|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can we forgive with conditions attached?
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
This comes from Kempistry, the 8th Day incarnation as a board to discuss prayer and a thread on the Lord's Prayer.
Raptor Eye asked:
quote:
Is it OK then to only forgive someone with conditions attached, eg they must apologise first?
I always thought that it was a good thing to forgive unconditionally, as it was never right to have hurt me in the first place, and the bruise of hurt only hurts me again every time I press it so it's best to let it go - even if the person is unrepentant.
So 'forgive my trespasses' covers all of my sins, whether or not I specifically recall and repent of every single one.
To which Fineline replied:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it OK then to only forgive someone with conditions attached, eg they must apologise first?
What was said that made you conclude that? I'm not sure how that relates to the 'forgive us our trespasses' discussion. The idea is that we are asking God to forgive us in the same way that we forgive others - which makes us very aware of our need to forgive others, when we ourselves have been forgiven so much. Nothing to do with demanding apologies, as far as I can see.
As (temporary) host of Kempistry I said this wasn't a discussion about prayer, but about forgiveness and really for Purgatory, so I'm copying these exchanges here.
(I'm sure we had a similar thread a few years back, but it has definitely gone to Oblivion and there I lost it.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Forgiveness is about the inexcusable. I think it is unconditional, but there is quite a big "but" that I am not completely clear about.
Inexcusable behaviour may damage trust, often does. "I did not think you were capable of that. Now I know you are." We have learned something about the person by their actions.
There is a well known text in which God is seen to declare that he will "forgive their wickedness and remember them no more" (Jeremiah 31;34, Heb 8;12).
Forgiveness opens up the possibility of repentance, restitution and a sincere turning away from inexcusable behaviour. There is no guarantee that will happen.
I think the difference between us and God is that God, who looks perfectly on the heart, sees the sincerity of the heart change. So His perfect forgetting is accompanied with perfect insight into how the present state of the human heart may affect future intentions.
We do not have those abilities, of both perfect forgetting and perfect insight into another's heart. So for us, our acts of forgiveness are affected by those limitations. We have learned from the experience and cannot unlearn it. We have become wary, at least for a period. We do not know whether the inexcusable act is an isolated incident or part of deeper pattern. We may hope for the best, but we become more wary. Which seems to me to be wise about ourselves and the person who has done us wrong. We do not help bad behaviour by overlooking the possibility of repetition. Jesus' forgiveness of the adulterous woman is accompanied by "don't do it again".
Does that make our acts of human forgiveness conditional? If so, and I suppose by some perfect standard of unconditionality it may, it seems to me that it is the best we can do.
But I'm open to argument about this view. I'm not sure I'm right.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I've been a frequent contributor to these threads!
First up, I think it helps to distinguish forgiveness of sin (which is in the end God's prerogative) and forgiveness of wrongs between individuals.
(For instance, Jesus and Stephen ask God to forgive the sin of their executioners, but do not directly forgive the latter for the wrong being done to them).
Secondly, when it comes to us forgiving others' wrongs against us, I think two categories need to be distinguished.
There are everyday slights which we are called upon to forgive "seventy times seven", or which fall under "be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another". Life is just too short to keep being bothered about these.
Then there are major wrongs (obviously a hard and fast line cannot be drawn, but you get the idea). These are what Jesus has in mind when he says in Luke 17:3 quote:
If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him
In such circumstances, forgiveness is quite clearly conditional upon repentance.
Thirdly, I think it helps to distinguish what goes on inside us from the outer, transactional aspect of forgiveness.
I think that for this latter kind of offence against us, the onus on us is to work on ourselves so that, should the day come when our brother repents, we are in a position to forgive them wholeheartedly and joyfully. This takes time; bitterness, despite a lot of bilge written to the contrary, is not a sin any more than anger is. And it is not a frame of mind that can or should be subjected to someone else's timetable.
If I had got to such a place on the inside, for a serious offence against me, I would not say I had forgiven the offender but that I was disposed to forgive them should they repent.
Finally, I find the story of Joseph instructive in this respect. When Joseph is reunited with his brothers, he is on his guard until such time as they have shown evidence of a true change of heart. And at no time does he pretend the wrong they did never existed; he declares it ("you intended to do me evil") even as he also affirms that God transformed it into good.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Another thought: Jacob gets reconciled with Esau, but you'll notice that they go their separate ways again after the reconciliation. It's not a Bagpuss-like "back to the way it was" transformation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
The other morning, the woman-with-the-expensive-ointment came up in my devotions. It's Luke 7 36-50, and here's a short exerpt:
quote:
Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.' Then he said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.' But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, 'Who is this who even forgives sins?' And he said to the woman, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace.'
One could hang quite a lot on that 'have been' and 'are'. It sounds like they've already been forgiven by the father - and Jesus isn't dead yet, PSA fans...
If I can riff on this a bit more - it seems like forgiveness heals twice. Here, it heals the sinner - if I know I'm forgiven, I don't need to fear God's wrath / despair at the fact I'm such a c*nt / fail to grow in love and maturity. That forgiveness only works in me if I know I need it, because if I'm saying 'f*ck off God, the problem's not with me' then it can't work in me.
