The best way that blacks can learn to forgive is through seeking God. Martin Luther led the movement that blacks had fighting for their rights in America in the 60s. The bible teachings tell us that God exists in the holy trinity and the only way to forgive others is for us to be able to forgive our own transgressions.
God’s grace is the only way that we can achieve forgiveness. Worthington states that forgiveness is achieved when, “we yield ourselves to God and [are] guided by God’s Spirit.” (2009, p. 14) Once we have acquired the skills to be able to forgive ourselves, then, we can learn to forgive others as well. Although Everett Worthington Jr. cautions that forgiving oneself is particularly hard, the driving factor should be the end result.
No hurt or transgression is too big to bear once a person has learnt the art of forgiving him/herself. The best way of working through a hurtful thing like the way that African Americans were during their fight for their rights is to be in a group scenario. The forgiveness of transgressions against other people is very hard to fathom in many. There are transgressions or hurts that people consider too painful to easily forgive.
Martin Luther had a particularly tasking job in attempting to instill forgiveness in the hearts of the African Americans who had been hurt. He insisted repeatedly that the only way that their rights were going to be recognized was through peaceful means. However, a tall order this was, he had to convince his followers that the best option for them was to forgive those people that had hurt them.
Discussion
There are steps that Everett has developed that are aimed at helping people to become more forgiving in their encounters. The foundation block for this program is that one has to dedicate oneself to discerning God’s heart. As such, one has to be a dedicated Christian for the steps advocated by this writer to work. The major idea here is that god is the most important agent in order to achieve forgiveness. Therefore, one has to allow God to use one’s actions as the vehicle through which he works.
Achieving forgiveness is equated to acquiring any other skill in the course of performing ones duties. Therefore, it is not expected that a person can be forgiving instantaneously. This means that people have to work on their forgiveness skills in order to achieve the forgiveness level that the gospel teaches. Martin Luther had to focus on the religion in order for people to translate the teaching of the bible and apply them in their every day lives so that they are capable of forgiveness.
Conclusion
Forgiveness entails that a person does not seek revenge for a particular hurt that is done to them. This means that although African Americans felt that their rights were not being recognized by the regime in America, they should have desisted from taking any actions to avenge this wrongdoing. The only way that a person can achieve forgiveness is if the action warranting the forgiveness no longer hurts them. Events that are far in the past can be easily forgiven since the hurt occasioned by such wrongs is no longer potent.
Therefore, African Americans should have first work on the hurt that they felt in order for them to be able to forgive the transgressors. Martin Luther was charged with the responsibility of ensuring that any ill feelings that the African Americans may have harbored were not eliciting hurtful sentiments from his followers. If this was achieved, then the process of forgiveness should not have been difficult.
Reference
Worthington, E.L. Jr. (2009). A Just Forgiveness: Responsible Healing Without Excusing Injustice. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
When it comes to forgiveness, the followers of any religion know to repent and ask God for remission. They are aware Lord is very forgiving, and for that reason, believers are told to have that same burden on others as well. It is challenging to define what forgiveness, both in narrow and wide meanings, is. In general, it is an action of pardoning someone for his/her wrongdoings. Regarding religion, it could be defined as a pious act to excuse the person who wronged someone by his/her deeds (Liles). The scriptures provide valuable insights on the concept of forgiveness, tell how followers should exercise it, and reveal the reasons behind it. Forgiveness remains a cornerstone of relationship with God and everyday life reducing tension between people.
To begin with, the original concept of forgiveness can be found in the Christian doctrine. God presented a model of forgiveness that all believers are expected to follow and strive for. He sacrificed his Son, Jesus Christ, whose death was on behalf of Christian sinners, lifting the sentence of their condemnation. As the sole judge of men, God was punished for the quilt of people, but the guilty received forgiveness. The scripture teaches, “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you” (Ephes. 4.32). A similar verse can be found in Colossians 3.13 that instructs to “bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”
Nevertheless, it is not possible to forgive in the same manner as the Lord did. He is the only one who can erase the record of human sins and remove the following penalties. Only God can judge and pardon deeds that violate standards set by him. For instance, Luke writes, “The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” (Luk. 5.21). This verse reasserts God’s prerogative to change someone’s destiny.
Contrary, Bible teaches victims to release a violation or sin committed against them by offenders. In Ephesians 4.31, Paul writes, “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.” It suggests how Christians should forgive others and which attitude they should have. They must not be angry or seek revenge; God rather expects them to be kind-hearted enough to excuse culprits.
