Why can’t we simplify forgive by saying that the forgiver no longer wants to harm the one who acted badly? Why complicate matters by insisting that the forgiver has to be perfect in his thinking, feeling, and behaving toward the offending one?
The forgiver does not have to be perfect in the expression of forgiving. The key issue here is to distinguish between what can be expressed now by an imperfect forgiver (and we are all imperfect forgivers) and what forgiving actually is in its Essence. As imperfect forgivers, people do not necessarily reach the heights of forgiving by having loving thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward a person who acted deeply unjustly. Yet, we need to keep in front of us what forgiving actually is, in its Essence, if we are to strive to be better in our forgiving. In other words, a too-simplistic view of forgiveness, in its Essence, places the bar for improvement much too low for us all if we over-simplify the definition of forgiving. If forgiveness only is wanting to do no harm toward the offending person, this is a good first step, but it is incomplete. One can want to do no harm and yet do harm when angry. One can want to do no harm because the “forgiver” thinks the other is ignorant and irredeemable. In other words, a move to not harm does not go far enough and actually, by itself, can be an error, as pointed out in the above examples.