This probably obvious idea came to me as a result of ideas I was asking about in the 'Lord's Prayer' thread in 8th Day. This is how forgiveness works between people - 'AS we forgive those who...' - my wife can't *make* a work of forgiveness work in me, if I'm still raging at her, and following the Lord's prayer modelling divine forgiveness on how things work between humans, I'm not sure God can in us, either.
But forgiveness also works in the forgiver. God, being perfect, doesn't *need* it I guess like we do - he *is* it. But to swap things around I *need* to forgive my wife, even in the face of her non-repentance, because if I don't I burn myself up with wrath.
So I think I'm coming around to thinking that my repentance is vital to the healing-through-forgiveness of me the sinner, but that the healing of the sinned-against comes about through praying for grace-to-forgive even in the face of un-repentance. If I apply conditions, I delay / prevent my own healing as the wronged one.
Still though - I think the question of whether we line up to take more shit yet again, is open. '70x7' refers to a repentant brother, so OK, we can't be haughty, and we *can* look for the 'condition' of repentance before saying perhaps wearily, 'OK, let's try again'. But the sad necessity to shake the dust from our feet is also in there as a precedent, where repentance / love / welcome seems absent and we lack the strength and time to carry on. It's never clear, and we can but pray.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I think Raptor Eye and I had the same opinion on this (that forgiveness is not conditional on an apology) - I was just surprised because I didn't see what had triggered the question. It didn't seem to relate to the posts immediately preceding it.
I would also agree that forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean things go back to how they originally were - and particularly not if the person is unrepentent. You have to reevaluate based on the person's behaviour, and what is best and safest for everyone involved. But I see forgiveness more as an inner thing - a decision to let go of bitterness and resentment, not to seek revenge. You can (and should) still insist upon healthy boundaries, and distance yourself from a person who doesn't respect boundaries.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think the problem here is confusing forgiveness and trust.
I believe we are called to forgive as God forgives (the Lord's prayer being an obvious example)-- and that does mean unconditionally, and it does mean even w/o an apology. Obviously that's difficult to accomplish (we're not God) and it will be a process. It's something we move toward, rather than something we can just conjure up instantaneously thru act of will. It helps when we remember forgiveness is as much or more about our benefit-- the ability to live life w/o being burdened by anger, bitterness, hostility-- than it is the benefit of the offender.
But it's not the same thing as trust. Trust needs to be earned.
Forgiveness is setting aside the desire for revenge. It's about the ability to pray for your enemy, to wish God's blessing on him/her. But that's not the same thing as trusting the offender-- putting yourself in a vulnerable position where you are able to be hurt again and again and again. Nothing in Scripture suggests we need to do that. Someone who has proven themselves untrustworthy thru their past behaviors should not be trusted, full stop. We can forgive them-- let go of anger and bitterness and pray for them-- but we would be foolish to trust them, to open ourselves up to further hurt or damage.
That may have some implications for legal action. If someone has harmed us thru a criminal act, we don't want to be vengeful-- to seek retribution for retribution's sake-- to seek to harm him/her because we were harmed. But we also do not trust him/her-- which may mean that things like incarceration are appropriate to protect ourselves and others from this untrustworthy person.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think I am with cliffdweller on this. Forgiveness is something we - the offended against - do. I think it is an all-or-nothing thing, that we can either forgive someone else or not.
While that is often a precursor to reconciliation (which is a far more complex and multi-layered thing). Reconciliation needs both sides, and that will always be conditional, because it relies on both sides desiring to be reconciled.
When there is little chance of reconciliation, forgiveness can be there, but there can continue to be division, there can be no resolution. This does not mean the forgiveness is conditional or incomplete, but that you have learned from the experience and are now a different person, a more mature, experienced, cynical person.
So I think you can forgive someone, but still have no desire to ever meet them again, never get into that situation again. It changes you, but that doesn't mean you have not forgiven them. It means you have learned.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Shroedinger's Cat
quote:
While that is often a precursor to reconciliation (which is a far more complex and multi-layered thing). Reconciliation needs both sides, and that will always be conditional, because it relies on both sides desiring to be reconciled.
I thoroughly agree :noteworthy: It is important to make the distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation (atonement). Jesus forgave those who crucified him, but there is no evidence they were reconciled to him. Paul tells the Corinthians that they are to tell people they have been forgiven and that they should, therefore, reconcile themselves to God.
I have difficult with the concept of forgiving and then walking away. It seems to me that Christians should also be engaged in reconciliation, as in the resolution of inter-ethnic conflict. On the other hand, there situations which make reconciliation almost impossible: cases of the sexual abuse of children, for example.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There seems to me to be several different components involved. At least these:
-letting an issue go if you've been harmed
-the person doing the harm apologizing for it
-the person who has been harmed accepting or not accepting the apology
-reconciliation
It is the third one that is problematic. If you've been harmed, the onus is not on you to do anything is it? yet being asked to accept or reject an apology creates an obligation.
This is a minor thing, say, if someone has been rude. It is straightforward to forgive and forget, whether a stranger, friend, family member, co-worker. But if the harm has been major, say the person seriously harmed your family member, it's not acceptable to demand anything from the family I think in way of accepting the apology. The forgiveness in this case is only working through letting go as necessary or possible within one's own healing.
