Spinoff - "Instant Forgiveness" harmful?

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm spinning this off from the Chick Tract thread, because I was so disturbed by the "Lisa" tract where the sexually abusive father accepts Jesus and "moments later" everything is A-OK.

I'm not opposed to the idea that people are capable of change, or that forgiveness is possible. I just think of it as a process - a long process that involves real work. You've got to stop what bad thing you were doing. You've got to truly realize the full scope of how bad your actions were - no saying "but everybody was doing it" or "I was tempted" or any other excuses. You have to truly regret your actions, deep in your heart and soul, because you believe that your really did something wrong. Being sorry that you were caught doesn't count, neither does it count if you give a non-apology like "sorry if you were offended". You have to fully admit and confess that you did something wrong - and if that means dealing with consequences, so be it. No more secrets. You've got to go to those that you hurt, and ask THEM for forgiveness, because that's part of fixing the mess you made. You've got to make sure that you don't repeat your actions. Just saying "I promise" is not enough - you need to do the hard work of examining exactly why you did the bad stuff before, get any appropriate therapy, truly prove yourself, and if you can't realistically manage some situations, you may need to take steps to limit yourself so that you can never be in a position to cause harm again. You also need to accept that your actions have consequences even if you repent, and accept those consequences. For example, people have a right to feel angry about your actions, to want to feel safe, and to protect themselves.

Reading the "Lisa" tract reminded me of a lot of the issues that come up in my cases, and drive me bonkers. [i don't know if religious beliefs in "instant forgiveness" cause these issues, or if people with issues are attracted to the belief of instant forgiveness.]

I see people that will cry and say that they are sorry - but they expect that this will magically make all problems disappear.

I see people use some version of "we are all sinners" and tell me that nobody's perfect. Sure, nobody's perfect, but we aren't all child molesters and crackheads. Some behavior really is worse than others. It doesn't help a crack addict to think that she's no different from her father who has a glass of wine with dinner. It doesn't help a child abuser to think that everybody - including his victims - is a sinner. It's a defense that prevents people from getting to true regret.

I see people who think that they've already had some sort of instant forgiveness, so they don't need to actually apologize to their victims. They never fix the relationships that they broke, and the hurt and pain continue.

I see people who get angry and ask "why am I still being punished?" when they are simply having to deal with the natural consequences of their actions. You may be very sorry that you were drinking and driving, but the natural consequence is that your license may be suspended. If you have sexually abused a child in the past, you will not be trusted alone with a child in the future. If you have been violent toward someone in the past, they have every right to avoid contact with you in the future. It seems like the "instant forgiveness" mindset allows them to play victim, and even blame the true victim.

[GeoBQn]

Basically, my views are the following:

1. The victim is not responsible for forgiving the perpetrator, especially if the perpetrator is not seeking forgiveness.

2. Forgiveness is not an adequate substitute for accountability.

I think that the idea of instantly forgiving someone who does something wrong places too much pressure on other victims to do the same thing, and it also robs the perpetrator to genuinely atone for their actions. There are other ways to find closure.

[apple1]

I agree with 2xx1xy1JD.

I would add:

It can be appropriate for a victim to choose to forgive a perpetrator who is not worthy of being forgiven, by the processes 2xx1xy1JD mentions --- but in the sense of the victim choosing to do whatever work is necessary to move beyond the victimization and into a better place for her/himself. This is not necessarily dependent on the perpetrator's actions. The other caveat is that forgiveness does NOT equal restoration of relationships/situations/potential for interaction. Many perpetrators should NEVER have that kind of restoration.

[alba]

Have you seen this post on Love, Joy, Feminism? It's discussing a lot of the same things you've brought up.

patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/07/the-limits-of-forgiveness.html

The idea that God can instantly forgive even the most egregious of acts is meant to be comforting, by telling normal people that no matter how bad you think the things you've done are, if God can forgive even murderers and rapists, then he can forgive you, too. I think the problem arises in that Christians are meant to strive to be more Christ-like/godly, so therefore if God has forgiven someone, everyone else must, too. This places the burden of redemption on the victim rather than the perpetrator.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I agree with 2xx1xy1JD.

