Our Forgiveness Blog
Addressing the “Both/And” Approach to Family Conflict: Why This Is Insufficient for Healing
Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya, Pexels.com
I recently read a self-help article about family conflict. The author was advocating for what is called the “both/and” approach to healing. It means this: Acknowledge the hurts against you, but also focus on times of positive interaction. Both are truthful, and if you can live with both side by side, this will promote healing.
I write this essay to respectfully disagree with this approach to family healing. I think it can be a first step, but it is incomplete by itself. It is so incomplete that I think it could lead to future conflicts rather than deep emotional and relational healing.
Let me start with an analogy. Suppose you damaged the cartilage in your knee. It annoys you and diminishes your quality of life because you cannot work out as rigorously as before. Yet, you have strong shoulders. If you take a literal “both/and” approach here, you will live with the broken-down knee and the strong shoulders. You can still work out, such as bench pressing or bicep curls. Yet, your ability to run now is hampered. Should you simply live with all of this or try to heal the knee? I vote for healing the knee.
It seems to me that this analogy applies to the “both/and” of family conflict. Yes, you have the challenge of injustice and the happy times, but isn’t it more beneficial to go for the healing from the resentment that has built up in the heart from the injustices? As with knee surgery, resentment in the heart can be healed by forgiving those who caused the pain. Yes, you still have a memory of the injustice, but now the emotional reaction to that memory is healed. The “both/and” is not likely to eventually lead to the “and” of resentment overpowering the “and” of fond memories. After all, resentment is a formidable foe. It can last for years and grow, overpowering any positive thoughts about the other person.
So, yes, let us be aware of the “both/and” as we do with a torn knee and strong shoulders, but let us move beyond that to forgiving those who caused the damage to the heart through unjust actions. “Both/and” focuses on insight. Moving forward with forgiveness focuses on healing once the insight is understood, confronted, and the forgiveness is accomplished.
An Achilles’ Heel for Forgiveness: The Lack of Perseverance
Photo by Leeloo The First, Pexels.com
In his classic work Pensees, Blaise Pascal discusses a challenge many people face. It is what he calls diversion, which is a kind of distraction from one’s primary goals in life. Diversion can temporarily be a source of entertainment or comfort in a challenging world. Yet, over time, such distractions can keep us from the larger questions of life, such as: Why am I here? What virtues should be the basis of my interactions with others? What happens when I pass away from this life?
Distractions can lead us away from our primary goals as we, for example, seek pleasure rather than directly meet the challenges of life. The new norms of society, the new games, the new entertainments can slowly, or at times even suddenly, take us far from our life’s goals. This can happen subtly so that the one distracted is not even aware that this movement away from meaningful goals is occurring.
I have seen this happen very often when it comes to practicing and nurturing forgiveness in a person’s life. This is 40 years of my observing forgiveness talking to you now. I have seen an initial euphoria in people who have been introduced to forgiveness, accurately defined, only for it to fade in them. I have seen this fading away in well-meaning teachers who start forgiveness education only to shift to the next hot topic emerging in education. Forgiveness just quietly drops off the radar, and so new students are not given the opportunity to understand and practice this life-giving virtue.
I have seen this in families. A person might read a self-help book on forgiveness, discuss it with others in the family, practice it for a while, and then it fades.
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle reminded us thousands of years ago that to become more efficient in any moral virtue, we need three things: practice, practice, practice. Early enthusiasm is only a beginning. Greater proficiency grows across time as the person learns to appreciate the virtue even more, becomes more proficient at it, and eventually develops a love of that virtue.
What do you think? Those of you reading this: Can you say that you have developed a love of forgiveness, properly understood and practiced? Can you say that you are persevering in forgiveness, making it a part of your life? Can you say that you now are giving forgiveness to others in your family, workplace, worship community, and the larger community? If so, my hearty congratulations to you for your perseverance.
To those of you just picking up the banner of forgiveness, please be aware that your initial enthusiasm could fade too easily because of distractions. Please be aware of this……..and don’t let it happen.
When Can Forgiveness Be Harmful to Emotional Healing?: Another Encounter with Artificial Intelligence
Pexels.com, Photo by Ron Lach
Over the past couple of years, the process of forgiveness has been criticized, and I have labeled this criticism as unnecessary or error-filled. For example, I published a blog on this site on August 21, 2024, entitled “The Summer of 2024 Now Has Seen Three Published Criticisms of Forgiveness” (https://internationalforgiveness.com/2024/08/21/the-summer-of-2024-now-has-seen-three-published-criticisms-of-forgiveness/).
Those criticisms made me curious. What will Artificial Intelligence say if I ask the question in this blog’s title? So, I went ahead and asked. Sure enough, I received an answer. Here are the points made by Artificial Intelligence and my rebuttal. Please see what you think as we examine four criticisms of forgiveness in the healing process.
1. When forgiving is forced onto someone, it can lead to a superficial forgiveness that short-circuits the emotional healing process. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I also wholeheartedly disagree that we are talking about genuine forgiveness here. Instead, we are talking about a false form of it. There is a vast difference between a free-will choice to forgive, with sufficient time to examine the emotional effects of being treated unjustly, and this rushed form of it. In this court of law, my client, forgiveness, is being confused with an impostor.
2. Forgiveness is harmful when the person’s safety is not restored. I agree that it is important to work on justice for the mistreated person, and this is the quest for justice. To claim that forgiveness itself can be responsible for a lack of safety is to think in “either/or” terms: Either we forgive or we seek justice, but we do not pursue both. As far back as Aristotle in ancient Greece, we are exhorted to practice the moral virtues, not in isolation, but together. In other words, when we forgive, let us bring the call to justice along with it. Forgiveness does not invalidate justice, but encourages it. Therefore, this idea that forgiveness is harmful is false. The error lies in treating forgiveness as an isolated process, which is incorrect.
