If you cannot forgive someone they control a part of you forever. Forgiveness is a freeing of your own soul. To forgive is to forget and get on with your life. It is very difficult, I admit.

You canot begin to heal until you forgive the person that hurt you. Even so, it is the hardest thing God commands us to do. As the Lord's Prayer makes clear, if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven.

Perhaps Dalrymple's subjects reflect not the fault of the doctrine but the dim-witted literal-mindedness of the age. I believe it's a fairly recent development for "loving the sinner" to be construed to mean that he's entitled to legal and social absolution for all the crap he pulls.

As Bartman suggests, *personal* forgiveness is more about protecting one's own soul from the corrupting effects of hate and lust for revenge. Says nothing about whether a good swift kick (or a date with the headsman) isn't the best thing for the malefactor's immortal soul, eh?

Bartman & Daniel: BS
Perhaps--perhaps--you might forgive them after, and only after, they have truly repented the evil deed they have done. Until then, this is only asking the victim to absolve the evildoer of the consequences of his evil.

Yeah - what Ray said!

ray - forgiveness doesn't preclude justice ("the consequences of his evil"); as a Christian, I am required to forgive someone if they were to murder my child, but I am not required to see to it that he doesn't receive the death penalty for his actions. As others have said - it's probably the hardest thing that we're asked, as Christians, to do. Just this morning I was reminded of this in church - the minister, speaking of Ted Bundy, said that he had heard the man died in repentance of his sins. For a couple minutes, this was an aggravation to me - but we are all sinners, and there but for the grace of God go I. I still have trouble accepting it, but accept it I must.

Yes, as JB notes, absolution and forgiveness are different things. Forgiveness consists in imposing the just punishment on the evildoer without hatred in one's heart.

You can't forgive someone unless they are truly repentant. Giving up your own life to avenge the life you mercilessly took away is the greatest act of contrition.

Perhaps--perhaps--you might forgive them after, and only after, they have truly repented the evil deed they have done.

Amen, Ray. Reflexive forgiveness cheapens that which should be dear.

As Bartman said, the main value of forgiveness may be in freeing yourself from the hatred that you feel. But this is easier said than done. Hating someone who has done you a grave injustice is the natural thing to do. It takes time to forgive. I think that the worst thing that you can do for someone who has been victimized is tell then that they should forgive the perp. Unfortunately, this is the kind of "help" you will often get from family members, counsellors or priests. If you are the friend or relation of a victim, be on their side, share in their anger and outrage, give them some confidence that the world hasn't gone crazy and turned against them. Give them time. Forgiveness is a private matter of the victim's choosing, not something that courts or counselors or priests have any right to involve themselves with.

"Forgivness is a private matter of the victim's choosing, not something that courts or counselors or priests have any right to involve themselves with."

Robert:
I, as pastor (I'm Presbyterian and we don't have priests) of "Jane or John Doe" would most certainly be on their side after they or a loved one were brutalized or victimized. I would also share in their anger and outrage, and I would also seek to rebuild confidence that the world hadn't gone crazy or turned against them, and I'd give them time to heal. I would also speak to them (and obviously not immediatly) about forgivness. Talking about forgivness would be my right as their pastor, and it would be my obligation as Jesus' minister (ambassador/agent). It's what he would expect me to do. It's part of the way He would show his love to "John & Jane Doe".

Dave W:

I accept the argument that a life-long harbouring of hate is spiritually corrosive and ultimately damages the hater more than the hated. The commandment is perhaps best appreciated in the context of a long, arduous and painful spiritual journey. It is less understandable as a universal command that all are expected to fulfill early and almost automatically as an act of will or volition in the short term.

Actually, I think it is fairly meaningless, or all too easy, to forgive strangers for wrondoings that don't really touch us directly. Having no European or Iraqi family, I find it relatively easy to forgive Hitler and Hussein, especially if, as certain comments above suggest, I still get to hang them. The possibility of a last minute repentance, however remote or improbable, is easy to lean on when you get to assume that gift is available to everyone from an extremely generous and benevolent deity. So, hey, I forgive Hitler...bully for me. That may be all very nice and Christian, but I really don't miss a beat in so doing.