I would add:

It can be appropriate for a victim to choose to forgive a perpetrator who is not worthy of being forgiven, by the processes 2xx1xy1JD mentions --- but in the sense of the victim choosing to do whatever work is necessary to move beyond the victimization and into a better place for her/himself. This is not necessarily dependent on the perpetrator's actions. The other caveat is that forgiveness does NOT equal restoration of relationships/situations/potential for interaction. Many perpetrators should NEVER have that kind of restoration.

Very true.

I've read about ideas of unilateral forgiveness, and tried to understand it. I completely understand that someone can work through their anger and get to a place where they no longer allow that anger to rule their lives. I understand moving on. I just don't understand calling it forgiveness if the person never sought to be forgiven or changed their ways.

I also agree with your second point. Some relationships cannot be safely restored, without exposing someone to the risk of more physical or emotional harm. To me, someone who truly regrets their actions will learn about and accept ALL of the harm that they causes, and realize that certain things are simply necessary natural consequences of their actions.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Have you seen this post on Love, Joy, Feminism? It's discussing a lot of the same things you've brought up.

patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/07/the-limits-of-forgiveness.html

The idea that God can instantly forgive even the most egregious of acts is meant to be comforting, by telling normal people that no matter how bad you think the things you've done are, if God can forgive even murderers and rapists, then he can forgive you, too. I think the problem arises in that Christians are meant to strive to be more Christ-like/godly, so therefore if God has forgiven someone, everyone else must, too. This places the burden of redemption on the victim rather than the perpetrator.

I agree with that post.

Regrets and apologies mean nothing if someone can fully acknowledge exactly what they did wrong. "I was tempted" is a cop-out, if what you really need to say is "I was an adult who used my position to groom and sexually exploit someone too young to give consent who had looked up to me, and/or didn't feel that saying no was a realistic option because of my position. I realize that the sin is mine and mine alone. I recognize that the other person was not a temptation, but in fact my primary victim, and that I caused real harm to that person. I realize that any trauma, sexual issues, future relationship issues, lack of trust, post-traumatic stress disorder, or rejection from the family/organization that resulted from my abuse is also my fault. I understand that any attempts to threaten, cover-up, deny or minimize what I did causes further harm, as does any victim-blaming. I recognize that any further contact with my victim would be traumatic. I also recognize that the community cannot trust me, so I should never again be in a position where I can have that sort of contact with people under 18."

[apple1]

Very true.

I've read about ideas of unilateral forgiveness, and tried to understand it. I completely understand that someone can work through their anger and get to a place where they no longer allow that anger to rule their lives. I understand moving on. I just don't understand calling it forgiveness if the person never sought to be forgiven or changed their ways.

I also agree with your second point. Some relationships cannot be safely restored, without exposing someone to the risk of more physical or emotional harm. To me, someone who truly regrets their actions will learn about and accept ALL of the harm that they causes, and realize that certain things are simply necessary natural consequences of their actions.

(bolded) I just brought that up because I have seen some define "forgiveness" in this manner. I can certainly see why this alternate definition may confuse things.

I think we are on the same page with all of this.

[Arete]

Unilateral forgiveness was never meant to let a perp off the hook for their actions, though a lot of perpetrators count on that being a benefit to them. Unilateral forgiveness is meant to be used for a victim's benefit, if they so choose, to 1) help them move past anger that becomes a problem for the victim's recovery 2) to short circuit cycles of multigenerational vengeance, a real problem in the societies where unilateral forgiveness first developed.

The religious figures that often push this on victims who are not interested and who do not address natural consequences for the perpetrator? Well, a lot of the time they want things swept under the rug and tidied up as fast as possible. Victims can be so inconvenient in religious communities, kwim?

