The Dangers of Forgiveness

Many solid-appearing relationships (platonic, romantic, etc.) are sustained by different motivations that do not require any depth or real considerations of forgiveness when things go awry.  Then there are those relationships where there are regular emotional check-ins with private and public acts of respect.  In these relationships, people hold themselves and their “relationship partners” accountable and forgiveness, self-awareness, humility, and love form the basis of the interaction. 

Regardless of the nature of our relationships, we, at some point, will offend the person(s) with whom we are friends, lovers or family members and therefore want to be forgiven for that act(s), and we are also expected to forgive others when those roles are reversed.  I don’t foresee any relationship occurring without one person doing or saying something to the other that have caused hurt, in some way, whether intentionally or unintentionally.  Notwithstanding, once the relationship holds some semblance of importance to us, forgiveness or the lack thereof plays an important role in the progression of the relationship.  While I agree that forgiveness is a main ingredient in sustaining long-term relationships, with the people we opt to have in our lives, there are dangers in forgiveness.

The Bible mentions forgiveness numerous times and encourages the seventy times seven forgiveness rule.  We are even told that we are harming ourselves when we hold a person’s “blunder” against them, because we are carrying toxic energy.  But how can this very integral and fundamental concept cause harm?  What is forgiveness anyway? Psychologists agree that forgiveness is the deliberate and intentional act of letting go of any ill will or negative feelings toward a person who has wronged or offended you in some way and be able to operate with love and kindness toward that person.  Forgiveness, many argue, should mean the continuing of the relationship as it were before the offence without repeatedly mentioning the offence.  Others believe, however, that forgiveness is not simply the acceptance of the offense or the denial of its seriousness nor does it mean an automatic reconciliation; this statement is the perfect segue for where the dangers lie.

Despite societal constructs or Biblical instructs about forgiveness, many of us have not fully deconstructed or established forgiveness within the context of our boundaries.  Hence, we are blinded by the platitudinal “I love yous” than we are guided by or responsive to the genuine acts of love.  In lieu of this, we often forget our standards or boundaries because we believe the words more than we require the actions that depict or is a direct result of love.   Thus, when “loved ones” overstep boundaries in ways that offend us at our core, for example public and/or private humiliation that causes shame, we latch on to the nice sentiments that follow the offence without having or being given the room to have a real discussion about the offence itself.  Either this, or we operate in silent forgiveness without the involvement of the “offender” and return to the relationship as normal; thereby leaving room for an inevitable repeat offence and ultimately secret resentment to set in.  Herein lies the dangers of forgiveness.

“Forgiveness Monitors” (FM), argue that forgiveness is not about the “offender” but more about the “offended.”  For them, this means that there is no point harbouring unforgiveness because there is more harm to be done when you do that.  If we operate with the definition of forgiveness purported earlier, then I accept this as one component of the forgiveness truth.  The problem, however, is that almost everyone with whom I come into contact has their own interpretation of how forgiveness should manifest.  For example, if you say you forgive someone but refuse any type of interaction, that somehow signals to FM your failure to forgive, thereby rendering you unforgiving.  Although many won’t have access to what is happening with your mental state and your feeling toward the person with whom you have no contact, FMs do not believe your assertion of forgiveness to be true.  But is that so important to the forgiveness process?  I say no.  The danger of forgiveness, in this instance, lie in you seeking to validate your forgiveness against the backdrop of someone else’ forgiveness interpretation, instead of your unique mental wellness requirement. 

I assert that although forgiveness has one body, it wears many outfits.  Therefore, a person’s lack of contact is not always an indicator of unforgiveness.  So too is the person’s return (to the relationship after an offence against them) not always a true indicator of forgiveness.

Many of us operate with boundaries, or at the very least, aspire to.  In other words, there are certain things that warrant walking away from and never looking back without ill will.  Even while having those boundaries that may or may not be clearly established, we tend to operate against what we know to be right for us, because we do not want to be alone, are unilaterally working to sustain the relationship, or we have simply forgiven the “offender” and have ignored the standards we have set for ourselves.  In situations like this, we believe it more important to please, praise, or love others more than we do ourselves.  Maybe this is the real outfit of forgiveness, regardless of the ensuing detriment of repeat offence, which is usually more potent than the time before.  The danger in forgiving here (what others require of us in the forgiveness space) is we may lose ourselves and our value is diminished, which leads to self-loathing or something more sinister.

The minute we establish a bond with someone, we open ourselves up to being hurt or wronged. Despite our best efforts, we have also been guilty of hurting the people we love. During the hurt stages, the revelation of who a person is NOT to us is revealed.  In which case, we are forced to let our forgiveness modality take the natural progression, which may ultimately mean cutting ties, for good.  But forgiveness is not so clear cut.  Forgiveness requires the processing of the offence, which we may not be able to do in an “appropriate” timeframe. There are times when life’s occurrences require us to compartmentalize, and it is months after that we can process the offence for what it was.  In that case, the appearance of forgiveness when the event first happened was not that, it was simply the shelving of it to deal with other life’s challenges that may have been misread by both you and the person who is guilty of the offence.  Notably, to truly forgive requires deep thought, because a part of true forgiveness is the understanding of what happened and the decision on how you will proceed to honor yourself; this is applicable to both the offender and the offended.

The danger of forgiveness occurs when we allow a person who has wronged us back into our lives/sacred space, and the offense is repeated.  For most, the shame of finding themselves at square one often prevents us admitting to others and to ourselves that we were wrong in our assessment to allow them back in, so we remain in the space and suffer in silence.  Thus, the forgiveness we extended in the first place is slowly replaced by resentment.

Don’t do that!

My observation is that the person you are required to forgive is the person to whom much is given.  When others “offend” you, it is easier to brush it off and carry on as normal.  It seems easier to get over anger than it is to navigate hurt; the masses say only those you let in can truly hurt you.

Ultimately, everyone must decide how to proceed after their own unique scenarios. Folks struggle with maintaining relationships while honouring themselves.  The truth is, the closer you are to someone the more information you give them to hurt you, vice versa.  It follows that forgiveness plays an important role in how those relationships progress.  As important as forgiveness is to ourselves and to others, there is no point in the expressions of forgiveness if we have not assessed the situation and honestly decided on how to proceed within boundaries. The danger in forgiveness, therefore, lies in a blind return with little or no consideration of a repeat offence especially when there is the lack of accountability.  The danger in forgiveness comes from allowing society to determine the attire of your forgiveness.  The danger also comes from a lack of self-awareness or a dishonesty about our role in the offence. In other words, forgiveness, with the intention of carrying on as normal, requires discussion, (re)establishment of boundaries, and self-respect, which will have long-term benefits to all parties involved.  The opposite of this is also true:  you may need to forgive someone silently and from a distance.