I’m starting a new thread here that is in part based on a very interesting conversation that began on my friend John Plummer’s blog, and inspired by similar posts in other blogs I’ve visited lately.
Our topic: the mechanics of forgiveness. I’m jumping into it with a modified edition of one of my contributions to John’s blog.
______________________________
The thing that emerges for me here is .. .. surprising (to me) really. That is the idea that forgiveness must be open.
If we forgive defensively – we do not actually forgive, but are holding some resentment, anger or “X” in reserve – almost like a weapon to be used strategically at a later date when (if) a new and different issue arises between the parties. This cannot be true forgiveness.
If we forgive passively or perhaps more correctly – fatalistically we are in fact expanding the problem, to become a part of the problem (more on this point in the next post).
Jesus taught us how to break the cycle of suffering, in others, and in ourselves. Through his death and resurrection we ARE freed from the fatalism of “destroying ourselves” and others. Through our baptism we are empowered to do just that. Fatalism, and passiveness are simply not Christian – they are in fact a characteristic of classical paganism.
Our faith is an active faith of transformation. Theosis does not happen passively – it is not an “automatic” – if that were so there would be no free will, and predestination would in fact be a valid “doctrine”.
Thus, to forgive “passively” and to allow unchallenged – the other party to either continue or even escalate the offence – thereby taking advantage of our passivity – does not fulfill our baptismal mandate to be “Christ in the World” and to contribute to the breaking of the cycle of suffering.
In the earlier conversation someone raised the example of martyrdom as an example of surrending the self in relation to forgiveness. It seems to me that an essential element of martyrdom has been . . . .overlooked in this point . . . . . the martyrs ALWAYS challenged the offence of the oppressor. They did so by remaining steadfast in the faith, they did so by debating with their killers, they did so by evidencing radical compassion even up to the very moment of their death. There was nothing passive here, nothing fatalistic.
There is still much about the mechanics of forgiveness I do not understand. The one thing I am certain of though is that it cannot be defensive, it cannot be passive, and it must be open.
The openness of forgiveness – might lead one to incorrectly assert that it is an essentially passive act – i.e. welcoming people to walk all over you – this is not the case. The openness of which I speak is such a characteristic of our faith that it must be an essential element of forgiveness too. If we are, as Jesus taught us, to be so open as to be like children, to welcome the stranger, to have no duplicity and thus to let our yes mean yes – . . . we notice that these are all “active” not passive activities . . . . how does this openness carry over into the “act” of forgiveness?
Openness naturally leaves us vulnerable. There is no escaping this fact. But defensiveness shrinks, and diminishes us – he who seeks to save his life will lose it.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.