Forgiving as Defending without Condemning
I think quite a bit about forgiveness for a few reasons. First, and mainly, it is most likely the subject that receives the most attention--direct or indirect--in my pastoral work thus far. Everybody needs to forgive and to be forgiven. Second, it forms part of my thought on atonement. Third, it is just difficult--both to do and to think about. Miroslav Volf's work on forgiveness in Free of Charge and Exclusion and Embrace has shaped my thought, though I disagree with him in places.
Forgiveness is not refusing to "hold something against" a person. That is ridiculously dangerous and foolish. Forgiveness in that case would bring, most likely, more evil and place people with certain weaknesses to specific sins in situations they might not be able to handle, thereby offending again. Neither does forgiveness return us to a position prior to the offense's happening. Rather than looking backward, forgiveness looks forward, entertaining and aiming for total reconciliation and beginning that process, but not living into it immediately. Thus, it becomes both unwise and impossible to forget what one has forgiven. Forgetting what one has forgiven leaves one open to suffering in the same way. Further, forgetting what one has forgiven can derail reconciliation as one would forget the situation being reconciled. (However, once total reconciliation has taken place, I think forgetting could be the gracious gift of God.)
So, I propose that in forgiving we are committing to defending ourselves (remembering the sin we suffered), but refusing to condemn the other because of that offense.
Forgiveness is not refusing to "hold something against" a person. That is ridiculously dangerous and foolish. Forgiveness in that case would bring, most likely, more evil and place people with certain weaknesses to specific sins in situations they might not be able to handle, thereby offending again. Neither does forgiveness return us to a position prior to the offense's happening. Rather than looking backward, forgiveness looks forward, entertaining and aiming for total reconciliation and beginning that process, but not living into it immediately. Thus, it becomes both unwise and impossible to forget what one has forgiven. Forgetting what one has forgiven leaves one open to suffering in the same way. Further, forgetting what one has forgiven can derail reconciliation as one would forget the situation being reconciled. (However, once total reconciliation has taken place, I think forgetting could be the gracious gift of God.)
So, I propose that in forgiving we are committing to defending ourselves (remembering the sin we suffered), but refusing to condemn the other because of that offense.
posted by Aaron Perry at
9:52 AM
5 Comments:
[Good--as opposed to fruitcake-esque] Christian psychology would agree with you.
This was very well worded. I would have said things like "it is unrealistic and impossible to forget, if one does, one is denying one's own self ---not in a holy way, but in a disappearing way, wherein you, the self, are not important--you don't matter. This is wrong, because you DO matter to God, and because injustice done does matter. Only when we fully acknowledge injustice can grace to not hold it against the other come."
I would also add that sometimes the injustice needs to be witnessed to or understood by another innocent party (chosen wisely). But that "witness" is usually is the role of the counselor... or the true friend.
I think that often in some denominational circles we undermine the intrinsic desire for right and wrong to be called out and dealt with: We too quickly suggest forgiveness in a name it claim it manner, before the psychological groundwork for that lasting forgiveness has been laid and prepared.
You do not know me, but because I have Google Alerts set for Miroslav Volf, I was alerted to your piece. An Anglican priest friend of mine recently alerted me to “Exclusion and Embrace” and I have just begun reading it; though too early for conclusions, Volf’s personal history makes anything he says on forgiveness compelling.
In your own posting, you seem to be placing limits on forgiveness. Are we truly able to continue holding “something against” a person and still lay claim to full Christian forgiveness? Christian forgiveness is so radical as to be given to very few. Then again, perhaps I do not understand the meaning you give to “holding something against” someone for to me it seems to suggest the presence of rancor, even if only residual. If any rancor remains, there is no forgivenss. We may not entrust with money the person who has stolen from us for fear he will steal again, but we must not hold rancor. We must also, and here I agree with you, look forward to a full reconciliation. Yet even that is short of radical Christian forgiveness. In the novel, Les Misérables, the Bishop of Digne so totally forgives Jean Valjean that he gives him the silver he has stolen. No doubt Bishop Myriel sees the possibility of goodness in the man and hopes by his act to reclaim Valjean’s soul. Yet even this falls short of radical forgiveness, for the good Bishop is, in a sense, bribing Valjean to be good, and the Bishop is, after all, in the business of producing good people. The only example I know of unequivocal, radical Christian forgiveness is Chris on the cross. He give his life, without thought for defending himself, so that we might be saved.
Hi Kendall,
Perhaps I will name drop more often now to get more readers. Maybe not.
I completely agree that there can be no presence of rancor. That may be a connotation of the phrase "held against," but I think the context reads against any such consideration. Your example of stealing--not trusting money to the thief, but still forgiving them--is one I could have used to show what I meant.
To your example of Christ on the cross, I think that is the model of forgiveness, but his defenseless posture was also a posture of trust in God's vindication. The forgiveness communicated by the resurrection--the return of Jesus from exile--also means that we need not suffer defenselessly. The cross is lifted up to keep others from going to such crosses, though that may still be the only option for them. I see no reason why radical forgiveness cannot entail defense--which can be as much for the offender as for the offended.
So, I am not sure why reconciliation is short of forgiveness. The example you highlight is begging the question, if bribing is indeed in the relationship. What true friendship involves bribing? That there is not full reconciliation in that act of forgiveness implies that forgiveness is short of full reconciliation, not vice-versa. This is why those offenders who are dead can be forgiven of their sins for the good of the offended, though reconciliation is impossible (without resurrection).
that should have said, "drop more names"....as your, kendell, google alerts provided the avenue for a thoughtful comment from a stranger (yourself).
First, let me clarify: reconciliation may (I should have said) fall short of radical Christian forgiveness if it is not unconditional and in most earthly reconciliations I have something to gain from it. My brother-in-law, a modern secularist willfully blind to transcendence, once told me that religion was just another type of commerce; a view that renders even the Bishop of Digne mercenary: his forgiveness merely an attempt to add to his heavenly credit ledger.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home