The case of the wrongdoer also provides some valuable insights for the study. In Paul’s letter 2 Corinthians 2.5-11, he notes, “But if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but to some extent-not to exaggerate it-to all of you.” Paul explains that the pain caused by the wrongdoer to him was not as hurtful to only him but to everyone in the church. In the following couple lines, he continues, “This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person; so now instead you should forgive and console him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.” The apostle calls upon the church’s people to stop the punishment of the wrongdoer and forgive, comfort, and affirm their love for him. Paul asks this of his people because he says the man has repented in his own sorrow and that they should encourage them to restore his beliefs.
Other denominations of Abrahamic religious heritage have similar commands and ideas on forgiveness. For instance, Islam, the religion I belong to, is considered a religion of peace based on the concept of forgiveness. Muslims are taught that God is the most merciful of them all. They are urged and expected to accept their sins, repent and continue praying to God no matter how grave the sin someone has committed is. There are no perfect individuals, and everyone may once engage in wrongdoing; thus, it is better to pardon their offenses.
Here are some verses from the Quran that are similar to what Paul is saying, “And let not those who possess dignity and ease among you swear not to give the near of kin and to the nearby, and to fugitives for the cause of Allah. Let them forgive and show indulgence. Would you not like that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful” (The Quran 24.22). Another verse from the Quran related to what Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 2 line 11 is, “Believers! Do not follow in Satan’s footsteps. Let him who follows in Satan’s footsteps (remember that) Satan bids people to indecency and evil” (The Quran 24:21). In this verse, the merciful Allah contrasts with evil and vindictive Satan. It instructs Muslims to follow God and forgive others instead of following the destructive power.
Many people tend to hold a grudge until somebody who hurt them repents and asks for forgiveness. According to Derrida (44), there is conditional and unconditional forgiveness creating two poles that are irreconcilable but indissociable. Conditional forgiveness can be spotted in current legal, political, and business affairs, which require repentance and transformation, among other conditions. For instance, the founders of Dolce & Gabbana asked people of China to excuse them for their racist comments following the backlash (Srivastav). They both said that they are sorry, actually respect Chinese people, and adore their culture.
The founders also claimed that this situation would never happen again. Derrida (44) further provides an example of a presidential right of grace that can neutralize the law. Clinton, a known supporter of the death penalty, used his right and released Puerto Ricans who were engaged in terrorism from prison. It was a conditional act of forgiveness since he did it in the interests of his own family, helping his wife win the electoral campaign.
On the contrary, pure forgiveness under Abrahamic religious heritage is unconditional, exceptional, does not have finality and meaning. Derrida (45) calls it a paradox and believes that reconciliation, amnesty, or mourning should ultimately refer to the idea of pure forgiveness. This notion means to pardon offenders whether they change their behavior or not. It also seems that repentance is not obligatory in that case. Thus, in some situations, unconditional forgiveness can seem to be impossible and mad.
The scripture presents three different ways/methods God uses to forgive sinners. The first one is called positional forgiveness, when the Lord eliminates the present, past, and future sins of people who became Christians. Acts 10.43 reveals, “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” Throughout the Bible, the Christians are often called saints since they were pardoned due to their repentance and belief in Jesus Christ.
The second method found in scripture is forgiveness on a daily basis established on the concept of confession. As can be seen from 1 John 1.9, Christians are expected to confess their sins to restore their fellowship with God but remaining sinful. In other words, people should agree with their sins and be able to admit their wrongdoings. The mentioned ways require both asking for forgiveness and repentance to be excused.
Nevertheless, the third way provides ground to the principle of unconditional forgiveness mentioned by Derrida in his work. Jesus Christ, while hanging on the cross, forgave those who offended and made hurt to him. The soldiers were taking his clothes while the Pharisees were insulting and mocking him. Although they were not seeking forgiveness or repenting, Jesus pardoned them unconditionally. Luke writes, “But Jesus was saying, Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luk. 23.24). This example of forgiveness compared to previous ones resembles the way human beings should forgive others. Here Christ acts not as the Lord; instead, he acts like a man praying to God, the Father, to forgive his offenders. He excuses their offenses against him unilaterally and without any conditions.
According to Acts 7.60, Stephen followed Christ’s example by forgiving those who stoned him to death. Again, the members of the Sanhedrin were not repenting or asking for remission. Of course, it is often challenging to excuse offenses committed by those who do not follow God’s commands. Sometimes it even seems impossible, especially when wrongdoers do not admit their guilt and continue to cause mental or physical harm. Nevertheless, this is the pure form of forgiveness Christians expected to practice in their life to peace their soul and follow God.
