On forgiveness. (Part 6)

On forgiveness

Part 6: The essence of giving forgiveness is not letting the harm done to you have any impact in your future dealing with the person who hurt you, but true judgement is still truth

I think this is probably the essence of forgiveness. Whether you draw the incident to mind regularly, almost never, or, in practice, never, if you do think of it you have written off the offence. This means that – should you have further dealings with this person – there is no barrier (for you) in the relationship. You are not trying to get recompense or dealing any differently with this person as you would anyone else. This seems an ideal – and successful – version of forgiveness.

There is still an interesting issue which I am not sure about. It is to do with whether or not the person who harmed you needs to be sorry. I don’t think they do, for, otherwise, the “evil actor” in this situation retains power over you forever, for, as an evil actor, they may relish “getting one over on you”. You must be free to write off the offence, so that you feel free, regardless of what they do. However, there is still the issue of judgement, and I think this is crucial in forgiveness.

Suppose you meet someone who hurt you several years ago. In your own heart and mind you have let go of the hurt, found your own freedom, and found the grace to hope that they are also living free from the power of the offence – you are truly not holding it against them. However, you do not forget the incident – certainly not now you have met them again – and your judgement remains that they were the offender. This judgement can never change, for it is true. Forgiveness does not mean saying, “You did not harm me”. It means saying, “You did harm me, but I don’t hold it against you”. However, if the person is not willing to accept that, then there remains power in the offence. I don’t think you, as the innocent party, needs to feel the offence all over again, for you have used the power of forgiveness to set yourself free for your part – even though reconciliation with the other person has not (yet) been possible because they have not acknowledged their wrongdoing. If, “in the cool of the moment”, years later, they refuse to acknowledge their fault, then I think we are justified in issuing some sort of condemnation of them. Our forgiveness does not mean, “OK, now that it no longer bothers me, I will change my judgment and say that you were not at fault”. As people committed to the truth we can never say that. Therefore, the ideal completion of forgiveness is when the perpetrator of harm acknowledges their fault, and then I think it really is possible to give full forgiveness, for this is a wonderful moment of reconciliation and newness of life. If they will not acknowledge their fault, then I think, as the innocent party, we have to settle for passing judgement on them, for example, “I think your behaviour was appalling”.