Forgiveness

Many people have difficulty with forgiveness. Usually this is because they consider forgiveness to be the equivalent of letting someone off the hook, or that forgiveness, like some magic eraser, will suggest that the transgression never happened in the first place. Others think that forgiving a transgressor for their transgression means that the offender will not be held accountable for their actions. Finally, some feel that if they do not forgive then their withdrawal of emotional connection continues to "punish" the transgressor.

The truth is, none of these have anything to do with forgiveness. The first example, letting someone off the hook, suggests that somehow it is our responsibility to ensure a sufficient amount of pain is experienced that will somehow "even the score". In the second case, the magic eraser, we accept in our life the metaphorical equivalent that somehow, sweeping the dirt under the rug where it cannot be seen means the room is clean. In the third example, it is important to note that forgiveness has nothing to do with accountability. The offender should be held accountable for their actions, whether they are forgiven or not. The last case, where one uses emotion to punish another is the most misguided of all. Relationships are weakened and eventually destroyed by a belief system that suggests we must even the score, or punish another so that they will hurt as much as we do.

So why then do we forgive. We forgive because of what the act of forgiveness does for us. By forgiving a transgressor, we are saying that we no longer wish to bear the burden of what was done or said to us. This is different than holding someone accountable. A simplistic story to illustrate the point: Frank comes home late for dinner because he went for a few drinks with his colleagues after work. Susan had worked hard to prepare a special meal that evening. As a result she expresses her frustration with Frank by suggesting that if he cared he would have called or come home on time. Frank responds by suggesting that if she cared about him she would understand the stress he was under and his need to blow off some steam. Frank's comment hurts Susan, because it was precisely because she knew the stress he was under that she had prepared a special meal.

Why then does Susan forgive Frank? Not for what it does for Frank, but for what it does for Susan. By forgiving Frank, Susan is saying I am no longer willing to carry the burden of this. She may still be angry. There is still a need to address some of the underlying issues to strengthen their relationship. Frank still needs to be held accountable for his original behavior (coming home late without telling Susan, as well as whether or not he truly believes that Susan doesn't care about him). By forgiving Frank, Susan says to herself I am OK. I am not defined by the events that just occurred. I am not defined by Frank's thoughts or beliefs. I am who I am, and that has not changed. In a way, Susan frees herself from the event by recognizing that the event does not redefine her.

Notice that Susan's forgiveness is not contingent on Frank saying I am sorry. In the five examples at the start of this post, the route to forgiveness begins with the offender saying I am sorry. An expressed apology is not a prerequisite to forgiveness. In fact, an expressed apology is not even necessary for me to forgive another. All that is necessary is for me to be willing to acknowledge that although the transgression has had an impact on me, I am unwilling to allow myself to be defined by that impact. I forgive, not for what it does for you, but for what it does for me.