Turning to Islam, forgiveness is a virtue and a right of every Muslim, not an obligatory act. Believers have a right not to forget and demand legal punishment for a criminal because Allah also does not forgive all sins (Muhammad). In contrast, it is obligatory to abstain from seeking punishment to the offender using extrajudicial means. This religion teaches believers to admit and repent their sins in order to be forgiven by Allah. Pardoning the evil deed is preferred over the seek for justice by applying legal tools. Transgressors, who offended or abused others, should be forgiven by their victims if they repent their deeds and sincerely ask for an apology.
It seems that the Islam concept of forgiveness requires more conditions such as repentance and transformation to be applied. Nevertheless, there is a notion that Allah may forgive an offender who dies unrepentant about his/her wrongdoings. Muslims are also allowed to forgive someone unconditionally, praying to God against those individuals, and ask for recompensation in the future (Muhammad). However, the malefactor who intentionally oppresses or causes harm to others without further repentance should expect a harsh and fair decision at the Day of Judgment.
In general, the scripture instructs to rely on God’s character and release oneself from such destructive feelings like anger. The famous verse says, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven” (Luke 6.37). This verse clearly instructs not to judge others, their attitudes, and even their wrongdoings since it is purely in God’s authority. Consequently, Christians should release misdeeds against them, pray for the offenders, and believe that God will deal with injustices.
Therefore, forgiveness is the vital concept of Christianity multiple times mentioned in the Bible. It teaches to accept apologies and even forgive unconditionally. It also provides reasons why people must follow provided examples. The simple reason is that Jesus commanded people to forgive others if they want to be as well pardoned for their sins by Father. It can be seen in Mathew 6.14, “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” Although Christians forgive out of obedience, it is their own choice to release someone’s offenses or hold a grudge against them. Some of them believe that unconditional forgiveness is also beneficial to believers since they achieve spiritual freedom.
It is commonly known that deep and painful emotions that last for a long period are destructive, affecting health conditions and lifestyles. For instance, a father who lost his child in an accident may blame the offender, seek revenge, and simultaneously spoil his life by drinking alcohol. In this case, the mix of anger and grief will destruct his life and tear his soul for a long time. Thus, even from the psychological perspective, there is reason to forgive wrongdoers instead of seeking revenge and let anger fester in the soul.
We live in a highly globalized world and enjoy a relatively peaceful time. Nevertheless, local military conflicts, oppressions, homicides, cases of racism, bullying, and many other injustices occur worldwide. Someone may question the need for the Abrahamic concept of forgiveness in modern life, suggesting that it does not provide pure justice or just irrelevant. Instead, the international and local legal systems are expected to address injustice, judge, and punish alleged offenders.
Of course, the governments are obliged and have the power to protect their people’s dignity and human rights to avoid chaos. At the same time, legal systems, processes of reconciliation, and political acts of forgiveness have to be built upon the concept of forgiveness found in the scripture. It should not be applied to pursue personal and economic interests because, in this case, it loses its meaning and value.
We would see ourselves living in a better place regarding everyday life if more human beings were aware of the concept of forgiveness and related God’s commands. Today, people seem to be more egoistic and arrogant, having a highly stressful life. Instead, Bible and Quran teach to understand, respect, forgive, and love fellow human beings even if they are not believers. Forgiveness can reduce tension in relations with others and brings peace needed to move forward. It breaks the adverse bonds with the offender, terminating shifting from the victim mode. It is also possible to re-establish personal integrity, become more robust, and free to seek further development and something positive. Thus, forgiveness is still a relevant and helpful phenomenon that can make our world better and relieve the burdens of life.
To conclude, Bible and other scriptures teach and urge Christians to forgive people as God forgave everybody sacrificing his son. The Lord showed how he expects men to pardon others, not judging and condemning, but kindly forgiving and praying for their offenders. Only God has enough authority to decide on someone’s destiny and erase sins from the list. A similar concept of forgiveness was spotted in Islam that urges to forgive those who repented in order to be pardoned by God. Christian heritage retains more room for pure and unconditional forgiveness that we should strive to. Modern international relations, peacekeeping, and legal systems must refer to this concept. If more people practice forgiveness on a daily basis, we will live in a better place.
