For those of us who have been deeply
hurt, merely reading the word “forgiveness” can trigger a great
deal of anxiety and fear. If we have been in a relationship where
we've worked and worked to balance our basic needs with forgiving
chronically abusive people, this subject can be one of near
hopelessness. If we've been manipulated, over and over again, the
word “forgiveness” means little more than “I'm damned no
matter what I do.” Justice and respect have evaded us for too
long, and we're weary of trying to survive mistreatment or perhaps
outright abuse. Forgiveness comes to mean resignation to pain and
suffering, despite a multitude of attempts to see a better outcome.
We feel a natural fear that if we do
forgive our offenders, we will be exonerating them, and it will mean
that they never did anything wrong. We've suffered and suffered, but
they seem to get off with just a warning. Sigh. If we
release them from the debts they owe us in word and deed, our
situation will never change, and we will be trapped forever. Some of
us have been a part of too many of those spiritually abusive churches
that have required us to bear suffering in the name of God, just to
keep the peace. We've seen every exploitation of the concept of
forgiveness, misapplied to rubber stamp the sinful behavior of others
against us. We've been told that we have no rights and that God is
using the situation to turn us into diamonds and gold. Seeking to
right the wrongs gets redefined as lack of gratitude mixed with
rebellion against God's work in us. The word “forgiveness” can
cause us to cringe or worse. Forgiveness without justice or
protection, even in the name of love and mercy, is a cruel prison.
Sacrificing Justice to Mercy
This misconception and fear is not just a phenomenon seen in abusive religion. Many Christians who value mercy who also don't handle confrontation very well will often skip right over injustice because it seems easier. They claim that they are honoring mercy by bypassing justice, when in fact, they're just heading right down the Path of Denial. This seems to them to be the more “Christian” alternative, but it really just flattens everyone's existence instead of deepening relationships. We try to trade pain and hard relationship work away in order to gain something better, but we only trade one difficulty for another. Noted in an recent post, Ayn Rand penned this so well in Atlas Shurgged:
In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils, which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.
Some claim that this preserves unity,
but as repeated so often on this blog, it's not real unity. It
attempts to control outcomes through human effort because it confuses
a static uniformity with dynamic and diverse unity which preserves
individual liberty. It seems to produce peace, but it is little more
than avoidance for the sake of comfort and human sentiment. It's a
tradition of men.
I once listened to an elder's wife go
on and on about wonderfully mercy eliminated the need for Christians
to seek any justice about anything. To her, “righteousness
and peace kiss" because justice all but lays down and dies
under a covering of love. (Maybe it submits like the obsequious
submission required under gender hierarchy?) According to her,
though love didn't require any justice, it did require suffering.
She explained to me the very same idea that Rand described as a
negative, but this elder's wife passed the idea off as what Scripture
required of Christians.
Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
The most recent example of this belief
can be seen among Jack
Schaap supporters who argue that though he was a married man, a
pastor, an adult, and a counselor to the teenager that he manipulated
and exploited for his own sexual gratification, he should be
permitted to pass into the night without facing any consequences. He
shouldn't have to go to prison? Though he preached a hard and
horribly judgmental message against those who gave into sexual
temptation, somehow, people argue that the Church should just have
pity on him, blaming the primary fault on the victim-child. “True
Christians” should offer him mercy without concern for justice for
the needs of the victim. To them, mercy means a pardon for Schaap
from all of the consequences of committing crimes against God, man,
church, and civil government, without any process of considering
those wrongs, and certainly without making any kind of restitution to
those who were harmed or ill affected. These supporters also require
no contrition from Schaap for the victim (only for getting caught),
nearly completely scapegoating her.
Mercy or Collectivism?