[Mama Mia]

Wouldn't forgiveness be all about whatever the injured party wants it to be about? If I forgive someone who hurts me it might be because the person regrets what they did, or tries to make amends or gives me some sort of reasoning that changes my perception of the event. But it's just as likely that it has nothing at all to do with the persons actions or words, and everything to do with my own philosophy/state of mind. I might need to forgive in order to stop dwelling on something, or to get rid of hateful feelings that are causing me stress - or just because I do forgive the person. I wouldn't want the extra burden and stress of not forgiving someone because they aren't asking for it or worthy of it. As far as having any kind of ongoing relationship/ contact, shouldn't that also be up to the injured party? I feel like I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure what it is :think: . I really liked the initial post, but now I'm confused by the unilateral forgiveness part- anyone want to explain it to me, please?

[Arete]

I think it is better to state that in order to be forgiven you must 1) ask those you have wronged for forgiveness, 2)make restitution, 3) understand that being forgiven should not erase the consequences of your offense.

Unilateral forgiveness and being forgiven are two different concepts. The first is for the benefit of the victim should they choose to pursue it. The second is strictly for the perpetrator, and should not be used as a substitute for restitution and justice.

The problem is when people use or think of these two concepts as interchangeable or equal. They are NOT. A victim is not obligated to give unilateral forgiveness. A perpetrator is obligated to ask to be forgiven and make restitution if they want any sort of restoration within their society. A lot of times people will try and abuse unilateral forgiveness by demanding it of the victims. That needs calling out for the bs it is.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Wouldn't forgiveness be all about whatever the injured party wants it to be about? If I forgive someone who hurts me it might be because the person regrets what they did, or tries to make amends or gives me some sort of reasoning that changes my perception of the event. But it's just as likely that it has nothing at all to do with the persons actions or words, and everything to do with my own philosophy/state of mind. I might need to forgive in order to stop dwelling on something, or to get rid of hateful feelings that are causing me stress - or just because I do forgive the person. I wouldn't want the extra burden and stress of not forgiving someone because they aren't asking for it or worthy of it. As far as having any kind of ongoing relationship/ contact, shouldn't that also be up to the injured party? I feel like I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure what it is :think: . I really liked the initial post, but now I'm confused by the unilateral forgiveness part- anyone want to explain it to me, please?

If someone who is wrong decides on their own that they will forgive the other person in their hearts, fine.

If a competent adult decides to have an ongoing relationship with the person who wronged them (as long as no children are exposed to someone dangerous, or exposed to domestic violence, as a result), fine.

I was criticizing the idea that someone claims to see the light/get faith/be a new person/make a general apology or promise to do better, and suddenly the slate is wiped clean - even if there is a whole pile of unfinished business and victims not ready to forgive and ongoing concerns that someone is likely to continue to do the same bad stuff.

[Mama Mia]

Thanks 2xx1xy1jd, that makes sense to me.

[docmom]

I guess it depends on which defnition of forgive you use. Webster on-line gives the following definitions:

: to stop feeling anger toward (someone who has done something wrong) : to stop blaming (someone)

: to stop feeling anger about (something) : to forgive someone for (something wrong)

: to stop requiring payment of (money that is owed)

1a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for b : to grant relief from payment of

2: to cease to feel resentment against (an offender)

A victim might find it healing to give up anger or resentment towards the perpetrator but I think many would balk, rightly, at giving up blame or a right to restitution. I guess this is my problem with "forgiveness". It's actually quite a nebulous term and is used to mean a lot of different things by different people.

God's forgiveness seems to be interpreted differently too. Some suggest that all sins are completely forgiven with no restitution or blame as soon as Christ is accepted. Others seem to say that you must still carry out restitution and must not carry out the sin again.

[2xx1xy1JD]

See my response above - I was talking about a belief/mindset that someone who did something wrong was somehow instantly forgiven, when that forgiveness didn't necessarily come from the victim.

[docmom]

See my response above - I was talking about a belief/mindset that someone who did something wrong was somehow instantly forgiven, when that forgiveness didn't necessarily come from the victim.