Works Cited
Derrida, Jacques. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness (Thinking in Action). Routledge, 2001.
Holy Bible. New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation, 2020.
Though psychologists view forgiveness and reconciliation as being different entities, religious theologians particularly Christians view them as being synonymous. As a result, this research paper is a critique of the article ‘Forgiveness and Reconciliation: the Differing Perspectives of Psychologists and Christian Theologians’ by Nathan R. Frise, Mark R. McMinn, in the journal ‘Psychology and Theology’.
The aim of this article is to bring out different views expressed by Christian theologians and psychologists concerning the issue of forgiveness and reconciliation. However, the article’s intention is not suggesting which discipline is right, or the one that is wrong. Its intention is just identifying existing differences between the two schools of thoughts, with the aim of promoting scholarly dialogue that is very integrative concerning the issues of forgiveness and reconciliation (Frise & McMinn 2010).
According to Zeno Jonahs, a catholic priest, forgiveness is considered as restoring love bondage as well as communion in case of a conflict or rapture. As a result, reconciliation is a factor purposing forgiveness. In case of forgiveness, then individuals should be ready for reconciliation.
He defines reconciliation as being an action of forgiveness. When combined, reconciliation and forgiveness, the result is a very strong relationship, which at the end results to better understanding of one another, hence leading to an intimacy bond that can be considered as being genuine (Zeno, 2011).
Those individuals, who fail to put reconciliation into practice, are pretenders, because, they fail putting forgiveness into practice. Meek and McMinn (1997) insists that, in case someone wrongs you and is still alive or dead, it means nothing. You should just forgive him/her and even pray for those who have wronged you. Individuals should look at what makes them not to forgive and reconcile, it is just fear towards the other. However, it is good to fulfill the promise of forgiveness by reconciling.
However, Govier (2002) argued that, though forgiveness and reconciliation are linked, but they are different. He defines reconciliation as a way of restoring trust in a relation that had ruptured. In this act, Govier insists that the two people have to be involved apart from contributing to a particular solution.
On the other hand, forgiveness is only given by the party which was wronged. He insists that, forgiveness and reconciliation mean two different things, as after forgiveness, it is not a must that reconciliation should follow. In addition, even in the absence of reconciliation, forgiveness alone is very important as it releases the pain of feeling bitter.
Tavuchis, (1991) states that, it does not imply that after reconciliation, forgiveness will occur, or has occurred. People involved in particular action might just assume that such a thing didn’t happen. Implying that, though the conflict happened, but it does not affect their connections.
This depends on the parties capabilities in handling matters like this. This method is very helpful particularly in avoiding other credible relations. Nevertheless, this method depends on the fact that as time goes healing occurs. However the problem is, in case of a similar act, memories and pains will just be reactivated automatically. Hence Jones, (1995) adopts the issue of forgiveness describing it as being a lifestyle which people have to consider before reconciling.
The ethical aspects of the Study
The author of this article didn’t deceive his respondents in away as they have not stated other functions of this research apart from the one stated. In safeguarding the participants, the researcher sent them research invitations through emails, to ask for their consent to participate in this research.
This ensured that participants are aware of what they intend to participate in. In addition, by sending personally addressed emails, and using the link to access the questionnaire, the researcher was trying to ensure information confidentially, as well as participants’ privacy. This in one way or the other was respecting respondents’ right, as no unauthorized person will access personal information filled in the questionnaire. In addition, the researcher ensured that, data being collected was relevant to the research topic alone.
According to Meeker William and Luis “confidentiality refers to better ways through which respondents’ data/information will be handled, managed or disseminated as part of research” (Meeker, & Luis). In doing this, the researcher ensured that, the hyperlink provided provides enough confidentiality throughout the research.
Another step was through anonymity. The names of respondents remain unknown. In the questionnaire, the researcher didn’t request respondents to indicate their names. In addition, when reporting results or even discussing them, the researcher ensured that there is no name appearing.
In handling informed consent, the researcher sent research invitation emails to intended individuals. In doing so, those who replied to mails meant that they were ready to take part in the researcher and were aware of what they were going to do. In addition the personally addressed emails described the study and requested them to participate.
In addition this is the reason as to why debriefing participants was of great significance. However, in the procedure and methodology, the researcher has not stated whether the institutional review committee or any other ethics review committee approved the research process. During participant selection, there was neither coercive nor undue influence. This is because, the researcher choose participants depending on research questions.