I find it difficult that well-meaning people, not only clergy, sometimes think it is necessary to involve both sides in the forgiveness. It's not I think.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
no prophet quote:
If you've been harmed, the onus is not on you to do anything is it? yet being asked to accept or reject an apology creates an obligation.
In what sense does being asked to accept an apology “create an obligation”? In what sense is the harmed person obliged? If A has harmed B and subsequently apologises to B it doesn’t seem to me B is “obliged” (has a duty) thereby to forgive. Forgiveness in this instance would be an act of grace extended from B to A, not a requirement.
Christians, however, may feel obliged to forgive the lesser debts owed to them because of the greater debt they owe to their Saviour, and pray “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”. In which case the obligation to forgive arises not from the apology of A to B, but B’s obligation to Christ for his forgiveness of him/her.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
no prophet quote:
If you've been harmed, the onus is not on you to do anything is it? yet being asked to accept or reject an apology creates an obligation.
In what sense does being asked to accept an apology “create an obligation”? In what sense is the harmed person obliged? If A has harmed B and subsequently apologises to B it doesn’t seem to me B is “obliged” (has a duty) thereby to forgive. Forgiveness in this instance would be an act of grace extended from B to A, not a requirement.
That's easy to say, but if someone has been wronged, and doesn't feel ready to forgive, but the person who wronged them offers an apology, there is often social pressure to offer the transgressor the forgiveness.
Real life example: An incestuous family member tearfully apologizing for making a young person do sexual things with them over years. The pressure to forgive is definitely an obligation.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I'd say that conditional forgiveness is not just right, but essential, or forgiveness becomes amoral. Forgiveness is something that should follow a sincere attempt to make amends.
I agree with no prophet about forgiveness being expected. This is an invitation for phony apologies and can lead to victim blaming. On practical grounds if nothing else, folk can only forgive when they're ready to do so, and shouldn't be pressured or looked down upon if they can't.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think there is often immense pressure from outsiders for someone to "forgive" someone else. This, at times, is not better than wanting to pull someone else's strings. It is a tendency which should be resisted. Real forgiveness comes in its own time. You cannot force it or you will merely facilitate hypocrisy. We do a lot of that. I also think, in the situation where what someone is being asked to forgive is a serious matter, such as violence, the one being forgiven needs to do something about it. Here we are on the cusp of spiritual and psychological. They are related but are not the same. We need to be aware of this otherwise we are in grave danger of becoming spiritual Pixie Twinkle Toeses who think we can "magic" all the (complicated) troubles of the world away with our wands. This is sheer fantasy. Some problems need to be owned by those responsible for them. We cannot absolve them of that.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chocoholic
Shipmate
# 4655
|
Posted
I heard Desmond Tutu's daughter speak recently at Greenbelt on forgiveness. One of key messages was the forgiveness is not just something that you grant to the other as a gift to them, it is mainly about being a gift to yourself. If you forgive then it frees you too. If we do not forgive the other person they still have power over us.
She was asked if the other person needs to apologise and she said no, partly because of forgiveness being for the wronged person too.
Posts: 773 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
I heard Desmond Tutu's daughter speak recently at Greenbelt on forgiveness. One of key messages was the forgiveness is not just something that you grant to the other as a gift to them, it is mainly about being a gift to yourself. If you forgive then it frees you too. If we do not forgive the other person they still have power over us.
She was asked if the other person needs to apologise and she said no, partly because of forgiveness being for the wronged person too.
Branding forgiveness as a self-help tool brings with it all kinds of problems. Chief amongst them, what's meant here by forgiveness? I've heard it said that you can "forgive" a person without even telling them!
That approach strips out all the messy, interpersonal aspects, and what I take to be the most important aspect of forgiveness, the healing of relationships. In making yourself the beneficiary, it subverts what ought to be an act of kindness, one taken at personal cost.
Far preferable to forgiveness-lite would be accepting that we're under no obligation to forgive, or to repair relationships we'd rather see end.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Chocoholic, couldn't agree more.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: First up, I think it helps to distinguish forgiveness of sin (which is in the end God's prerogative) and forgiveness of wrongs between individuals.
Big alarm bells going off here, can you here them? ![[Smile]](smile.gif) You just managed to press one of my buttons, because this is a major gripe of mine. I have many problems with theologies that see sin as something between us and God, and decouple it from our relationships with other people. But maybe that's another discussion.
I agree with people who have said that we can't force someone to forgive. Many of you will be familiar with the Slacktivist (Fred Clark). He wrote a series of posts on the relationship between forgiveness and power relations. His blog doesn't have a good search function so I can't link to the posts easily, but I think it is an interesting point of view.
Just an example, viewed from the angle of power relations:- Person A has harmed person B. Generally, this means that A has a higher power level than B (otherwise he wouldn't be able to harm him).
- Person A recognizes that he has been wrong and asks person B to forgive him. This means that A lowers his power level. It is up to B whether he will forgive him or not, B has the power to grant or withhold forgiveness. So, A has put himself a bit on a power level below B. A has transferred some of his power to B.
- B forgives A. He decides not to use the power transferred to him to withhold forgiveness. The power balance is restored.
This is more or less the ideal situation, where forgiveness is concerned.
