Archive for January, 2013
I have a friend who thinks I have offended her. I disagree. She is now demanding an apology. If I refuse, she is threatening to walk out of my life forever. I would prefer that does not happen, despite this conflict. What should I do? Should I apologize even though I do not mean it?
This is an important dilemma, whether to choose truth or friendship. I recommend that you choose both. If it were me, I would tell the truth this way, “I am sorry that I hurt your feelings for [then state what the issue is].”
I am presuming that you wish she was not hurt by whatever she thinks you did. You would be acknowledging this. You are not apologizing for a supposed injustice that you say you did not commit.
For the past 11 months, we have been tracking the number of unique visitors to this website and the tally to date is approximately 90,500 and counting. That is a large army.
You did not know you were in an army, particularly a forgiveness army, did you? Well, now is your chance to make war against war by introducing at least one person to the concept of forgiveness. It is not easy to do that. It requires courage.
May courage be yours in 2013.
It is not easy to introduce one person to forgiveness because it is not always clear when and how and what to present to someone who needs to know about forgiveness. It is not easy to do that. It requires wisdom.
May wisdom be yours in 2013.
It is not easy to introduce one person to forgiveness because it takes energy and perseverance and then more energy and perseverance as he or she criticizes or shows indifference or even insults you. It is not easy to “hang in there” when this happens. It requires love.
May love be yours in 2013.
Courage, wisdom, and love in the service of forgiveness. These are our weapons for making war against war.
May 2013 be a year of peace because we, each of us, each of our 90,500 soldiers-for-peace, have taken the time to introduce at least one person to the topic of forgiveness.
Farm and Dairy, Salem, OH – Scarred by years of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of his parents–abuse so violent that it nearly killed him–Terry McDaniel would seem to have every reason to hate. As awful as his childhood was, though, he’s not out for revenge. His message is one of hope and inspiration, of forgiveness and understanding.
McDaniel, now 52-years-old, says his anger over the constant abuse did not subside until after he discovered the “process of forgiveness” when he was 26. As bad as his life had been, McDaniel says, he came to realize that it wouldn’t get any better until he let go. “You release that person to be dealt with by God, not by you,” he added.
After years of writing and rewriting, McDaniel has put his thoughts together in a book. “Through Our Eyes, A Story of Surviving Childhood Abuse” uses semi-fictional scenes and characters that draw parallels to his own life. By using a fictional approach, McDaniel says, he didn’t have to mention the names of real-life people in his family. “I wanted to make the book a book of hope and healing for people who have been abused,” he said.
A person wrote to us recently to ask: Should I wait for the other person’s apology (repentance) before I forgive? Some philosophers such as Haber and Griswold argue that forgiveness is only legitimate if there first is an apology. And isn’t there a Bible verse saying that if your brother repents then you forgive him?
We are addressing the question here in the Blog (rather than in our Ask Dr. Forgiveness section) because of the lengthy reply and because we wish to give as many people as possible the chance to see and respond to the answer.
Some people reason that it is in the best interest of an unjustly-treated person to wait for an apology. Some reason that this is best even for forgiveness itself because it preserves the moral quality of forgiveness, by demanding something of the other, by trying to bring out the best in the offender.
While this latter point, waiting for the good of the other, is noble because the focus is on the betterment of that other person, I do not think that reason allows us to insist that this occur prior to our forgiving our offenders. I make three points in defense of unconditional forgiveness:
1. Forgiveness is a moral virtue and there is no other moral virtue in existence that requires a prior response from another person before one can exercise that virtue. For example, if you wish to be kind, does someone first have to do something before you engage in kindness? Does someone have to do something before you can exercise justice? No. So, why are we changing the rules of the moral virtues for this one virtue of forgiveness?
2. If our forgiving others is contingent on an apology (a prior response from another before we can act), then we are trapped in unforgiveness until the other acts. This would seem to violate the principle of justice: We cannot exercise a particular virtue, in this case forgiveness, even if we so choose. How fair is that?
3. You fall back to a supposed Biblical mandate in your defense of the conditional nature of forgiveness (the required apology). Of course, those who reject faith will have no interest in this third point (and I hope that my first two points are sufficient to convince them of the philosophical flaws in arguing for the necessity of repentance prior to forgiving). You refer to Luke 17:3, “”Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.” Yet, this is not setting up a necessary condition for a person to forgive. Instead, it is setting up a sufficient condition for the forgiveness to occur. In other words, when you see your brother has repented, this is a morally adequate act for you to go ahead and forgive. Yet, there are other ways for a person to forgive, including the unconditional approach (no repentance has occurred). The context does not imply that one must–out of necessity–refrain from offering forgiveness until the other repents. This, in logic, is a confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions.
So, waiting for an apology is a moral good in only one sense: It challenges the other to change. I would like to clarify even this by making a distinction between internal and external aspects of forgiveness. It is not morally good to refrain from the inner work of forgiveness (struggling to see the inherent worth of your offender) prior to the apology/repentance. Why? Because goodness (in this case the moral virtue of forgiveness) is thwarted and cannot occur. It is only morally good if the verbal act of forgiveness (“I forgive you”) is delayed until the other changes (and in a genuine way) and at the same time is not delayed out of necessity.
On the other hand, unconditional forgiveness is morally good in at least three ways: 1) The one offended begins to see the inherent worth of the other as soon as the forgiver is ready; 2) unconditional forgiveness does not lead to the trap of unforgiveness based on another’s actions, and 3) the offer of forgiveness even verbally prior to the other’s change of heart may lead to such a change of heart. In other words, some people will repent when they experience the forgiver’s unconditional love. And even if they do not, forgiveness does not link automatically to reconciliation with the person. In other words, an unconditional act of forgiveness does not open the forgiver to further injustice.
WECT television, Wilmington, NC – A father relates a story of his 7-year-old son, who had a not-so-usual take on the young man who did the shooting in Connecticut in December. While offering his bedtime prayers, the young boy prayed for the salvation of the one who killed the children. The father realized that forgiveness can be extended even to those who commit the most horrendous of crimes.
Read the full story – “Your Turn: Learning forgiveness from our children.”