Strength and Limitations of the Study
Cost and time effectiveness; due to the fact that the study was based on the internet survey, there was no need of moving from place to the other in the name of distributing as well as collecting questionnaires. As a result, the cost of transport and time were saved.
Availability of literature; as stated in the literature though the area of forgiveness is new in the field of psychology, but there is enough literature to cover the study. So the topic is new, but with the availability of literature, we are assured that there are enough materials for the study.
With this assurance, then there is understanding that worthwhile work was done in this study. In addition, availability of literature helped the researcher of this study to choose the best content, methodology as well as conclusions of other researchers. With this in mind, the researcher understood the contexts of his specific objectives.
Many researchable topics; due to the fact that the forgiveness topic is new in the field of psychology, it means that there is still many specific objectives for the researcher to research on. This implies that, the area is still young; as a result, the field has not yet been exploited fully. This gives study room for further studies.
On the other hand, there are also limitations, for instance need for experts. For this study to be carried out online, hyperlinks have to be created, and this needs experts in web design or even technology, who might not be found easily, and if found, they might charge more money. In dealing with this the researcher should learn hyperlink developing.
Target groups; due to the fact that the survey was online, it means that only those who can access computers and internet were selected in the sample, while those lacking the opportunity to access such facilities were left. In dealing with this limitation, the researcher would have also distributed questionnaires to individuals having no access to computers and internet. Also lay men were ignored in the study only experts and academicians were considered.
Correlation findings; since this study entails relating factors, it is very difficult for any variable to be predicted by the use of another variable. This study ignores casual relations existing between variables. In dealing with this the research should ensure that some variables are controlled just like what happens in experimental kind of research where we have controls to determine third factors affecting the relation of variables.
In this study, the researcher ensured that interpretations are consistent with results. This is because, through interpretation, the author explained patterns as well as trends showed by results. In supporting his interpretations the researcher related his data with scientific ideas found in literature. However, it would be good if the researcher could have used graphs and charts. This would have aided much in assisting data presentation in the interpretations.
In the study, most of the generalizations made are warranted based on the sample used. This is because, the sample selected is a representative of the population under study. However due to lower response rate in the first study, there might be unwarranted generalization. The author also offered practical implications of this study. He states that, the study aims at igniting integrative debate to sharpen the two disciplines with the target of helping people who are willing to forgive interpersonal offences.
The author recognized limitations of the research. Such limitations were particularly as a result of sampling plan, where the sample was not a representative of the population. Also, there are some limitations on the questionnaires where the questionnaire did not allow democratic consensus. As a result the researcher should include focus group and in-depth interviews to ensure democratic consensus.
Design
For this study, quantitative approach proved to be the best. This is because; the approach generated quantitative data which can be analyzed rigorously by the use of quantitative methods in rigid as well as formal ways. In addition, since the aim of the study was to find a relationship, then qualitative approach is the best in determining relations between variables. In addition, the methodology used was justifiable because it was cheap, time saving.
This study is a cross-sectional kind of study as its aim is to compare and contrast individuals’ perceptions. These studies are very important particularly in outlining factors of interest as they are in a particular population, regardless of time length (Mitchell & Jolley, 2001).
The number of points of data collection used by the researcher is not appropriate. This is because; the number of respondents is too small to generalize such results to the whole population. In addition, the researcher should have also included Christians who are neither theologians nor experts to analyze their views.
The research design was within subjects. The first study dealt with differences between psychologists and Christian theologians. However in selecting samples, psychologists from different faculties and departments were selected, but all selected participants endorsed Christian views. On the other hand, theologians from different bible study schools and departments were also selected. The second study dealt with experts having publications in the field of forgiveness. As a result, the study was determining different views within Christians.
It is very hard to validate this study externally. This is because; the sample size used in the study particularly in the first study threatens external validity of this study as it induces selection bias possibilities. However to some extent, the study holds some degree of external validity, due to this diversity of the sample. In addition, participants in the first study have the ability of trainers and progenitors in their fields hence have high influence in the society as a result, their opinions might be used in generalizing the population.
Participants
The sampling plan was adequate as it included diversified participants from different faculties, departments and schools. The sampling plan only included influential individuals in the society; hence their opinions might be used in generalizing the population under study.
However, depending on the research objective, the sample size was too small; hence it will not be of great help particularly in increasing precisions and accuracy to ensure that results are reliable. As a result the obtained data will not project the thoughts of the whole population under study. This sample size will also increase sampling error.
