Forgiveness

Hmmm...these past few weeks, I've been thinking about what it means to forgive someone. I think forgiveness is an important part of life and an essential element in our relationships with others. I've also been pondering about forgiveness in the eyes of our society and the media today. Now please forgive me if I offend anyone (no pun intended); this is purely what I believe. Furthermore, my study of psychology has nothing to do with this! Gah!

Now, when do we forgive? Is it because someone's been nice to us? No. We forgive because someone has done wrong to us. Duh! And we forgive them because we love them, yes? Well, we don't want to hate them, at least (It's complex, so I don't want to go too far). So why do we hate people when they do wrong to us? Because it hurts, that's why. (The reason may vary from person to person, but you get the main idea, I'm sure). And so when someone we love (or don't want to hate) has done wrong to us and hurt us, we forgive them in order to continue the relationship (or continue not knowing them in the case of random people) without resentment in the way. So now, I consider three main points of view on forgiveness: "forgiveness by force", "forgiveness by denial", and "forgiveness by acknowledgement".

The first view, "forgiveness by force", to me, means 'forgiving' someone out of your will. I think that when someone 'forgives by force', he or she still holds a grudge against that person, and is merely thinking that the 'forgiving' part is done. I believe it is done out of forced righteousness 'because it's right' and pride in oneself. One may supress one's hateful actions and thoughts towards the offender (for example, if I wanted to yell an insult at someone, I would stop myself by force), but deep down, the hate and resentment is still there. Therefore, forgiveness by force, in my opinion, is NOT true forgiveness.

The second view, forgiveness by denial, I define as denying that the offender did anything wrong. This one, I think, is used more in cases where the offender is someone we're close to eg. a friend, a family member, a partner, etc. It's not nice to think that a loved one hurt you, is it...? Of course not. So one denies the thought. The thought that replaces it? The the offence was not so bad, or that it was just a little slip up or something. Nothing major. But there are two problems with that way of thinking. Firstly, it doesn't address the resentment one feels (I'm talking about the people who ARE hurt) because the offence is perceived as not wrong, to put it simply. It is inconsistent. Here's the thing: if they didn't do anything wrong, why are you hurting? It can some to the point that some may even deny that they actually are hurt in order to remain consistent with their thoughts. Sad, I'm afraid. The second point is more a philosophical one. To 'forgive' in this way simply does not allow forgiveness to exist. As I mentioned before, you forgive someone when they've done something wrong. Now, to deny that someone ever did anything wrong...if there's nothing done wrong, there's nothing to forgive. So "forgiveness by denial" is not true forgiveness either. Firstly, the pain is not dealt with; secondly, denial of wrong and forgiveness, by logic, simply cannot co-exist in the same situation any more than a capital T can with an F.

So, finally, we have come to the third view on forgiveness. What do I think it means to forgive? Well, I call it "forgiveness by acknowledgment". It's different from denial. Instead of seeing the offender as blameless (when in fact, they DID offend) and lying to oneself, it involves acknowledging that the offender DID indeed offend, and also that the offender is imperfect, yet still loving (or at least not hating in the case of randoms) the offender DESPITE the undeniable wrong and damage done. It's based on unconditional love, which sees a person's weaknesses right there, but cares more about the person than what he or she does. This is the way God loves us, which leads to His forgiveness for our sins. In the same way, I believe we ought to do the same. So the verdict? Firstly, forgiveness by "acknowledgement" addresses our hurts truthfully by acknowledging that the action done was wrong. Secondly, it achieves the goal of making things right with the other person.

So then, I'd like to evaluate the three views and further explain "forgiveness by acknowledgament" with an analogy. Think of it this way: imagine the offender, the 'victim', and a high, spiky, barbed wire fence separating the two. Let the fence represent the wrong done by the offender. In the "force" case, the 'victim' sees the offender surrounded by the spiky fence. Since the fence is so close to the offender, they are seen as one. So...a spiky person, maybe. And one refuses to go near the spiky person. In the case of "denial", one either doesn't see the spiky fence, or refuses to look at it because it's so scary. And when one looks away from the fence, one looks away from the other person without realising. Similarly, by staying away from the fence, one stays away from the other person. This person lives on with the (possibly invisible) fence in the way. Now, in the final "acknowledgement" case, one looks straight at the fence; and also sees the other person behind the fence. This person sees the details of the fence: the jagged spikes on the sides of its poles - every single one; the dirty red rust that covers its poles and its mesh - disgusting; the endless coils of barbed wire on top - dense with star-shaped spurs. It's scary, to say the least, however, motivated by the desire for the person behind the fence, the 'victim' decides to climb. After sustaining several cuts and scratches, the victim reunites with the offender, and the fence is left to rust away as the two decide to walk far away from it, never to see it again. This is how I think forgiveness should be.