In this aberrant view of Scripture,
this belief sees justice as competition for or a condition that is
antithetical to mercy. They are understood to be set against one
another as opposed to separate stages in or facets that work together
within the greater dimension of morality – that which establishes
and protects that which is ethical. Justice involves defining,
maintaining, and enforcing that which is moral. Mercy which
facilitates the act of forgiveness concerns the manner in which one
copes with the consequences of immorality. Without first
establishing justice, there is no real opportunity for mercy and love
to manifest anyway. Both the offended and offender lose out on
forgiveness, as it is denied them both.
This aberrant view is an inequitable
one: it makes the offended fully responsible for the blame of the
sin which the offended committed. Even an atheist like Rand could
see the inherent problem in this scenario, and for her, it was not a
commentary on Christianity. Her aforementioned quote offers us her
assessment and her criticism of collectivism, a tradition of men. Do
love and mercy in their perfect expressions
really accomplish the same ends as collectivism and
totalitarian fascism? They don't. Aberrant
interpretation about what the Bible says about love and mercy uses a
virtuous end justify the means. It results in the outward appearance
of peace with strife on the inside of the system, all suffered to
provide an advantage to a select, privileged few. We see no virtue
but rather the abuse of virtue itself which results in
spiritual abuse.
The Higher Court of Mercy
A number of years ago, I read an
excellent descriptive analogy of how justice and mercy work together
to complement one another, allowing mercy to triumph over justice
concerning wrongdoing. (Consider again that this example assumes
that a sin has been committed as opposed to a
personal offense or grievance.)
In a court proceeding concerning a
felony, judge and jury listen to the facts as presented by prosecutor
and defense. Their first and foremost duty concerns examining all
aspects of the matter in great depth to arrive at a conclusion about
those facts. They establish a reasonable degree of justice by
delivering a verdict to the judge about the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
While the defense might play upon the
emotions of the jury as they present their side of the information to
appeal to the mercy of the jurors, showing mercy to the accused is
not the task at hand in this stage of the process The mission at
this point concerns establishing the truth. Determining truth is the
first step towards any justice, and the verdict offers our best human
attempt at arriving at truth.
T. Hisget (Justice/Old Bailey) |
Making Peace with Justice in
Forgiveness
A few days ago, we examined ideas about
“what
forgiveness is not.” Lewis Smedes lays out of us very well in
his books about forgiveness that the process is not one of tolerating
injustice, excusing wrongdoing, or a minimizing of harm that a person
suffers because of injustice. Though the abused and the chronically
wounded may fear the process of forgiveness because it feels like
they're required to “rubber stamp” the actions of their offender,
step back and again consider that forgiveness is a long journey of
change. It is actually a process of establishing justice and
following it up with consequences along the way to the final
destination. God never asks the abused to accept injustice, only to
give up the right to collect on the debt owed. He wants to be the
righteous One who can grant appropriate justice and vengeance to the
guilty, and sometimes, He's the source of restitution that justice
brings when it doesn't or cannot come from the offender directly.
Forgiving other peopledoes not in any way benefitor let them off the hook.It allows us to cancel the debt they owe us,which in all probability they can never pay anyway.David StoopForgiving the Unforgivable, (pg 34)
Establishing truth to arrive at justice
becomes an essential part of the forgiveness process. We need justice to help us
work through our own grief and to determine what our best course of
action will be as we move forward from the pain of the past into the
freedom of the future. It is part of the many steps we take as we
move through the pain of the past into the liberty of the future.
Don't settle for anything less.
Forgiving
someone who did us wrong does not mean
that
we tolerate the wrong they did.
Forgiving
does not mean that
we
want to forget what happened to us.
Forgiving
does not mean that
we
excuse the person who wounded us.
Forgiveness
does no mean that
we
take the edge off the evil of what was done to us.
Forgiveness
does not mean that
we
surrender our right to justice.
Forgiving
does not mean that
we
invite someone who hurt us once to hurt us again.
Lewis
Smedes, The
Art of Forgiving
Much
more to come
on
some of the more difficult problems we face
when
pursing forgiveness and resolving wrong.