Though in the study the sampling plan has been enhanced by diversifying participant expertise, knowledge, age and race, but the researcher can do better by increasing the sample size to represent the population under study.
In the study, there are some sample biases. For instance, there are unrepresentative samples. This is because; the sample is not a representative of the population under study. This is because, the study contains undercover sampling, where members are not represented well as some populations are very few.
In addition, there is exclusion sample biasness. This is because; those theologians and psychologists lacking access to computers and internet were excluded from the study. In addition, lay men people were also not included in the study (Brewer, 2000).
The researcher clearly outlines dependent variables (DVs). Due to the fact that the degree of religious commitment was being varied from more religious to less religious, and theologians, then it is a dependent variable. In addition, since the field of study varied from psychologists to theologians from different schools, faculties and departments, the field of study was a dependant variable. However, the independent variable was religion, as even psychologists had to be those endorsing Christian views.
Primary methods of data collection were employed in this study; this is because the study used questionnaires. This technique was chosen because it is cheap, saves time, and data collected through questionnaires are easy to analyze. Moreover, this method collects data in a standard way hence more objective.
The method used in estimating reliability in this study is single administration method. Under this method, the technique used by the researcher is split half method by treating two studies in an alternate form. However, this is was not enough, because, the halves would have been stepped up by spearman’s-brown prediction formulae, which was not conducted in the study Meeker & Luis (1998).
The report states that the researcher chose academicians because they are involved in training as well progenitors in their fields, hence involve in the transmission of their opinions to other people. However, the report does not state whether the process of data collection was a proved by any ethics review committee, hence, its validity remains questionable. This is how the report provides validity measures.
During data collection; the researcher placed undue burdens on participants by giving questions which are not open to democratic discussions. This is as noted by one respondent in the study. This means that, the questions were closed, limiting respondent’s expression. However, physical coercion was not placed on any respondent. As a result, respondents did not state their opinions as they feel it should be, but depending on how the question asked them to.
Data analysis
In the second study the first three questions addressing negative feelings, release of revenge urge and fostering goodwill feelings towards the offender showed no significant differences between the two groups. This meant that, there were very high chances that such statistics occurred by chance.
In the first study statistical tests vary depending on the question. There are questions which statistical tests are significant while others are non-significant. This indicates that, statistical tests that are non-significant obtained such data through lack, while those having significance means that lack occurred in obtaining such results is very little.
Last but not least the authors of this study presented results which are related to research questions and research hypothesis. This is because, for every question, the author has indicated how the results were, and how significant were they (Brewer, 2000).
Conclusion
Psychologists view forgiveness and reconciliation as having different meanings, religious theologians particularly Christians view them as being synonymous. This research paper is a critique of one research that was conducted to identify differences in perception of psychologists and Christian theologians. As a result, though there were some limitations in the study, but generally the paper handled the research topic very well.
References
Brewer, M. (2000). Research Design and Issues of Validity. In Reis, H. & Judd, C. (Eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frise R, & McMinn, R. (2010). Forgiveness and Reconciliation: The Differing Perspectives of Psychologists and Christian Theologians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38(2): 83-88.
Govier, T. (2002). Forgiveness and Revenge. London: Routledge Press.
Jones, L. (1995). Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Meek, K. & McMinn, M. (1997). Forgiveness: More than a Therapeutic Technique. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16(2): 51-61.
Meeker, W. & Escobar, A. (1998). Statistical Methods for Reliability Data. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Mitchell, M. & Jolley, J. (2001). Research Design Explained. New York: Harcourt.
Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea Culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
The modern Christian church may not follow the example of Christ in forgiving its members. The main concepts that involve following Christ are atonement and forgiveness, the main provisions of Christian doctrine. Tolerate atonement comes from the Old Testament and is the most important term of the Christian system. This study will connect the atonement of Jesus Christ and attitudes towards forgiveness through the revision of the current church, Love and God’s commandment to forgive.
Atonement refers to the death of Christ, whereby the sinner is reconciled to God. Atonement is linked to human sin, God commanding Israel to set aside one day of the year, which He called “the day of atonement”. The concept of forgiveness and atonement as an absolute necessity for gaining earthly happiness is rarely considered in the research literature. The researchers emphasize that forgiveness should not mean justifying the actions of oneself or another person. Modern reasoning calls into question the very possibility of achieving forgiveness in a godless world4. However, to truly understand what forgiveness is and how to act in accordance with the word of God, one must rely on the Holy Texts.
