Ask Dr. Forgiveness
You discuss in the Uncovering Phase of forgiveness that a person should examine defense mechanisms. For example, might I be in denial that the other truly was unjust? Since defense mechanisms usually are hidden from the one who is denying, how are we to uncover these defense mechanisms?
I think there are two keys to uncovering the defense mechanisms.
First, if the one who is considering forgiveness does not think that there is a solution to the inner pain, then this fear can prevent an opening up to reality, to the true conclusion that “I have been wronged and I am in pain.” When this potential forgiver sees that forgiveness is a safety net to getting rid of that inner pain, then opening up to what really happened is more likely.
Second, as the potential forgiver sees the extent of the inner pain (which can be deeper than is first discerned), then this realization of deep inner pain can be a motivation to move forward with healing. This courageous decision to move forward helps people to see even more clearly now that the pain must be confronted, which can weaken the defense of denial.
How can I be sure that the other person truly acted unjustly? In other words, is it possible that I am misinterpreting the situation and there really was no injustice against me?
I would recommend that you scrutinize the issue in three ways:
- What was the actual behavior of the other? Was the action against your own interest, such as an act that put you in some kind of danger (unsafe behavior or words that demean you)?
- What were the circumstances? Was the other, for example, in a difficult situation in which there was little time to reflect and therefore to act wisely? Was the other in a situation that itself could lead to injury such as speeding in a car?
- Although it is difficult to ascertain the motives of other people, what do you think was motivating the other person? Was there a goal to hurt you?
As you reflect on the other’s behavior, circumstance, and motive, this may help you decide whether the other person truly was unjust or not to you. At times, not all three issues have to be present. For example, suppose the person was texting while driving, with no intent to hurt you (no motive to hurt). Yet, the behavior and the circumstance are such that this activity is risky. Therefore, a conclusion of injustice is justified.
Is a forgiving community even possible for people who have been oppressed by injustice? Don’t we have to validate the injustice and even overcome it first?
One can validate oppression by acknowledging it and calling it what it is: unfair. One can own one’s legitimate anger over the oppression. Yet, if one waits to actually solve the injustice before forgiving, then those who are oppressing win twice: once with original and ongoing oppression and second by having the oppressed people living under a constant state of unhealthy anger or resentment. That resentment, over time, might be so strong as to destroy individuals and families within that oppressed community. Forgiveness without a correction of the injustice at the very least solves that one problem of destructive resentment.
I was talking recently with a person who has been in law enforcement. He said that forgiveness in this context may not be effective because those in law enforcement have more of an emphasis on such virtues as courage and heroism. Forgiveness, he said, seems too weak of a virtue for his group. What do you think?
Forgiveness too often is misunderstood as weakness. Yet, what other moral virtue (whether it is justice or kindness or patience) is more heroic than forgiveness, which asks the forgiver to stand in the pain and from that position to offer goodness toward the one who injured the forgiver? This issue of deliberately being good to those who are not good to the forgiver is heroic. The person is committing to do no harm to the one who offended, and for that person’s good. This is strength, not weakness, especially when we realize that the one who forgives also can ask for justice from the one who has been behaving badly. The quest for justice, then, is likely to be more fair than seeking justice when the injured person is fuming with rage.
I don’t see how a person can get over anger if the other person has moved away. There is no contact anymore. How can one then dialogue about the issue so that the anger diminishes?
Reducing anger is not dependent on having face-to-face contact (or even written or virtual contact) with the other person. Reducing the anger is a matter of the heart. You can begin thinking about the other person in new ways, seeing this person’s vulnerabilities and eventually even seeing the person’s built-in worth. You can do this for people who are not with you now, even for those who are deceased.
