concept I've found particularly helpful is to see forgiveness as a process of healing. Sometimes this is literally the case - the medical case for the relationship between forgiveness and health conditions has been . well made.
For some people, recovering from aspects of their personal trauma is a prelude to forgiving the perpetrator. For others, it works the other way. The path is neither linear nor uniform. Every individual has their own path of forgiveness although, having said that, there is territory common to all.
One thing I've found particularly helpful is to give people space to tell their story. Internalising trauma is generally hugely damaging. I think this is one of the reasons the Holy Spirit gave us the Psalms - a language with which to address to God that can express whatever we're feeling, and know that we are safe to do so. It's a step that Christians are frequently in danger of missing if they feel under obligation to "forgive" quickly.
I think what you said about walking the journey with someone - without feeling you have to "fix" them is really important. In Christian circles, hurt people can easily feel guilt about not working through the forgiveness process as quickly as they think they "ought." Physically being there for someone in an accepting and non-judgemental way can be the reassurance they need that God hasn't abandoned them - sometimes the difference between them holding on to their faith and abandoning it.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
"Not there yet" re forgiveness is inappropriate. It can even be abusive. Because the very idea can create obligation in the mind of the person harmed. I think it should be left with the victim to determine, without suggestion from others. Just leave it alone.
It makes a great deal of difference if there is some form of prior relationship between the offender and victim. Further, when the person has only accepted guilt after a criminal conviction, then the forgiveness thing might well be used manipulatively by the offender.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"Not there yet" re forgiveness is inappropriate. It can even be abusive. Because the very idea can create obligation in the mind of the person harmed. I think it should be left with the victim to determine, without suggestion from others. Just leave it alone.
It makes a great deal of difference if there is some form of prior relationship between the offender and victim. Further, when the person has only accepted guilt after a criminal conviction, then the forgiveness thing might well be used manipulatively by the offender.
For the record, "not there yet" is a way that the victim may choose to describe his/her state as a way of fending off the idiots who think instant total forgiveness is the way it ought to be. It shouldn't become in turn yet another category to be imposed on the victim, whether by the offender or anybody else.
What I take us to be discussing is the case of a victim who acknowledges the Lord's claim on his/her life vis-a-vis forgiving others, and how that plays out in daily life. No lesser person has a right to any demands or expectations whatsoever. Not the offender, not community leaders, not well-meaning friends, etc. That is holy ground.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Good clarification LC.
<<Respect>>
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Thanks.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"Not there yet" re forgiveness is inappropriate. It can even be abusive. Because the very idea can create obligation in the mind of the person harmed. I think it should be left with the victim to determine, without suggestion from others. Just leave it alone.
It's a good challenge N-P. T'other side of the coin is that just leaving the process up to the victim can end up not doing them any favours. Not forgiving compounds the trauma that caused it in the first place, raises stress levels, reduces the effectiveness of the immune system, increases the risk of ill-health, at worst raises the risk of a cycle of retribution. The goal has to be to help the victim to recover and get free from all that which sometimes involves some gentle challenge.
I reckon you can resolve that where the victim has asked for help to work through the process of forgiving. If you've gone to a counsellor, or even asked for help from a trusted friend, you've given them permission to tell you what you need to hear as well as listen to you. Having that relationship can also protect the vic from self-righteous busy bodies.
See where I'm coming from? Help me out here - what do you reckon?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
It's a good challenge N-P. T'other side of the coin is that just leaving the process up to the victim can end up not doing them any favours. Not forgiving compounds the trauma that caused it in the first place, raises stress levels, reduces the effectiveness of the immune system, increases the risk of ill-health, at worst raises the risk of a cycle of retribution. The goal has to be to help the victim to recover and get free from all that which sometimes involves some gentle challenge.
Aren't you assuming a causality not in evidence? It seems just as plausible that physical recovery and reduced stress may be contributing factors in someone's likeliness to forgive as the theory that the causality runs the other way.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Not forgiving compounds the trauma that caused it in the first place, raises stress levels, reduces the effectiveness of the immune system, increases the risk of ill-health, at worst raises the risk of a cycle of retribution.
There's a world of difference between such an assertion (bold as it is) as a general observation and applying it to a specific individual.
And some of what people go through as a result of kindly efforts to "help them to forgive" can be just as traumatic as any supposed "unforgiveness" perceived by the would-be helper. Did you not read Croesos' posts?
