Tagged: “Misconceptions”
Suppose three other people walk into a bar. The first person says, “I have tried and tried to love the one who hurt me, but I just cannot do it.” The second one says, “I, too, have tried to love the one who hurt me, but all I can offer is respect, including respectful conversations.” The third one says, “It took me a long time to develop a little love in my heart for the one who hurt me, but it is there.” Would you say that only the third person is forgiving?
No, I would not say that for this reason: To love (in the sense of agape or trying to help the other despite its challenges) is the Essence of what forgiveness is. We do not have to continually be on this high level to be forgiving. We can still hold this up as our goal, but it is hard to reach the goal. Here is an analogy to make this clearer: If the three people who walked into the bar are now striving to be physically fit, and if the first one works out three times a week and can only do 10 push-ups at a time, wouldn’t you agree that this person is engaging in physical fitness? The person has not reached a high level of fitness yet, but there is exercise toward improvement. The second one can do 20 push-ups, and the goal is 50. Would you not agree that this person, too, is engaged in physical fitness? The third person now can run a marathon and do 50 push-ups in a row. Just because this third person is more physically fit than the others does not mean that the others are not practicing physical fitness. The Essence of something is a goal and not necessarily a reality for everyone. It is the knowledge of what the Essence is and striving for it that is important. So, in summary, all three of the people who walk into the bar are practicing forgiveness.
Suppose three philosophers walk into a bar. One says, “Forgiveness is transcending the passions.” The second one says, “Forgiveness is moving on without the injustice affecting the person.” The third one says, “Forgiveness on its highest level is offering agape love to the one who acted unjustly.” Who is to say which of these philosophers is correct?
I suggest that you can argue against the first two philosophers this way: First, if all we do is transcend the passions, what then keeps the forgiver from being neutral toward the other person, ignoring this person? This is a passive dismissal of the other and so this philosopher will have to re-define forgiveness away from its quality as a moral virtue. I say that because there is no goodness toward the other. Second, if all we do is move on without anger, how does this show any kind of goodness toward the offending person? Where is the respect or the kindness or the generosity? The other person is cut out of the equation. Again, we would have to ask what forgiveness is in this case. Is it some kind of self-help strategy, and if so, what is it? Only the third philosopher has a genuine concern for the other person, and so is preserving the quality of forgiving as a moral virtue. When it is time for a toast in this bar, it is my hope that the other two toast to the wisdom of the third philosopher.
Can’t people move on without forgiving? Must we insist on forgiveness after injustice?
Because forgiveness is a choice of the one offended, we have to be careful not to impose it on others. We can discuss what forgiveness is and show that it is a path to healing for oneself, possibly for the one who was unjust, and possibly for the relationship. Yet, it is the free-will decision of the one treated badly.
If forgiveness, as you say, is for the other person who acted badly, what can we do to enlighten others about the true nature of forgiveness? It seems to me that most people would fail a test if I asked, “What is forgiving on its highest level?” When I do that, most say it is getting rid of anger or just moving on with one’s life.
We need more opportunities to discuss forgiveness with people. I agree with you regarding the misunderstanding of what forgiveness is by many people. In my experience, people use the word “forgiveness,” but never delve deeply into its meaning. The self-help book, The Forgiving Life, discusses forgiving as love and might prove helpful in deepening the conversation about forgiveness.
Some philosophies emphasize the overcoming of the passions. So, for example, if I go from anger to a neutral emotional stance, then I have conquered the emotion of anger, and it will not hurt me. How is forgiveness different from this?
Forgiveness, while also focusing on the diminishing of anger, does so for a very different reason than what you describe above. In genuine forgiveness, the forgiver reduces anger for the sake of the one who acted unjustly so that this person is not harmed. Even more deeply than this, the forgiver strives, as an important endpoint of forgiveness on its highest level, to offer love (agape love) toward the other. Agape is a special kind of love that is in service to others, even when it is very challenging or even painful to do so. This is done for the other. So, I hope you see that conquering anger for the sake of oneself is not the same as true forgiveness in its essence and on its highest level.