Another example:- Person A has harmed person B. Generally, this means that A has a higher power level than B (otherwise he wouldn't be able to harm him).
- Person A (or other Christians on his behalf) say that person B should forgive him. Because it is the Christian thing to do, because we should preserve unity in the church, because ... Person A is not lowering his power level here or transferring power to B. Instead, A is using his power to pressure B.
- Pressured by A, person B says he forgives him. However, power relations remain unequal. In fact, it has become easier for A to harm B again in the future, giving him more power.
I think this example happens a lot, and I have the feeling that many people have been hurt by the church in this way. I don't think that forgiveness in such unequal power relations works.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Branding forgiveness as a self-help tool brings with it all kinds of problems. Chief amongst them, what's meant here by forgiveness? I've heard it said that you can "forgive" a person without even telling them!
That approach strips out all the messy, interpersonal aspects, and what I take to be the most important aspect of forgiveness, the healing of relationships. In making yourself the beneficiary, it subverts what ought to be an act of kindness, one taken at personal cost.
Sometimes the person who has wronged you refuses to listen to anything you have to say on the topic. Under those circumstances, you have to go ahead and forgive them without telling them.
Also, people often find it necessary to forgive someone who has died.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Sometimes the person who has wronged you refuses to listen to anything you have to say on the topic. Under those circumstances, you have to go ahead and forgive them without telling them.
Also, people often find it necessary to forgive someone who has died.
Moo
Well sure, you can if you want, but what does forgiveness even mean in this context? That you no longer bear the person who's wronged you ill-will? OK, but that's a different thing to rebuilding your relationship with the person who's wronged you.
"Forgiveness" covers a lot of different things, it seems.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I make a distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation. I always want reconciliation, but I'll settle for forgiving the other person if they're not prepared to discuss the matter.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Chocoholic:
I heard Desmond Tutu's daughter speak recently at Greenbelt on forgiveness. One of key messages was the forgiveness is not just something that you grant to the other as a gift to them, it is mainly about being a gift to yourself. If you forgive then it frees you too. If we do not forgive the other person they still have power over us.
She was asked if the other person needs to apologise and she said no, partly because of forgiveness being for the wronged person too.
Branding forgiveness as a self-help tool brings with it all kinds of problems. Chief amongst them, what's meant here by forgiveness? I've heard it said that you can "forgive" a person without even telling them!
That approach strips out all the messy, interpersonal aspects, and what I take to be the most important aspect of forgiveness, the healing of relationships. In making yourself the beneficiary, it subverts what ought to be an act of kindness, one taken at personal cost.
Far preferable to forgiveness-lite would be accepting that we're under no obligation to forgive, or to repair relationships we'd rather see end.
I'm with Moo: I think you're conflating forgiveness with reconciliation. Both are important, and there's obviously a relationship between the two, but they are not the same.
Forgiving someone w/o telling them isn't advocated as a way to avoid the hard work of relationships. Rather, it's a way to assist those who have been grievously injured by someone who never has any intent of apologizing, does not acknowledge the offense, or has died or left. These sorts of situations often leave the offended party w/ huge burdens of anger and bitterness. There is nothing selfish or easy about forgiveness in these situations-- it is hard, painful work. But it is of immense value to the spiritual health and well-being of the one who has been harmed. And since those burdens of anger and bitterness often find their way into other relationships in the present, there's far more at stake there than just self-centered comfort.
[ 27. September 2014, 14:16: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The original comment I made referred to the exploration of the part of the prayer that says we may be forgiven by God in the same way as we forgive those who sin against us. In that case, if we expect an apology before we forgive, we can't expect God to forgive us unless we apologise.
I do think it to our own benefit as well as theirs if we allow our love of others to release forgiveness, even when there is no remorse or apology, but I agree that trust has been destroyed and reconciliation may take time or never happen.
If someone is not only unrepentant but remains a danger to us and/or to others, what then? Paul handed people over to Satan to learn their lesson if he judged that they were sinning against God (1 Tim. 1:20) but that seems also to be in love, as they may be saved if they did learn their lesson.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm with Moo: I think you're conflating forgiveness with reconciliation. Both are important, and there's obviously a relationship between the two, but they are not the same.
Forgiving someone w/o telling them isn't advocated as a way to avoid the hard work of relationships. Rather, it's a way to assist those who have been grievously injured by someone who never has any intent of apologizing, does not acknowledge the offense, or has died or left. These sorts of situations often leave the offended party w/ huge burdens of anger and bitterness. There is nothing selfish or easy about forgiveness in these situations-- it is hard, painful work. But it is of immense value to the spiritual health and well-being of the one who has been harmed. And since those burdens of anger and bitterness often find their way into other relationships in the present, there's far more at stake there than just self-centered comfort.
I agree, Moo raised an important point in distinguishing forgiveness from reconciliation. I stand corrected in not doing so.
I disagree in viewing the two as being inseparable, to the point that the lines between them melt. It's impossible to reconcile with someone you haven't forgiven.
What does forgiveness without reconciliation look like? I don't wish ill on various folk who've screwed me over. Have I "forgiven" them? Not really. I might not be angry at them, but I view them with contempt, and want nothing to do with them. My lack of bad feeling is more pragmatic than moral.
