Tagged: “injustice”

If a person did not mean to hurt me by certain actions, does this mean there was no injustice and therefore there is nothing to forgive?

Sometimes even if a person did not intend to hurt you, the actions themselves can be insensitive and hurtful and therefore you can forgive.  As an example, suppose someone was texting while driving and runs into your car.  Although the person did not intend to cause an accident, that person still should have been paying more attention.  The intention to do wrong was not there, but the necessity to be paying close attention also was not there.  If the victim sees this as negligence, then the victim can go ahead with forgiving.  Wrongful actions without bad intentions still can warrant forgiving the one who engaged in those actions.

I don’t get it.  Why does the forgiveness process involve the victim trying to see the woundedness in the one who acted wrongly?  So what if that person was treated badly by others.  How does that take away my inner torment?

The point of seeing the woundedness in the other, if those wounds exist, is to slowly start to engender some empathy and compassion in you for that person.  In other words, the point is to see a person who is more than the injustices against you.  Your seeing the other’s wounds can be a first step in your softening your heart toward that person.

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.