It is also easier to understand it in the context of ministering to a society wracked and threatened by feuds, violence, revenge, etc. Today in our hyper-ordered society of system and process, it it is just a little too close to the commands of psychotherapy to "move on" or "get on with your life" for my taste, especially when the world around you is more interested in pushing you to stop being tiresome and get over whatever injustice has befallen you than siding with you on the side of righteousness. It's fine to say we're all children of God, as the religious left likes to do, but something is very wrong when that argument results in compassion for terrorists, or even hesitant confusion about them.

Let's take two highly personal examples--the betrayed or deserted spouse and the murdered child. In these situations, I suggest the command to forgive universally sits very uneasily with the commandments that led a Christian to commit to his/her family unreservedly in the first place. If, as an expression of faith and submission to the Divine Will, you do all you can to minimize the selfish and invests your entire sense of love and self in the service of your family, then if another human being takes that from you cruelly, you are going to be one bewildered and injured puppy for a very long time. More so than the non-believer who was more casual and compartmentalized in his attitude to family. The mere physical presence of the wrongdoer can be physically disabling. In such a case, rage and hatred can be lifelines to sanity and the ability to get up in the morning and face the day.

I see this in family law all the time. It is those who are committed and faithful, both in belief and deed, to their spouses and children that suffer the most when it all falls to pieces. What really upsets me is when I see good confused souls trying far too early--years too early--to "understand" the other party (who often seems to expect forgiveness and good wishes without really making amends)and be "fair" and "forgiving" with the encouragement of family, friends, the legal system, church and the ubiquitous counsellor. Often they damage themselves badly in the process. It is when they start hating and calling for revenge that I begin to think they might make it and be ok. (And no, I don't use that to suck them into litigation. When that happens, my advice starts to change tack towards self-interest, a tough shrewdness and caution writ large.)

In the case of the child, I find it very, very difficult to understand early, near-automatic forgiveness without wondering about the nature of the love they had in the first place. The emotionally distant parent lost in his/her scripture is a bit of a strawman, but he does exist. In such a case, how long would it be before you raised the issue of forgiveness? More importantly, would you actively dissuade them from trying to deal with it too early? Is this a command that is easier for the old and experienced to understand and obey? Is such philosophical and spiritual maturity and worldliness really desirable in young, high-energy adults driving themselves in negotiating the rocky, risky shoals of building a life together and raising a family?

So, it's not up to me to question the commandment. But surely there are big problems of application that are long overdue to be addressed, such as those expressed well by Dalrymple in the post.

Peter:

Yes, the issues and questions you mention need to be addressed. Applying the commandment can be tough, and it is never easy. I've wrestled w/the issue of forgiveness many times over the years, as you apparently have as well. Stay in there for those in your care.

Dave W.
It sounds like you handle your responsibilities as pastor in a very concerned and responsible way. When I say that relatives or priests have no right, I am addressing the situations where they may impose their view on the person who is suffering with none of the care or concern that you express. From my experience, this situation happens a lot. It is your right as a pastor to minister to those who come to you freely for your help. My experience as a Catholic has been that some priests have thought it more important for the victim to get in line with God's commandment to forgive than to help them deal with what had happened to them.

Someone very close to me has had to deal with the issue of forgiveness with a member of her family who had wronged her in the past. Counselors and family members told her repeatedly that she has to forgive the person and get over it. She did, over time, and reestablished her relationship with this person, only to be victimized again. Again, her other family members urged her to forgive and get over it. It was the worst advice imaginable, it compounded the trauma of what she suffered.

Peter, you did an excellent job of expressing my feelings on the subject.

Peter:

Except for this line:

"More so than the non-believer who was more casual and compartmentalized in his attitude to family. "

What are you getting at there? Do you have a lot of experience with non-believers and their families, or are you playing with strawmen again?

Robert:
.
I said the non-believer who was more casual and compartmentalized in his attitude to family. Many non-believers aren't. Don't be so touchy.

Touchy!!!! Who you calling touchy!!!!!

You're touchy. I'm principled.

I forgive you.

Way too fast, you crypto-Christian, you.