3. Forgiveness is seen as harmful when it ignores the forgiver’s values or what is important to the person. In other words, the one who forgives supposedly distorts the seriousness of the injustice by simply letting it go. No, this is not what forgiveness is. When we forgive, we do not excuse the injustice. What happened was wrong, is wrong, and will continue to be wrong. The new stance is toward the person, not the situation, causing the pain from the injustice. Thus, the forgiver’s values are not ignored. Sometimes forgiveness can actually put forgivers’ values into even sharper focus by allowing them to see clearly and acknowledge what happened. Further, forgiveness not only leaves forgivers with insights about the unfairness but also with a scientifically supported approach to healing from the effects of what happened.
4. Finally, forgiveness is seen as harmful when others “weaponize” forgiveness, pressuring the injured person to be quiet, stop complaining, and let others live a comfortable life without hearing about the forgiver’s pain. Once again, this is not the fault of forgiveness itself, but of onlookers who fail to respect the forgiver and the healing process that is necessary when forgiveness is willingly chosen.
In summary, if you ever ask AI if forgiveness can be harmful, you likely will get a “yes” answer, possibly with the four ideas above and maybe even some new ones. Please keep in mind that AI can give false information. In each case above, the false information concerned false forgiveness, not the genuine essence of what forgiveness is and what it accomplishes in the hearts and relationships of those who choose to forgive accurately.
Calling Artificial Intelligence…….Calling AI. What Is Forgiveness?
Photo by Tara Winstead, Pexels.com
Yesterday, I asked AI about forgiveness and received this definition: “Forgiveness is the intentional decision to let go of resentment and anger toward someone who has harmed you, regardless of whether they deserve it.”
I then asked another form of rationality about this definition. That other form was my own studying of forgiveness for the past 40 years. Here is my response to the new intelligence that so many see as definitive:
1. Forgiveness is a decision. No, it is not. A decision is only one part of forgiveness. As an analogy, suppose you “make a decision” to work in a soup kitchen. There, you did it. However, suppose that you now spend most of your time on the couch as you eat corn chips and never actually go to the soup kitchen. Does your “decision” to work in the soup kitchen actually fulfill the goal? No, because you now have to act on this decision. This involves: a) thinking, such as planning; b) feeling, such as having sympathy toward those who do not have homes, which serves as an internal motivator to get up off the couch and put the chips away; and c) behavior as you go to the soup kitchen, get your assignment, and fulfill it.
2. Forgiveness is letting go of resentment. No again, it is not. If forgiveness only consists of letting go of resentment, then one might be able to do that by, for example, having disparaging thoughts about the offending person, such as, “This person is such a low-life that he just can’t help himself. I need to stay away from anyone like that!”
3. Forgiveness is letting go of “resentment and anger.” No again. Resentment encompasses anger in bigger doses over long periods of time. If one is going to use the terms “resentment and anger,” it is necessary to distinguish them. Short-term anger can be good as you see that no one should treat you unfairly. Resentment, as longer term anger, can turn on the one harboring it so that fatigue and even anxiety or depression might emerge.
4. The AI sentence shows reductionism. If AI were to expand what forgiveness is, it should include adding ideas such as “forgiveness is a moral virtue, or deliberately being good to those who are not good to you, more positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward those who acted unfairly.” This would include working against the opposite of goodness, or struggling against negative thoughts that condemn, negative feelings that could include resentment, and negative behaviors which can include revenge toward those who offended.
AI does not have all the answers. Beware the easy way out when trying to understand what forgiveness is and is not. It is not excusing unjust behavior, automatically reconciling, or abandoning the quest for justice.
How Do Forgiveness and Tolerance Differ?
Photo by Karola G, Pexels.com
Below is a Socratic dialogue between the mental health professional, Sophia, and her client, Inez. These are fictional characters. The conversation comes from the book, The Forgiving Life (APA Books, 2012).
Sophia: Are toleration and forgiveness the same?
Inez: They are very close to the same thing. When I forgive, I offer civility, respect, and even love toward the one who hurt me. I do not condemn, attack, or in any way harm the other. Toleration also deliberately avoids hurting the other person. So, they are synonyms.
Sophia: What do you think of this? To tolerate has two related meanings. First, it means to “put up with” another’s unpleasant behavior, as when a friend puts up with another’s unpleasant habit of always answering her mobile phone when the two of them are in deep conversation. Because the person with such a habit is not necessarily conscious of it, we can hardly say that all acts of toleration concern unjust behaviors on the part of the other person. Second, to tolerate means to recognize and respect the rights of others. Because a genuine right is never a wrong, such toleration cannot be forgiveness, which occurs in the context of others’ wrongs.
Inez: But, when I forgive, can’t we say that I am not harming the other? Because tolerance offers this as well, can’t we say that forgiveness shares something important with tolerance?
Sophia: Yes, we could say this, but what do you think? Does forgiveness share more with tolerance or more with moral love?
Inez: It shares something with each.
Sophia: But which one shares more with forgiveness?
Inez: I’d say that love has more in common with forgiveness because when we show goodness toward someone who has hurt us, this is a great good and much more than “putting up with” something or someone.
Sophia: Well said.
Inez: Thank you, Sophia. This is kind of fun. I think I am catching on to the depth of forgiveness.
Enright, Robert D.. The Forgiving Life: A Pathway to Overcoming Resentment and Creating a Legacy of Love (APA LifeTools Series) (Function). Kindle Edition.