Finally, it's only one step, in some misguided so-called "Biblical counselling" processes, from thinking like that to "diagnosing" poor health, stress, and/or low immune system levels (!) as the outcome of this nebulous concept "unforgiveness".
[x-posted with Croesos]
[ 24. November 2015, 14:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Not forgiving compounds the trauma that caused it in the first place, raises stress levels, reduces the effectiveness of the immune system, increases the risk of ill-health, at worst raises the risk of a cycle of retribution.
There's a world of difference between such an assertion (bold as it is) as a general observation and applying it to a specific individual.
And some of what people go through as a result of kindly efforts to "help them to forgive" can be just as traumatic as any supposed "unforgiveness" perceived by the would-be helper. Did you not read Croesos' posts?
Finally, it's only one step, in some misguided so-called "Biblical counselling" processes, from thinking like that to "diagnosing" poor health, stress, and/or low immune system levels (!) as the outcome of this nebulous concept "unforgiveness".
[x-posted with Croesos]
Plenty of research on the links between forgiveness/not forgiving and health.
Here you go (it's what Ramarius posted upthread).
And sure, you can mess people up with bad pastoring. You can mess people up with bad medical practice. That's not a reason to give up practicing health care.
You have to remember mate, this isn't just about Christians and church. People of other faiths or no get professional help to deal with psychological trauma. Therapies involving forgiveness are recognised as a valid and appropriate intervention.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
It's a good challenge N-P. T'other side of the coin is that just leaving the process up to the victim can end up not doing them any favours. Not forgiving compounds the trauma that caused it in the first place, raises stress levels, reduces the effectiveness of the immune system, increases the risk of ill-health, at worst raises the risk of a cycle of retribution. The goal has to be to help the victim to recover and get free from all that which sometimes involves some gentle challenge.
Aren't you assuming a causality not in evidence? It seems just as plausible that physical recovery and reduced stress may be contributing factors in someone's likeliness to forgive as the theory that the causality runs the other way.
Alright Croesos? I've posted a link re medical evidence with Eutychus. Question for you then. For people seeking help to get to a place where they can forgive a perp, and who won't go a million miles near a church, what sorts of interventions do you know of that could help them?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
My read of forgiveness information has been that it is confounded with level of anger, hostility and bitterness, for which there is rather good information about physiological consequences. I am not convinced that forgiveness is the actual thing that enhances health. Possibly over-rated by those who have a stake in the concept, such as clergy and religious people. We want people to feel mastery, not be anger, and have lower stress, all of which help mental and physical health.
So I am not convinced that forgiveness is a necessary method to get there. I'm also not convinced the retribution, even though the idea offends some of us, isn't something that can enhance physical and mental wellbeing. Again, mastery, release of anger, and lowered stress, if they are the key issues, may well be enhanced by the punishment and even the enjoyment of the suffering of an offender. The morality of this is something else entirely.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My read of forgiveness information has been that it is confounded with level of anger, hostility and bitterness, for which there is rather good information about physiological consequences. I am not convinced that forgiveness is the actual thing that enhances health. Possibly over-rated by those who have a stake in the concept, such as clergy and religious people. We want people to feel mastery, not be anger, and have lower stress, all of which help mental and physical health.
So I am not convinced that forgiveness is a necessary method to get there. I'm also not convinced the retribution, even though the idea offends some of us, isn't something that can enhance physical and mental wellbeing. Again, mastery, release of anger, and lowered stress, if they are the key issues, may well be enhanced by the punishment and even the enjoyment of the suffering of an offender. The morality of this is something else entirely.
Cheers mate. As a matter of interest, I reckon getting angry with what the perp did - which in practical terms means getting angry with the perp - is pretty much unavoidable. So that's part of the forgiveness journey if you can get past it.
On the medical stuff - link above in a post to Eutychus. Here's another one. I had to do some work with people of no faith wanting help with forgiveness issues. Found it enlightening how you can approach this successfully without reference to God, faith or the Bible.
Just so's you know, whilst theologically speaking I'd say there's a common grace that helps us as humans to learn how to forgive, I'll always point people to Christ as the greatest teacher and exponent of forgiveness.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Aren't you assuming a causality not in evidence? It seems just as plausible that physical recovery and reduced stress may be contributing factors in someone's likeliness to forgive as the theory that the causality runs the other way.