A full understanding of the atonement of Jesus on behalf of people enables them to better evaluate themselves. Christians have no merit in the work of salvation; everything comes from the love and favor of Christ. Therefore, whenever the dissatisfied heart of people wants to grumble before God for not having what it desired, they must remember that they have already received from Christ what is necessary for their happiness. All mankind has gone astray because of sin, but the atonement of Jesus is for all sinful mankind.
Love and Forgiveness from Christ Teachings
The natural course of people existence, contaminated by the effects of the sins from Adam and Eve, would lead them to an eternity of condemnation. For the God’s Love to human beings, He sacrificed His own to relieve humans form sins. However, the death of Jesus was not an isolated act taken by a violent passion. The Lord knew what He was doing and that’s the sacrifice He made for the sake of humans. The Devil tried at all costs was to prevent the sacrifice of the cross because, at that moment in history, he could already deduce that the crucifixion would not be Jesus’ failure, rather, there would be the beginning of people victory. The possibility of substitutionary sacrifice was far from reality, since people were all closed under the habitual practice of sin and, consequently, destined to condemnation. People owe their existence to the Creator, and after the Fall of humanity. They immediately became worthy of eternal punishment; however, the Eternal granted them permission to continue living, but conscious of the maintenance of a debt they needed be paid.
Jesus teachings directed his followers to love and forgive their neighbors as the Father forgives them. “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven” – the Holy Scripture teaches. The Christian knows that he has been forgiven by the Lord with a free and provident mercy. People have been forgiven and, therefore, that they must forgive. If someone does not know how to forgive another, without looking at the number of times he has granted forgiveness, then he does not recognize the received forgiveness. God forgives freely, His love must never be deserved, but it is necessary to accept his gift and extend it to others.
Love, the compassionate feeling of accepting people without conditions leads to the general view of forgiveness. In most cases, people fail to forgive because they have no love for their transgressors. Loving is the way of accepting the teaching of Jesus Christ. If people are not ministering of that mercy received from God, who always forgives people and has forgiven them once and for all through Jesus Christ, he withdraws his forgiveness. The teachings are related to love, people without love have limited God’s presence and cannot value the commandment of forgiveness.
Jesus gives the followers the last and definitive account of God. For Christians, God’s mercy is the essential feature to know Him, it is the way people get in communion: it is the way in which God reveals His omnipotence. It is not easy to accept this face of God, because all religions have always preached a God who does justice, who punishes the wrong committed. However, from the teaching of Jesus, Mercy is paramount and God is merciful, He forgives and is willing to accepts people who are willing to follow His teachings. Thus, those who are merciful, they should expect mercy in return.
Consequences of Humanity’s Ideas About Forgiveness
The human interpretation of mercy and forgiveness may go astray with the Bible teachings. The misunderstanding of God’s mercy leads to confusion on punishment and atonement. Some churches believe in full forgiveness of sins and no punishment befalls them after sins. Other understands God as a punisher and does not view God as merciful. The confusion revolving around mercy makes most believers not to have a stand to their faith. The division between the wrath of God and His mercies in churches has led to disunion.
Misinterpretations of the Bible can occasionally lead to confusion regarding the teachings of the Bible. However, it is the result of believers’ sloppy Bible study habits and the teachings of false authors, teachers, and preachers. Even the most accurate translations are twisted and distorted, either intentionally or out of ignorance, to serve their own ends or conform to worldly thinking. Such Prophets has led to division in churches since they interpret the Bible in their own way either to install fear to the followers about God punishments. The pseudo-gospel is spread actively, people are defending the absurd thesis that forgiveness is the freedom to become anything, including the cause of suffering for others. In people days many imprison people in their spiritual “childishness”, binding them to envy, greed and arrogance. In such churches, forgiveness is not given a chance and thus draw people away from God.
People can be misled about the Bible; a false hope of salvation can result from misunderstanding forgiveness and Mercy. Satan used a misunderstanding of the Bible to tempt Jesus. He misinterprets the truths of Scripture today using the same strategies and Word of God can be twisted by Satan with enough skill to produce disastrous outcomes leading to no mercy. The damage is felt when Christians no longer believe in mercy and see no point of forgiveness and following the scripture.