I agree with you. I was really just trying to get my head around the whole idea of forgiveness and what people were saying in the thread. To me, it's a nebulous concept. I instantly forgive my kids, truly, if by forgiveness you mean not dwelling in anger upon what they did (but obviously, they're kids and have never done anything awful) but I still carry around anger towards a co-worker who did some pretty awful stuff to me decades ago. I honestly can't imagine ever forgiving her by that definition even to "heal" myself because I know she wouldn't make restitution and, for me, forgiveness requires some action on the part of the perpetrator. But, clearly, it's not how everyone sees forgiveness.

[RosyDaisy]

Basically, my views are the following:

1. The victim is not responsible for forgiving the perpetrator, especially if the perpetrator is not seeking forgiveness.

2. Forgiveness is not an adequate substitute for accountability.

I think that the idea of instantly forgiving someone who does something wrong places too much pressure on other victims to do the same thing, and it also robs the perpetrator to genuinely atone for their actions. There are other ways to find closure.

I disagree. Forgiveness has nothing to do with atonement or finding closure or accountability. What it does do is take away the power a person has over you. They want to see you angry and upset, and if you let them have that power, they have won. Also, for me personally as a a Christian Jesus says to forgive, so I feel I should follow his example. Again, that is just me

[RosyDaisy]

Basically, my views are the following:

1. The victim is not responsible for forgiving the perpetrator, especially if the perpetrator is not seeking forgiveness.

2. Forgiveness is not an adequate substitute for accountability.

I think that the idea of instantly forgiving someone who does something wrong places too much pressure on other victims to do the same thing, and it also robs the perpetrator to genuinely atone for their actions. There are other ways to find closure.

I disagree. Forgiveness has nothing to do with atonement or finding closure or accountability. What it does do is take away the power a person has over you. They want to see you angry and upset, and if you let them have that power, they have won. Also, for me personally as a a Christian Jesus says to forgive, so I feel I should follow his example. Again, that is just me

[polecat]

The doctrine of forgiveness, imo, has been grossly perverted by the fundamentalists I have known (and possibly by evangelical Christians in general). It isn't necessarily what we think it is.

Someone has already said something along these lines, but I want to repeat it: Instant forgiveness is a type of cheap grace, and it puts the burden onto the victim rather than the perpetrator, freeing up the perp to offend again and again. If the victim fails to offer instant forgiveness, then that person is labeled as "bitter" and may be shunned or otherwise disciplined for his/her sin.

As a Christian, I do believe in forgiveness and grace. The Bible says that we are to forgive as God forgave us. That said, God forgives us only when we repent, and there are plenty of verses to back that belief up. There are just as many verses that show that God does not forgive those who continue in their sin.

Furthermore, you can forgive a person and release yourself from their power without allowing that person back into your life.

[polecat]

I disagree. Forgiveness has nothing to do with atonement or finding closure or accountability.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I genuinely don't understand. Forgiveness is ALL about atonement. Forgiveness includes being accountable for our sins, genuine repentance for our actions and work to restore that relationship with God. And yes, I'm a Christian.

What it does do is take away the power a person has over you. They want to see you angry and upset, and if you let them have that power, they have won. Also, for me personally as a a Christian Jesus says to forgive, so I feel I should follow his example. Again, that is just me

Lots of people believe in cheap grace and easy forgiveness, but that doesn't mean it is biblical. Also, a lack of forgiveness does not equal angry and upset.

[Mama Mia]

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I genuinely don't understand. Forgiveness is ALL about atonement. Forgiveness includes being accountable for our sins, genuine repentance for our actions and work to restore that relationship with God. And yes, I'm a Christian.

.

But I think you are looking at it from the view of the sinner or guilty party. If you harm someone than yes you need to admit you did something wrong and attempt to repent and be held accountable for what ever it is you did, to the person you harmed and / or to society in general and/or to the next person the next time a similar situation arises - depending on the circumstances.

Take, as an easy example, cheating on a partner. If you cheat you might apologize, genuinely, you might try to make it right to your partner by being extra accountable, hearing their pain etc. , they might decide not to forgive you, or to maintain a relationship with you- that might be the consequence of your action. At that point hopefully you would seek in your next relationship to not repeat that behavior and to take whatever actions that will make you less likely to sin again.