Alright Croesos? I've posted a link re medical evidence with Eutychus.
Yes, all of which seems to assume rather than demonstrate the direction of causality. It's just as plausible to posit that forgiveness is the result of better health, rather than the cause of it.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Just so's you know, whilst theologically speaking I'd say there's a common grace that helps us as humans to learn how to forgive, I'll always point people to Christ as the greatest teacher and exponent of forgiveness.
Yes, Jesus was kind of nuts about it wasn't he? Forgiving the people who nailed him up.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Plenty of research on the links between forgiveness/not forgiving and health.
Here you go (...) You have to remember mate, this isn't just about Christians and church.
Not about Christians and church, eh? I note, mate, that this "research" [sic] is written by quote:
a secular associate of the Carmelite Order, an order that focuses on prayer and a contemplative relationship with God
that it contains absolutely zero empirical data, and refers to a "landmark study" in which quote:
Three were Protestant and two were Catholic
There is no meaningful definition of forgiveness in this "non-religious" "research" at all.
You describe that as "medical evidence". Are you serious?
quote:
On the medical stuff (...) Here's another one
Again, are you serious? Pointing to a Huffington Post article as "medical research"?
I took what looked to be the most serious link in that article, which took me here. This is a psychological, not a medical study.
In it, my eye did fall on this paragraph though (emphasis mine): quote:
To end the cycle of negative emotions and interactions, victims can forgive the perpetrator; the perpetrator can offer amends for the transgression. In our prior work, we have defined victim forgiveness as the victim’s willingness to (a) forego vengeance and demands for retribution and (b) react to the betrayal in a constructive, less judgmental manner (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). We define perpetrator amends as accepting responsibility for an act of betrayal, and offering genuine atonement for one’s actions (Hannon, Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro, 2010). Given that victim forgiveness and perpetrator amends have been shown to simultaneously contribute to transgression resolution or “closure” for both partners (Hannon et al., 2010), they may also yield decreased physiological arousal for both partners.
Two things:
Firstly, the authors are a lot more tentative than you about the link between “unforgiveness” and health: “may yield decreased physiological arousal”, which to me sounds like saying “after a row, you tend to calm down”.
Secondly, in this paper at least, there is just as much importance ascribed to the actions of the perpetrator making amends as to those of the victim.
In other words, it says as much in favour of a bilateral approach to forgiveness as a unilateral one.
Once again, I don't deny that there may be therapeutic benefits to what I would call “letting go” and which popular psychology often seems to refer to as “forgiveness”.
But I reiterate my point that mixing this up with what the Bible portrays as forgiveness, introducing the quasi-Biblical term of “unforgiveness” and presenting the resulting “forgiveness process” as a panacea for every ailment is a toxic cocktail, and the recourse you make to supposed references doesn’t reassure me at all.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Aren't you assuming a causality not in evidence? It seems just as plausible that physical recovery and reduced stress may be contributing factors in someone's likeliness to forgive as the theory that the causality runs the other way.
Alright Croesos? I've posted a link re medical evidence with Eutychus.
Yes, all of which seems to assume rather than demonstrate the direction of causality. It's just as plausible to posit that forgiveness is the result of better health, rather than the cause of it.
Have another gander at the Huffington Post link. You can find research that supports the causal link between good health and forgiveness and the counterfactual ill-health unforgiveness.
I can see why you'd have a problem with this stuff when it's linked to Christian ministry. Not sure what you've got to worry about where we're just looking at the links between human psychology and physiology.
Am I missing something?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
The cited studies in the Puchalski article seem a bit squirrelly. Take this description, for instance:
quote:
In one study, incest survivors who experienced the forgiveness intervention had at the end of the intervention increased abilities to forgive others, increased hopefulness and decreased levels of anxiety and depression.