I don't mean to downplay the effort of moving on, but also don't think forgiveness is the best term for it, as forgiveness has so many other aspects besides getting past our trauma.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I have many problems with theologies that see sin as something between us and God, and decouple it from our relationships with other people. But maybe that's another discussion.
I have decoupled it because so many "unconditional forgiveness" types say Jesus (and less frequently, Stephen) forgave their executioners, whereas to me, that is patently not what they are doing (otherwise, why not just shout "I forgive you", much shorter and simpler).
I also think damage is done by people who think they can unilaterally forgive their offenders and thus sidestep the need for any confrontation with them; in my experience, this often leads into unreality ("how are things with [so-and-so who treated you badly]?" "Oh, I've forgiven them" [brightly, but through clenched teeth; turns tail and walks away]).
Highlighting the need for us to personally address sinning against another and being sinned against, rather than 'merely' go via God, as it were, is a way of ensuring a reality check.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Eutychus quote:
I have decoupled it because so many "unconditional forgiveness" types say Jesus (and less frequently, Stephen) forgave their executioners, whereas to me, that is patently not what they are doing
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
What do you understand by "unconditional forgiveness types"?
Eutychus quote:
I also think damage is done by people who think they can unilaterally forgive their offenders and thus sidestep the need for any confrontation with them; in my experience, this often leads into unreality
But what if such a confrontation is not possible? There is a case, for example, of a twin who forgave Dr. Mengele for his experiments on herself and her sister fifty years after the event. Mengele, however, was dead.
It seems to me Jesus forgave his executioners unconditionally. In 2 Corinthians 5 Paul argues that through Christ " God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation."
In other words, ISTM that humanity's sins have been forgiven unconditionally, and that it is a task of the church to inform people that is the case and urge them to become reconciled to God. The element of confrontation relates not to forgiveness but the process of reconciliation. The distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation, as others have suggested, is critical.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Eutychus quote:
I have decoupled it because so many "unconditional forgiveness" types say Jesus (and less frequently, Stephen) forgave their executioners, whereas to me, that is patently not what they are doing
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Let me put it as a question.
Do you think "Father forgive them, they know not what they do" (Jesus), and/or "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Stephen) mean "I forgive you"? If so, why? They apppear to mean something completely distinct to me.
quote:
What do you understand by "unconditional forgiveness types"?
People who think it is a christian imperative (usually for other people) to forgive their offenders unilaterally, often with the threat of a "root of bitterness" growing up if they don't.
quote:
quote:
I also think damage is done by people who think they can unilaterally forgive their offenders and thus sidestep the need for any confrontation with them; in my experience, this often leads into unreality
But what if such a confrontation is not possible? There is a case, for example, of a twin who forgave Dr. Mengele for his experiments on herself and her sister fifty years after the event. Mengele, however, was dead.
If the offender is dead, then the element of forgiveness that involves restoration of the relationship is obviously not present.
quote:
ISTM that humanity's sins have been forgiven unconditionally, and that it is a task of the church to inform people that is the case and urge them to become reconciled to God. The element of confrontation relates not to forgiveness but the process of reconciliation. The distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation, as others have suggested, is critical.
I don't think the Bible is one hundred percent consistent in the distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation. I think that the work of Christ offers the potential for forgiveness to all, but that in order to benefit from it, we need to a) recognise that we have done things that need forgiving b) ask for forgiveness. Jesus says "if [your brother] repents, forgive him". It's there in black and white.
Situations and seriousness vary, but I have had my fill of injunctions to pretend no wrong has been done ("forgive") in the absence of any recognition of that wrong by the perpetrators, and of glib statements along the lines of "I've forgiven them" that reek of self-righteousness and exude not even the faintest whiff of reconciliation, ever.
I think another problem is that the way I see it in the Bible, forgiveness (especially that extended by God to man) is overwhelmingly for the benefit of the offender, not for the benefit of the victim. I agree there are benefits for victims in "letting go" and indeed in being able to grant forgiveness and participate in reconciliation, but this "therapeutic" view of forgiveness runs the risk of ignoring the primary beneficiary: the perpetrator of the wrong.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: Do you think "Father forgive them, they know not what they do" (Jesus), and/or "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Stephen) mean "I forgive you"? If so, why? They apppear to mean something completely distinct to me.
I'm sorry, I really can't follow you.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't think you can sincerely ask God to forgive someone for a sin against you while at the same time you refuse to forgive them yourself. I just don't think it's psychologically possible. That's why I've always taken Jesus' personal forgiveness to his executioners (and Stephen's) to be the unsaid-but-obvious in the passage.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horatio Harumph
Shipmate
# 10855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I disagree in viewing the two as being inseparable, to the point that the lines between them melt. It's impossible to reconcile with someone you haven't forgiven.
As has already been said you are putting the two together. And whilst they can go together, they don't have to. They can be separable.
Very recently, and very painfully I chose to forgive the two people who assaulted me 7 years ago.
They don't know I have forgiven them. Because they don't know who I am.
And I don't know who they are (I'm on the the 9% of women raped by strangers).
But I have forgiven them. What that looks like for me is personal. As it is for each and every one of us. I don't think there is any 'set' way of what forgiveness looks like.
