Tagged: “Barriers to Forgiveness”
Do most people decide spontaneously to forgive or do they need some persuading to give it a try?
In my experience, many people misunderstand what forgiving is, equating it with reconciliation or excusing the other person’s behavior. In such cases, people are hesitant to forgive. So, in such cases, people first need some time to learn about what forgiveness actually is, which tends to quiet fears. Then people are more willing to try forgiving.
I have tried every solution and still I am angry. Even when I forgive, I am still angry. Do you have any advice for me?
We are all imperfect forgivers and so once you forgive, you still may have some anger left over. A key question for you is this: Is your anger strong and consistent or has it lessened and is not continually present? As long as the anger is not controlling you, then you are doing well. If, however, the anger continues to be strong and stays within you, I would recommend going back to the forgiveness process regarding this particular person. Practicing forgiveness and persevering in this can reduce the anger even more.
Forgiveness Is More than Seeing the Humanity in the One Who Offended
I recently heard a speech in which the speaker equated forgiving with seeing the humanity in the one who offended. The one who was victimized sent a letter to the offender stating that the offending person owes the victim nothing. The speaker said that the letter was sent to set the self free. While these aspects of forgiving (seeing the other as more than the offense and writing the letter for one’s own sake) are both laudable and part of forgiveness, they do not, in themselves, constitute what forgiving is in its essence.
Had the speaker said something such as the following to the audience, it would be reasonable because the speaker would be instructing the audience that this is not the sum total of forgiveness: “I have worked at seeing the offending person as much more than his actions against me. I sent a letter to him to set myself free. These are part of forgiveness, perhaps the best I can do for now, but there is much more to what forgiveness is than this.” Otherwise, the messenger is engaging in the logical fallacy of reductionism, or reducing what forgiveness is to less than what it actually is.
Such a clarification is important for this reason: Because forgiveness is a moral virtue, it is about goodness directed deliberately toward the other person for that offending person’s sake. A letter sent for one’s own benefit is quite different from sending it to aid the one who offended. Again, the motive of self-healing is good, but there is more. The benefits toward the self are consequences of forgiving; these benefits for the self are not what forgiveness is in its essence.
Forgiveness is a response of mercy toward the one who offends. It also includes the cultivation of compassion toward that person, the bearing of pain for the other, and the giving of a gift because that is what mercy does. Forgiveness, then, is centered not only on insight about the other person but also on a deliberate gift-giving toward that person. This does not mean that all who forgive reach this fuller level of forgiving, but it does mean that this is the goal.
When people are asked to speak to an audience, this implicitly sets up the expectation that the speaker has a certain wisdom about the topic so that the audience will get as clear an understanding of the topic as possible. When the speaker then engages, without realizing it, in the logical fallacy of reductionism, this does not advance deep knowledge of that topic.
The take-away message of this blog post is this: When you hear a scheduled talk by someone who is considered an authority on the subject of forgiveness, be very careful not to conclude that what the speaker is saying must be the truth and nothing but the truth because the person was asked to speak. Sometimes, there is reductionism or patently false information given on the complex topic of forgiveness. Let the listener beware.
Robert
Can you give me an example of when forgiving is not a good option?
Yes, and here are two examples. For example 1, the one who might forgive realizes that there really was no injustice. There was, instead, a misunderstanding between two people. Under this condition, forgiving is not a good option. For example 2, the person truly was treated unjustly by another, but this happened very recently. The one considering forgiving is not ready and needs some time to work through the anger. In this case, it may be best to wait, process the anger, and then decide if forgiving is the way to go now. Forgiving is a free will choice and sometimes we need time to process what happened and to examine our inner world before starting to forgive.
What has been your experience of seeing people forgive because they feel they have to (because of pressure from others or because of religious beliefs) and those who willingly choose to forgive on their own?
The idea of forgiving “because they feel they have to” do this is somewhat complex. For example, there is nothing wrong with others pointing a person in the direction of forgiveness. This can be of great help, especially if the person misunderstands what forgiveness is or has hardly tried it before. On the other hand, hovering over a person and not letting that person see the beauty of forgiving, and choosing it as part of one’s own free will, can be coercion. This is not helpful because the person is not necessarily being drawn to the beauty of forgiveness. So, if we make the distinction between educating a person and assisting the person to deeply understand forgiveness on the one hand and forcing on the other, we can see that the former is good and the latter is not. We need a gentle approach when helping others to think about forgiveness.