This is attributed to a paper in the Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology. No such publication seems to exist, though the study cited was available in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (This may seem like picking nits, but inaccurate citation is a big deal in academic papers.) Anyway, according to the abstract:
quote:
An intervention, with forgiveness toward their abuser as the goal, was implemented with 12 female incest survivors. The women, from a midwestern city, were 24 to 54 years old, and all were Caucasian. A yoked, randomized experimental and control group design was used. The participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group (receiving the forgiveness intervention immediately) or a waiting-list control group (receiving the intervention when their matched experimental counterpart finished the intervention). Each participant met individually with the intervener once per week. The average length of the intervention for the 12 participants was 14.3 months. A process model of forgiveness was used as the focus of intervention. Dependent variables included forgiveness, self-esteem, hope, psychological depression, and state-trait anxiety scales. After the intervention, the experimental group gained more than the control group in forgiveness and hope and decreased significantly more than the control group in anxiety and depression. When the control group then began the program they showed similar change patterns to the above, as well as in self-esteem improvement.
(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Emphasis added by me. This was a study of self-selected subjects who were willing to voluntarily involve themselves in "[a]n intervention with forgiveness toward their abuser as the goal". Automatically excluded from this study is anyone who did not feel the need to forgive a relative who had sexually assaulted them. So there's no real way to tell if the benefits measured can be ascribed to "forgiveness" generally, or to the patients' unmet desire to forgive their abusers being achieved through the process.
Other citations at the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion and the Journal of Moral Education for those who want to go through them.
[ 24. November 2015, 17:07: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Have another gander at the Huffington Post link. You can find research that supports the causal link between good health and forgiveness and the counterfactual ill-health unforgiveness.
The only thing I found there (without signing up to dodgy download sites) was a blogpost ( ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
, this is "evidence"?) reporting the "finding" that people who believe in God's unconditional forgiveness tend do die sooner. Presumably that "finding" is also grist to your mill? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
If you want to back up your claims, it's you who are going to have to do the gandering and quote the relevant parts of your sources, not just throw feel-good how-to pseudo-science articles at us.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Eutychus. You worry me sometimes. I find you all these nice links to academic research and you get excited by the news vehicle that they get published under. Whatever. This studyis from an interdisciplinary journal with extensive references to other research. It's one starting point if you're interested (useful working definition of forgiveness in the abstract by the way).
Or you could have a sober chat with a professional psychotherapist working in an interdisciplinary team and ask them what the research in this area has thrown up.
But if you reckon you know all you need to know for the work you do that's your call. I need stuff I can use both in a church context and outside.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
This might be useful. APA summary of research in PDF on forgiveness in various contexts. The operational definitions at beginning help clarify some things.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Just so's you know, whilst theologically speaking I'd say there's a common grace that helps us as humans to learn how to forgive, I'll always point people to Christ as the greatest teacher and exponent of forgiveness.
Yes, Jesus was kind of nuts about it wasn't he? Forgiving the people who nailed him up.
Well, no he didn't. He said, 'Father forgive...' - maybe because he couldn't at that moment.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
I'll always point people to Christ as the greatest teacher and exponent of forgiveness.
That Christ who said that it would be better that a mill stone be fixed round someone who would then be thrown into the sea if they abuse 'little ones'.
[ 24. November 2015, 18:09: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Eutychus. You worry me sometimes. I find you all these nice links to academic research and you get excited by the news vehicle that they get published under. Whatever.
When you're trying to build a case, referring to a summary article as "evidence" worries me.
quote:
This studyis from an interdisciplinary journal with extensive references to other research.
Yes, and I quoted one of its findings above, which is that believers in God's unconditional forgiveness die sooner: quote:
One of the more vexing findings from our analyses was that individuals who reported believing in God’s unconditional forgiveness were initially found to be at greater risk of mortality.
How does that fit your theory?
quote:
It's one starting point if you're interested (useful working definition of forgiveness in the abstract by the way).
Yes, at least there is one, unlike some of the other stuff you linked to, and it looks pretty good. For a start, it makes unilateral forgiveness without the offender being involved the exception and not the rule: quote:
It can occur without reconciliation, which requires the participation of both parties, if the person who caused the hurt is absent, deceased, or remains unsafe
and distinguishes quote:
Dispositional forgiveness, also known as trait forgiveness or forgivingness (...) a general tendency to forgive others or oneself that is stable over time and across offenders or situations
which is a whole other kettle of fish to forgiving a particular offence and/or offender.
I think Christians are definitely commanded to be dispositionally forgiving, but unconditional forgiveness for a specific offender/offence does not follow automatically from that.