In my opinion, God would forgive you for the same reason a parent forgives a child- because the love is unconditional.

Your partner may or may not forgive you. They might forgive you based on your showing full repentance and taking responsibility, or they might forgive you just because they do, regardless of what your actions are and even knowing that you might repeat the same behavior - even if you show no repentance and take no responsibility. They might also forgive you but decide they can't be with you anymore. They might never forgive you despite very sincere repentance and attempts to atone for the wrong you did and despite loving you. The person who sinned can't control the reaction of the person they sinned against.

Jmo.

[RosyDaisy]

I'm not looking at it from a sinner or guilty party's viewpoint. I'm looking at it from the wronged party's viewpoint. You can forgive someone without forgiveness being asked for. What guilty does, feels or ow they are punished, and I have no control over that either. I do agree however that forgiveness makes things better, and does not ensure that thing will get back to normal.

I know this makes no sense, but this is just my personal opinion on the subject, and is something I'm actually dealing with right now.

[polecat]

But I think you are looking at it from the view of the sinner or guilty party. If you harm someone than yes you need to admit you did something wrong and attempt to repent and be held accountable for what ever it is you did, to the person you harmed and / or to society in general and/or to the next person the next time a similar situation arises - depending on the circumstances.

No, I am actually not at all considering this from the view of the guilty party. I was thinking of a real life example of my own in which a person seriously wronged me (to the point that a crime occurred), and that person offered a flippant "Oops, sorry" without ever making any attempt at atonement. As far as I am concerned, I am under no obligation -- biblically, morally or otherwise -- to forgive that individual and restore our relationship, and I will not do so until that person legitimately repents for the wrongdoing, acknowledges the extent of the damage his actions caused and makes an effort to rebuild our relationship.

Mind you, I don't hold a grudge and wish that person no ill. In fact, I am largely indifferent to him (neither love nor hate him). But he is not forgiven and will not be in my life or my family's life unless he takes the necessary steps towards reconciliation.

[polecat]

I'm not looking at it from a sinner or guilty party's viewpoint. I'm looking at it from the wronged party's viewpoint. You can forgive someone without forgiveness being asked for. What guilty does, feels or ow they are punished, and I have no control over that either. I do agree however that forgiveness makes things better, and does not ensure that thing will get back to normal.

I know this makes no sense, but this is just my personal opinion on the subject, and is something I'm actually dealing with right now.

This is true -- you CAN forgive someone without being asked. You can forgive someone who doesn't even deserve it. My point was that we are not *obligated* to forgive simply because we are Christians.

As someone who grew up in a fundamentalist home, I was beaten about the head at every opportunity to "Forgive as Christ forgave," and it was always the victim who was wrong if forgiveness was not granted freely, even if the perpetrator was grinning at the outcome and crowing about his/her success. I heartily reject that notion. I believe that the perpetrator must -- and by must I mean he or she is obligated -- make amends. If he or she does not, then the victim is not in any way *obligated* to forgive. That doesn't mean that the victim can't forgive -- just that there is no requirement for it. And in some cases -- such as when there is a real, proven risk of serious harm -- it can be better to not forgive at all.

Again, lack of forgiveness does not automatically equal a grudge. I think most people would agree that holding a grudge is not healthy or good for anyone.

[RosyDaisy]

Of courts nobody is obligated to forgive. I was pointing out how forgiveness is a good think. However, I admit I'm having a difficult time with this towards my soon to be ex-BIL and his family.

[polecat]

Of courts nobody is obligated to forgive. I was pointing out how forgiveness is a good think. However, I admit I'm having a difficult time with this towards my soon to be ex-BIL and his family.

I would agree with "forgiveness *can be* a good thing." I don't agree that it's always a good thing. How many churches have welcomed back perpetrators with open arms and forgiveness without any real repentance or atonement only to have that person offend again?

Forgiveness, imo, should be left up to the injured party.