(edited to correct coding)
[ 28. September 2014, 22:57: Message edited by: Horatio Harumph ]
--------------------
www.helenblogs.com
@helen_a13
Chocolate is proof that God wants us to be happy.
Posts: 2857 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Eurtychus quote:
I don't think the Bible is one hundred percent consistent in the distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation. I think that the work of Christ offers the potential for forgiveness to all, but that in order to benefit from it, we need to a) recognise that we have done things that need forgiving b) ask for forgiveness. Jesus says "if [your brother] repents, forgive him". It's there in black and white.
ISTM that forgiveness can be conditional but not necessarily so. That of Christ extended to his ignorant executioners is not conditional. They were not "potentially" forgiven, they were fully forgiven. That forgiveness meant that their sin was no impediment to the possibility of reconciliation, which would involve repentance.
I'm somewhat surprised you quote Luke 17:3, because it conflicts with your gripe against easy injunctions by churchmen to forgive: Lule 17: 3-4. " 3 Be on your guard. If your brother sins,[d] rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4 And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and comes back to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Incidentally, the quotation does not preclude the possibility of unconditional forgiveness, does it?
Eutychus quote:
I agree there are benefits for victims in "letting go" and indeed in being able to grant forgiveness and participate in reconciliation, but this "therapeutic" view of forgiveness runs the risk of ignoring the primary beneficiary: the perpetrator of the wrong.
.
I don't think those who hold what you call "the therapeutic view of forgiveness" are arguing that it is an all-encompassing theory of forgiveness, merely that there is a type of forgiveness, amongst others, that is predominantly therapeutic in character, or that forgiveness frequently includes a therapeutic element. That's all.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
What about forgiveness that is accompanied by punishment? Which might be accepted along the lines of: "glad you've realized your offence, now off to jail with you to learn that there's also a price to be paid nonetheless".
It is how it works in criminal courts.
[ 29. September 2014, 00:36: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
What about forgiveness that is accompanied by punishment? Which might be accepted along the lines of: "glad you've realized your offence, now off to jail with you to learn that there's also a price to be paid nonetheless".
It is how it works in criminal courts.
I mentioned that exact thing in my post a day or so ago, in the context of stressing the difference between forgiveness and trust. Forgiving someone who has committed a criminal offense against you means you don't wish revenge on the person-- you don't wish to harm them simply because you've been harmed, or to harm them to the same degree (an eye for an eye). But forgiveness does not equal trust. So you (or the legal system) may determine that, due to his/her past actions, this criminal is not longer trustworthy-- they are a danger to either you (the victim) or others (potential victims). Incarceration is appropriate under those circumstances to prevent further harm. It is not an indication of "lack of forgiveness" on the victim's part, but rather of the offender's untrustworthiness.
btw, Mark Labberton's book The Dangerous Act of Loving Your Neighbor begins with a really lovely and surprising illustration of precisely this principle/example.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I thought it was punishment.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I thought it was punishment.
I'm sure many people, and perhaps even the State, view it that way. My point was that punishment is not the only or even primary reason for incarceration. We incarcerate people not as revenge but to keep them from harming others. (insert argument vs. capital punishment here).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Eutychus: Do you think "Father forgive them, they know not what they do" (Jesus), and/or "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Stephen) mean "I forgive you"? If so, why? They apppear to mean something completely distinct to me.
I'm sorry, I really can't follow you.
I'm sorry, I'm not deliberately trying to be difficult!
In these instances there are three 'players': the victim, the offender, and God. They could be imagined as being at the three corners of the triangle. Forgiveness can be seen as a good which is the subject of a transaction between one party and another (or which can be withheld).
For the sake of the argument, let's imagine Stephen bottom left, his executioners bottom right, and God at the top.
Stephen talks to God (prayer up along the left-hand side of the triangle) about the sin of the victims (stoning him, along the bottom of the triangle from right to left) asking God not to hold this against them (action from God to the victims, down the right hand side of the triangle).
It seems to me that this dynamic is totally different from Stephen simply saying "I forgive you" (left to right along the bottom of the triangle). This would be an interaction directly addressed by Stephen to his executioners and not involving God at all.
Lamb Chopped, it also seems to me very odd that Stephen would use such a roundabout way of saying "I forgive you", if that's what he meant, when he was under a hail of stones and probably not far off losing consciousness.
And my personal experience is that it's a lot simpler to ask God 'not to hold my offender's sin against them' than get to the place where I can readily forgive them myself.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:ISTM that forgiveness can be conditional but not necessarily so. That of Christ extended to his ignorant executioners is not conditional. They were not "potentially" forgiven, they were fully forgiven. That forgiveness meant that their sin was no impediment to the possibility of reconciliation, which would involve repentance.
I don't read Christ's prayer as automatically granting forgiveness to his executioners. 1 Peter 2:23 says of this incident quote:
When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
Jesus is displaying compassion and non-retaliation to his executioners, and (like Stephen) expressing his disposition to God, but he is leaving their judgement to the discretion of God. quote:
I'm somewhat surprised you quote Luke 17:3, because it conflicts with your gripe against easy injunctions by churchmen to forgive
As far as I can see, the passage makes forgiveness conditional on repentance. To me, repentance means that the offender has truly become aware that what they did was wrong. In which case, I think there is an imperative to forgive. This also makes perfect sense if, as I have been arguing, the emphasis in the Bible as regards forgiveness is on the benefits for the offender. The kind of injunction I object to is the kind proferred by third parties to a conflict.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
What about forgiveness that is accompanied by punishment? Which might be accepted along the lines of: "glad you've realized your offence, now off to jail with you to learn that there's also a price to be paid nonetheless".
