Kethoser Kevichusa
There is no one in the world who does not need to forgive and to be forgiven. But what is forgiveness? This short article will attempt to answer that question via negativa: that is, it will answer the question by clarifying what forgiveness is not. First of all, forgiveness is not forgetting. The problem with the popular slogan “forgive and forget” is that it is, as someone puts it, “one of the most foolish clichés in any language.” The slogan actually arises from a profound and dangerous misunderstanding of forgiveness. This year, 2007, marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the United Kingdom. As people celebrate the important occasion, they simultaneously mourn the wrong that necessitated the event. And some are wise enough to say: “To forgive? Yes. To forget? No.” But why should it not be forgotten? Because if it is forgotten, the wrong (in this case, slave trade) may be repeated. It will not be forgotten so that it will not be repeated. There is, of course, a sense in which a wrong is “forgotten” after it is forgiven. But such “forgetting” does not mean a sort of emotional or mental “blackout.” It means redemption of the wrong, not its obliteration. Another problem with the slogan is that when people say “forgive and forget,” they usually mean “forget and forgive.” But again, the problem with this is obvious. Once a wrong is forgotten, it cannot be forgiven. There is also no need to forgive something that is already forgotten. Thus, “remember and forgive” or “remember and change” are more appropriate slogans for forgiveness.
Secondly, forgiveness is not healing. Many people think that forgiveness guarantees healing, and that when a victim forgives, she is bound to find her emotional and spiritual well being and healing. Now, a victim’s well being (emotional or otherwise) is important, and it is indeed closely tied to her willingness to forgive. But forgiveness does not automatically guarantee a victim’s well being and healing. (Of course, refusal to forgive is even less of a guarantee.) Forgiveness is not primarily for the victim. It is not a gift that the victim offers herself. It is a gift that the victim offers the offender - and perhaps, in the process, finds her own healing as a by-product. This means that a victim may remain emotionally scarred (Note: being emotionally scarred is not the same as nourishing hatred and bitterness) after forgiving an emotional injury, just as she may remain physically scarred after forgiving a physical injury. The fact that a victim remains scarred (perhaps even for life) should not be taken to mean that she has not forgiven.
Thirdly, forgiveness is not injustice. People are often reluctant to forgive because they think that to forgive is to deny justice. This is another misconception. Forgiveness does not mean “Oh, I didn’t really mind” or “It does not really matter.” If I didn’t really mind and if it doesn’t really matter, what then is the need of forgiveness. Forgiveness is actually an act of truth that upholds justice. Forgiveness judges a wrong act as wrong and a wrongdoer as a wrongdoer. This is one of the reasons why people don’t like to be told that they’ve been forgiven. It implies that they’ve done something wrong and that they actually deserve punishment. In the very act of forgiving is the naming and condemning of a wrongdoer and his wrong. Take, for example, the sentence, “I forgive you for murdering my brother.” In that single sentence, the victims (both the direct victim, namely the murdered man, and the indirect victim, namely “I”) are named; the offender is named (“you” standing for whatever his name may be); the offence is also named as an offence and condemned (“murder”). And it is precisely this kind of “just forgiveness” that paves the way for “forgiving justice” or “restorative justice”: that is, justice that seeks to not simply punish an offender but to restore him, even through punishment.
Finally, forgiveness is not reconciliation. Forgiveness seeks reconciliation, but it is not reconciliation. All too often, forgiveness and reconciliation are equated and confused. The central difference between forgiveness and reconciliation is this: Forgiveness is unconditional and unilateral; reconciliation is conditional and mutual. A victim can forgive an offender even if the offender never confesses and repents. But there can be no reconciliation between a victim and an offender without confession, repentance, and forsaking of the wrong on the part of the wrongdoer. “Reconciliation” can also mean different things and take different forms. For example, reconciliation between a husband and wife will be different from reconciliation between a highway robber and a traveller. Or, reconciliation between two former friends (who later became enemies) may be different from reconciliation between two former enemies (who were never friends). Thus, “reconciliation” is defined by different people as (a) “nothing more than ‘accommodation’”; (b) “civil relationship between strangers”; (c) “a cessation of hostilities and a ‘peaceful’ parting of the ways”; (d) “to fall into each other’s arms and restore communion.”
The article began with the question, “What is forgiveness?” But the bulk of the article actually had to do with - and the subtle reader will have noticed - what forgiveness is not. While this may frustrate those who want “answers” that are “real,” “definite,” and “positive,” for a question as mysterious, free, and personal, as forgiveness, pinpointing exactly what forgiveness is would not only be impossible, but also unwise. The search for forgiveness is a personal journey that must be personally made. And a guide must not, lest he interfere with “the pilgrim’s progress,” tell her where to go and what to do. He can, at best, only tell her what to not do and where to not go. Only that will ensure that the pilgrim’s journey into forgiveness remains her journey: a journey that she makes alone - alone, with God.