And crucially, to Croesos' point, the conclusions state the following, my bold: quote:
Third, the mediation
analyses conducted here provide some insight into the mechanisms underlying the forgiveness-mortality link, but because mediators were assessed at baseline, the causal ordering of predictors and mediators is not conclusive in
this study.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in layman's terms that's saying "we've established a link, but not conclusively established the direction of causality".
quote:
But if you reckon you know all you need to know for the work you do that's your call.
I'm sure I don't. What's worrying me is the shaky basis for your apparent certainty, especially if such certainty translates into certainty about how God sees (un)forgiveness for others for whom you are in a role of authority.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Just so's you know, whilst theologically speaking I'd say there's a common grace that helps us as humans to learn how to forgive, I'll always point people to Christ as the greatest teacher and exponent of forgiveness.
Yes, Jesus was kind of nuts about it wasn't he? Forgiving the people who nailed him up.
Well, no he didn't. He said, 'Father forgive...' - maybe because he couldn't at that moment.
Silly me confusing the Trinity all up.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Silly me confusing the Trinity all up.
Help is at hand - just a few posts up: quote:
To avoid any Trinitarian confusion, let's use the example of Stephen.
[ 24. November 2015, 18:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This might be useful. APA summary of research in PDF on forgiveness in various contexts. The operational definitions at beginning help clarify some things.
Cheers - feel a trip to the British Library coming on.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
I feel we are coming to a close on this thread, but a couple of things I'd like to float as we do.
This article published in 2004 details research into the effects of forgiveness, and not forgiving (unforgiveness) on health, relationships and general wellbeing. There is stuff in here I think we will all recognise. It starts with an example of the power of confrontation in the forgiveness process before moving onto different approaches which examine the relationship between unforgiveness and ill health, and forgiveness and the release of hormones that help us respond positively to stress. People who show positive emotions towards transgressors enjoy positive health experiences - sincere apologies and restitution help the victim to apologies. Whilst this shows the value of confrontation and giving the perp an opportunity to repent (my terms) other experiments and research show this isn't an essential precursor to forgiveness.
Going on to use research data that makes a link between a forgiving outlook and reported wellbeing, it tackles the question of whether people find it easier to forgive because of their sense of wellbeing, or whether forgiveness contributes to that sense of wellbeing.
There is a recognition that different professionals use different definitions of forgiveness and unforgiveness, whilst providing definitions of their own.
A snapshot of more recent research was published in Psychology Today in March 2015. It refers to the Forgive to Live research discussed upthread. Amongst its conclusions, taken from the abstract is:
"God's unconditional forgiveness and conditional forgiveness of others initially emerged as statistically significant predictors of mortality risk. However, only conditional forgiveness of others remained a significant predictor of mortality after controlling for religious, socio-demographic, and health behavior variables. Mediators of the association between conditional forgiveness of others and mortality were examined, and a statistically significant indirect effect was identified involving physical health. These findings suggest that conditional forgiveness of others is associated with risk for all-cause mortality, and that the mortality risk of conditional forgiveness may be conferred by its influences on physical health."
The Psychology Today survey also notes that: "Other studies have found lower diastolic and systolic blood pressure related to forgiveness, particularly for women, as well as a strong link between forgiveness and self-reported health problems." I was particularly interested in the research around forgiveness in married couples and its relationship to heart disease. It would seem from this that forgiveness helps you look after your heart, which helps you look after your health (as well as your relationships(!)).
Research such as this has been considered sufficiently robust to form the basis of complementary health interventions based around helping people through the forgiveness process. One example I've been reading about recently is the support offered by Cancer Treatment Centres of America.
I'll have to take some time to read no prophets research summary. I know something about reconciliation work in South Africa.
I've not seen anything on this thread to dissaude me of the view that forgiveness is a multi-faceted individual journey. My aim will always be for perps to face up to their behaviour despite the fact that conviction has proved extremely costly to me personally. My primary concern will always be with the victim and I make no apologies for that.
And I celebrate the fact that professionals in various disciplines are promoting the value of forgiveness for personal health, relationships, and society at large.
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
Just to say, on the specific exegetical issues, I've started a thread in Kerygmania
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I read recently that whilst every religion values forgiveness, only Christianity requires it.
The speaker I heard some years ago on the radio, who had been in forgotten political imprisonment for many years and was released when the regime was overthrown, and who had crossed Africa to meet the man who had imprisoned him and forgive him, said he did it because his religion required it. He was a Moslem.
GG
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0