It is how it works in criminal courts.
In my experience, the offenders for whom prison makes any sense at all view imprisonment as a punishment for their offence. The more you think about it, a set period of deprivation of liberty for a given offence appears to be a rather arbitrary means of enforcing some kind of moral code, but it is one that is broadly accepted by society and by criminals. The criminals who understand their being locked up as a way of preventing them from doing further harm is vanishingly tiny (usually, serious sex offenders).
Not infrequently, the acceptance of this punishment is viewed as entirely separate from the issue of forgiveness by the victim and/or forgiveness by God (or, to add another extra-biblical aspect of forgiveness, them forgiving themselves - often an issue especially in murder cases).
I think that in all these cases, forgiveness makes much more sense if it is viewed from the perspective of the offender and includes repentance (i.e. the awareness of having done wrong). Indeed, in my experience prison can (in the best of all possible worlds) give people time to come to that awareness, and that awareness can (but sadly rarely does) affect their sentencing plan*.
==
*Which is where restorative justice aspires to play a greater role - e.g. through victim-offender meetings.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: For the sake of the argument, let's imagine Stephen bottom left, his executioners bottom right, and God at the top.
Sorry, it still doesn't make sense to me. Stephen couldn't have asked God to forgive his stoners if he hadn't felt at least some forgivefulness towards them himself.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Sorry, it still doesn't make sense to me. Stephen couldn't have asked God to forgive his stoners if he hadn't felt at least some forgivefulness towards them himself.
I think I can go as far as "felt some forgivefulness". But it can't be completed unless the perpetrators feel the need to be forgiven - which implies recognising that they did wrong.
When I was majorly sinned against over ten years ago now, I got all sorts of letters and personal exhortations pretty much commanding me to forgive. I did my best to cultivate, if not forgivefulness, at least a non-vengeful attitude towards the perpetrators, and I worked hard to live free of the 'stumbling-block' of their sin against me - but I found the idea of forgiving them meaningless if they did not recognise the wrong they had done.
A couple of years ago, two of the key players did actually get back to me and apologise; and by that time I was able to freely and warm-heartedly forgive them.
(To come back to the original question, I would not get myself back into exactly the same relationship as before with them. There has not been full reconciliation, at least in one case, because I don't think the underyling behaviour has really changed).
The interesting thing is that more than one of the people who were pretty much commanding me to forgive seem to bear a lot more resentment against the people in question than I do now. My process looked harsher at first, and took a lot longer, but I think I and my offenders have ended up in a better place than some of the "forgiveness-lite" proponents.
[ 29. September 2014, 19:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to me that this dynamic is totally different from Stephen simply saying "I forgive you" (left to right along the bottom of the triangle). This would be an interaction directly addressed by Stephen to his executioners and not involving God at all.
Lamb Chopped, it also seems to me very odd that Stephen would use such a roundabout way of saying "I forgive you", if that's what he meant, when he was under a hail of stones and probably not far off losing consciousness.
And my personal experience is that it's a lot simpler to ask God 'not to hold my offender's sin against them' than get to the place where I can readily forgive them myself.
We may have a definition problem going then (like this is so unusual aboard the Ship).
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'm not talking about the emotion of forgiveness, or even about a completed act of forgiveness in some other form (will, for example). But I'm sure that there has to be at least the will to forgiveness (or the will to the will to the will to forgive!) before someone would ask God to forgive his/her enemies for a sin committed specifically against him/her. If there was nothing there but anger, resentment, and grudge holding, the victim wouldn't bother interceding for the victimizer at all.
This is also why I can't see interpersonal forgiveness (when a Christian is involved) as something God has nothing to do with. Forgiving one's enemy, particularly one's enemy who is still unrepentant and maybe in the very act of killing you, is such an unnatural thing for a human being to do. I'd take that as prima facie evidence that something divine was going on. In other words, the Holy Spirit is working in the pray-er, helping him "to will and to do according to Your good pleasure."
As for why Stephen didn't say "oh, and I forgive you too," I think it was for precisely the reason you mentioned. He was close to losing consciousness, every word was a major effort and he could have died at any second, cutting off any further chance to speak. Under those conditions, wouldn't he put the important issue first (God's forgiveness) and leave the lesser issue to be understood?
It's basically his last chance to proclaim the Gospel. Preacher and evangelist that he was, I'm sure his enemies' spiritual wellbeing was first in his mind--and for that, they needed to look at the God angle. Because all the personal forgiveness in the world from Stephen himself would do them no good if there were still charges pending against them in the court of heaven.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Occasionally, you come across someone who almost appears to sit around waiting to be hurt. The slights and attacks they feel are not actually real, but in their imagination. I should think that they have a greater need than most to learn to forgive unconditionally, or their lives could become quite miserable indeed. They must not, and cannot, hold everyone else to ransom over non-existent events.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
There's another angle to this too, in that we can't always forgive ourselves for something we're asking God to forgive us for.
