Quote:
Originally Posted by TattieHowker
If your forgiveness is dependant on how the other person feels, that is conditional forgiveness, when you forgive unconditionally and regardless of any other factors it becomes something more liberating.
|
I don't think we disagree so much as I just prefer to think of the process as letting go rather than forgiveness. In letting go, one releases the intense emotions surrounding the wrongdoing and makes peace with what has happened, regardless of how the other person acts or speaks. You let go of the negative emotions AND the person/circumstances if necessary.
For many though, the concept of forgiveness is tied up with reconciliation and restoration. That alone makes me very cautious with the word itself. In many Christian doctrines, it’s taught that God only grants forgiveness after repentance, and that his forgiveness reconciles the sin and restores the pre-existing relationship with him. The doctrine also says that we must forgive others (again and again, “seventy-seven times” in fact) as a condition of salvation. What has always puzzled me about those teachings is that if God requires repentance to extend forgiveness, are we expected to forgive repeatedly without it? How does that address the existence of evil or protect us from repeat offenders? Even more secular advise around forgiveness doesn’t clearly address these pitfalls.
To me, to say that forgiveness is a condition of self-liberation doesn’t always help people that, right or wrong, interpret the word in these ways. The subtext for them is that forgiveness = reconciliation and restoration and that’s a much harder emotional space to navigate. Many get stuck there. I’ve also seen people extend unconditional forgiveness (and wipe the slate clean) only to be harmed again by the same person or circumstances. Maybe that’s lack of awareness or discernment on their part, but because of the way some language is used, especially in a religious context, it can be very hard to untangle it all.