I hope
to continue highlight other more subtle things about the journey of
forgiveness that most people tend to miss, especially the aspects
that are relevant to those who are in recovery from spiritual abuse.
As Christians, we should seek to do things in the way the Bible
tells, especially concerning forgiveness, considering that God
forgives us without us meriting it, and we are called to be
transformed in character to be like our Savior. Still, no matter how
much we study, there's always a possibility that we do not understand
what the Biblical texts try to communicate. And we might not agree.
What does forgiveness look like?
One of the places to which I wandered
online while considering the subject took me to a website for
pastors. I know nothing else about Richard
DeRuiter or his background, save for his
blog post which discusses the difference he appreciates between
forgiveness and reconciliation Here, he points out something rather
obvious that many Christians tend to miss when they merge the two and
treat the process as something less than one of the greatest
challenges of the human condition:
One more thing we must say about forgiveness: if it seems 'fair' to forgive, it's not forgiveness, it's only recognition that we were wrong about being/feeling hurt, or wrong to hold on to the hurt. It's only forgiveness when the other person doesn't deserve to be forgiven, when the hurt was/is real, and we have a 'right' to feel as we feel. The kind of forgiveness that denies the reality or intensity of someone's sin against me, or a loved one, diminishes the nature of forgiveness, and drives the hurt down deeper, where it festers in our spirit. No. It's only forgiveness if we know that the person has no right to it.
He makes several excellent points which
open up into vital elements of forgiveness, some of which we've
already noted.
Forgiveness isn't fair.
It isn't easy or natural, and in all fairness, we have been wronged.
Justice requires the party who wronged us to compensate us for that
wrong. When we forgive, we pass on what is fair and choose the
benevolent thing. We no longer require that the debt owed to us be
repaid by that person. It isn't fair. It's offering a cancellation
of the debt, even though something is owed to us. It is not justice.
It's an act in the spirit of something greater – grace and mercy.
Grace and mercy aren't natural for us in the human sense when we've
been wronged, and the are anything but “fair.”
Denying Justice
The blogger's statement also notes but
a few of the potential problems created by swallowing up of justice
in the name of forgiveness through mercy, thus bypassing the journey
of healing and growth discussed in the previous
post.
True mercy never forgoes justice but establishes it
first. When justice is ignroed, the victim who has done
nothing to solicit mistreatment is forced to suffer twice. They must
bear the pain of the initial offense, and then, they must suffer as
they watch their abuser get away with what they did. In some cases,
they may even be rewarded.
This is a huge problem in spiritual
abuse, and posts to come will discuss many the consequences and
effects of this injustice. (Some of this can be elucidated by noting
what forgiveness is not.) Spiritual abusers exploit love in
order to call forgiveness something that it is not in order to avoid
accountability and responsibility for their actions.
Denial in the Forgiveness Process
First, the victim can work against
justice and in favor of wrong by denying that any wrong was suffered.
This self-denial results in self-destructive consequences and works
against true forgiveness in the long run. If a person is compelled
without choice to excuse wrongdoing by denying it, it creates
bitterness. It allows the offender/abuser to continue to harm others
because they're never held accountable. It also teaches the offended
to accept a very low standard of self-care and expectation. This may
be couched as sacrifice, but a required sacrifice results in
resentment at some point, and it's harder to understand the root
source if denial forces these feelings underground. They come out
passively or through the turning of the frustration inwardly.
In the best case scenarios, those who
have offended us can accept responsibility for what they've done and
can ask for forgiveness. But sometimes, they can respond in anger
and denial when we catch them by surprise. This response relates
back to the first stage of grief: DENIAL. When people have hurt us,
and we go to confront them, they also experience the grief or
realization that they were imperfect or that their behavior hurt
someone. This is difficult for people when they intend to be good
and dutiful, for their actions didn't measure up. In their own
grief, the person responsible for the offense can respond from their
own grief. They can try to tell the offended party that they really
aren't offended, or they can negate or minimize the nature of the
harm. It's their attempt at self protection and serves to shift the
blame that they feel.
Author Sandra Wilson talks about this
in her book, Released
from Shame: Moving Beyond the Pain of the Past: “Releasing
those who have hurt us includes recognizing the ruthless reality that
they are as bankrupt as we are before God.”
We generally can't see this as the offended party in the
beginning of the process of
forgiveness, and we need to complete more of our grieving before we
can see things this way. When we are confronted with denial in
others in the early phase of the journey, though it is not fair or
just to us, it can be helpful to understand why people might wish to
deny what is happening. Remembering this can help us feel less
threatened, especially when people around us feel uncomfortable
hearing about the pain we've endured. (No one finds it comfortable
to hear that a person they love and admire has hurt another person
through error, oversight, or willful harm. Most people would rather
pretend that such events never happened. It's easier for them that
way.)
Wilson
also says that genuine forgiveness forces us to give up our fantasy
of wishing for what we wanted to happen – and that is true to some
extent for both the offended and the offender. We want the past to
be what we hoped it would be. The offended person wishes that they'd
never been offended and seeks justice (which involves safety concerns
and restoration when it is possible). This consideration may help us
to understand that anger and denial in the abuser or the person who
offended us in their ignorance or through their mistakes comes about
because they wish to believe that their actions were not harmful.
Denial, denial, denial. Both parties (and bystanders, too) are
challenged to give up what they wish had happened and must accept the
truth of what did happen. Sometimes that truth can be quite bitter.
The idea that forgiveness is some blissful and magical process is
part clinging to a fantasy, but it is much more pleasant to believe.
It's a lot less emotional work, and it shields us from the
realization of how emotionally vulnerable we all really are when we
risk trusting one another.
Here is a quote that was once shared
with me by a counselor, something that came to mind when I read this
blogger's statement, alluding to what forgiveness does not look like.
I was not given the name of an author. (If you wrote it, send me an
email, and I'd be happy to properly attribute it!)
When
forgiveness
Denies
that there is anger,
Acts
as if it never happened,
Smiles
as though it never hurt,
Fakes
as though it's all forgotten...
Don't
offer it.
Don't
trust it.
Don't
depend on it.
It's
not Forgiveness.
It's
a magical fantasy.