Should God forgive us, if we can't?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Raptor Eye quote:
Should God forgive us, if we can't?
I think this question is wrongly phrased. It should be "Does God forgive us, if we can't?"
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: I think I can go as far as "felt some forgivefulness". But it can't be completed unless the perpetrators feel the need to be forgiven - which implies recognising that they did wrong.
Like others have said, I think we have a semantic problem here.
To me, forgiveness means that if someone has done me wrong, I won't hold it against him/her. I won't think badly about this person, and I won't seek revenge.
This can be a one-sided thing: I can forgive a person even if (s)he doesn't feel the need to be forgiven. Heck, I can forgive a person even if (s)he doesn't realize that (s)he's done something wrong.
This morning, another driver cut me off at a traffic light. I was angry with him first, but then I forgave him. I'm not angry with him anymore, I don't hold it against him, I don't wish him bad. This person didn't acknowledge or recognize to me that he did anything wrong. Maybe he didn't even notice that he did something wrong. Yet, I can forgive him.
quote:
Eutychus: When I was majorly sinned against over ten years ago now, I got all sorts of letters and personal exhortations pretty much commanding me to forgive.
Yes, this is wrong, as I've said in this post. You cannot command, force or pressure someone to forgive. That's the wrong kind of power play. This isn't necessarily related to whether someone has shown remorse though.
Back to St. Stephen. Suppose that I was going for a picknick in the park, and someone stole a loaf of bread from me. I got angry and called for the cops. By the time they arrived, I realized that the thief was poor and hungry, so I ask the cops not to arrest him.
It is in this way that I see the St. Stephen story. God is the cops. He has the power to punish the stoners or not. St. Stephen asks him not to punish them, not to hold it against them. But he can only do that because he can find it within him to forgive them himself.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horatio Harumph:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I disagree in viewing the two as being inseparable, to the point that the lines between them melt. It's impossible to reconcile with someone you haven't forgiven.
As has already been said you are putting the two together. And whilst they can go together, they don't have to. They can be separable.
Very recently, and very painfully I chose to forgive the two people who assaulted me 7 years ago.
They don't know I have forgiven them. Because they don't know who I am.
And I don't know who they are (I'm on the the 9% of women raped by strangers).
But I have forgiven them. What that looks like for me is personal. As it is for each and every one of us. I don't think there is any 'set' way of what forgiveness looks like.
Not only is your decision to forgive remarkable, the issue you've raised has made me rethink this.
On reflection, I'd say there's a difference between forgiving a person with whom reconciliation would be unreasonable or impossible, and misusing forgiveness for ulterior motives.
My concern stems both from seeing "forgiveness" used by those in power to avoid holding people to account, and also its use by others to avoid challenging folk on their actions. I've also seen it used as an excuse to give people the cold-shoulder over frankly trivial slights.
I should've put more thought into the issue. Sorry for not doing so, I'll aim to fix that.
[ 30. September 2014, 04:32: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think I agree with the second half of LeRoc's post and all of Byron's. I also agree that there are semantic problems here.
Two things which seem to have a major impact on the debate are the following:
- perspective (victim's or perpetrator's)
- prior relationship or lack of it (the overlap between forgiveness and reconciliation)
I think LeRoc is definitely on to something by considering the issue of power, too.
To clarify in response to Lamb Chopped, I don't think God can be completely divorced from interpersonal forgiveness, but I still don't think asking God to forgive is the same as interpersonal forgiveness and can in some circumstances be invoked (as Byron hints) as a pretext for not getting down to the nitty gritty of interpesronal conflict resolution.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Eutychus' concept of "therapeutic" forgiveness may be the key to untangling this. To put it another way, forgiveness has subjective and objective aspects. Interpersonal forgiveness is different to the ethics of forgiveness.
A store owner can forgive a thief, but a prosecutor is entitled to say, "Great, but I prosecute not just on your behalf, but on behalf of all the people, and society as a whole benefits from thieves being held to account."
So much of this is, I agree, a problem of definition. One word is being used to signify distinctive things.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
I've read through this thread a couple of times because I am struggling with a forgiveness issue in a very painful situation I have been faced with for nearly four years.
At a pastor's retreat this week the speaker described forgiveness as the most necessary and most difficult of the spiritual disciplines. Then he defined what it is and is not, and it helped me a lot.
He said forgiveness is not acceptance or approval of what was done. It is not a means of facilitating reconciliation. And it is not done for the person who wronged us.
He then said forgiveness is a means of releasing us from the bondage of the abuser which continues after the harmful deed as we continue to dwell on it in anger, bitterness, and anxiety. It is irrespective of whether the abuser repents and seeks reconciliation. Forgiveness attacks our own self-centeredness and takes us to the cross.
That would mean, I think, we do forgive for our own freedom but can remain cautious and set boundaries for the abuser. Forgiveness is not being a doormat for the ongoing abuse of others.
I am still ruminating on that, but it is beginning to make sense to me.
[ 24. October 2014, 16:14: Message edited by: Circuit Rider ]
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That's fine and within the definitions discussed on this thread, but it is not at all akin to the way God forgives us.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