There are at least three wrong positions on the issue of forgiveness in churches today. On the one hand, some believe that forgiveness cannot be given for free, it must be earned. Others are convinced that it is always necessary to forgive, and once a relationship is established, to maintain the same level of closeness, regardless of the behavior of other people. Still others believe that it is unnecessary to ask for forgiveness, since Christians should forgive each other automatically. It would be a denial of the God that one professes and proclaims to be forgiven by him and then not forgive others. The Church is a community of people who forgive; people may be ministers of forgiveness and mercy in the Church itself. God’s forgiveness for people sins knows no bounds. God has compassion and mercy on people and forgives them for all their shortcomings.
The effort to forgive is a concrete response to the Father that people are dedicating themselves to become better. From the words of Jesus, it is possible to live a free life, without ties, in peace with people and in harmony with God. Jesus gave his own life so that people could be forgiven of their sins and opened the door for everyone to reach eternal life. From a Divine interpretation, forgiving is a union of repentance and sacrifice. There is only forgiveness if one of the parties is truly repentant and the other truly willing to feel compassion. Forgiving requires owning up to the mistakes people made and, above all, forgiving themselves. The first step is opening the door of the soul. Forgiveness is part of a process that is often painful, but extremely necessary for humans’ release. Exposing the wound of the soul and treating it is not a comfortable act, but crucial for people to achieve healing through accepting Jesus Christ and forgiving others.
Christlike Forgiveness in Today’s Church
Christlike forgiveness can be argued in the approach of God forgiving man. That is, the essence of forgiveness is not for people to forgive each other but to receive forgiveness from God at the same time. Christ gave, after His resurrection, a special empowerment of the Holy Spirit’s power to His disciples, which would enable them to both forgive sins and withhold forgiveness. The Bible teaches, first of all, that it is God who forgives sins. People are admonished that faults against other persons must be confessed and made right, if necessary, directly to them.
Christ has given to the Church, as a community of believers, the obligation to receive as members all who demonstrate, by their conduct, the genuineness of their repentance. He gave authority to remove from his fellowship all those whose conduct represented a clear denial of the faith. By accepting some and rejecting others, based on biblical criteria, the Church exercises the authority to forgive and retain sins. The disciples of Christ must recognize those who repent as forgiven by God, and consequently, by His Church, and the unrepentant as unforgiven.
The gospel describe ways in which man is addressed: accusing, naming sin – demanding; or absolving, not counting the sin – gifted. The distinction between law and gospel creates a contrast to the previously disastrous life situation. However, this can only arise when the human allows to be spoken to about the disastrous life situation, while willing to feel the pain. The theology taught that repentance must be a real contrition of the heart over sin. In part, it is expressly assumed that human beings are capable of producing love and repentance on their own, which are the prerequisites for the forgiveness of sins.
It was precisely the teaching that had brought authors to despair in the monastery, because the effect of the sacrament of penance was linked to proper human preparation. Failure to comply with the law releases something positive, because the reversal idea of repentance is considered, namely man’s turning to God, gained through belief in divine mercy. God’s judging power through the law and the horror of this judgment that is imposed on the conscience. His medium is the word that is put into the mouth of man and is received in faith. The Christian believes that he has been absolved of his sins. This belief in God’s mercy replaces the satisfaction owed to God for the sins committed.
In most cases the digression from the practical application of forgiveness lies on conditioning forgiveness. On the contrary, being unconditional is an attribute of forgiveness. “If God’s forgiveness of humans is unconditional, so must their forgiveness. If people demand a condition, it ceases to be a pardon and becomes a peace agreement, subject to being broken. People stop evolving, growing, they are stuck in time, suffering for things from the past that they cannot resolve. Forgiving is not forgetting; it is remembering without feeling pain and reconciling with the challenges. Forgiving and forgetting are completely different: forgiveness has this ability to prevent a mistake, a hurt or an offense from not influencing relationship with the person. If that act against people still influences their life, it happens because there was no real forgiveness.
Those who do not express the majesty of divine love can be defined as sinful people. This is the breadth of love in people lives, which constitutes the guiding element of all their attitudes and choices. If love does not fit into some decision one intend to make, it should not appear as an alternative. Christians are to be known exclusively for love, for their insistence on trying to behave like the blessed Christ, that is, living for love. There is no love of neighbor that excludes eternal values and the Highest himself from the affective equation. Love that is based on iniquity is nothing more than a libertine trick practiced by people who, desirous of escaping their consciences tired by their daily transgressions, seek to dope themselves with spiritual fallacies.
On the other hand, love that does not allow itself to be affected by the suffering of others, that ignores the anguish of the little and fragile, is pure pretender. Humans are exhorted to the practice of love, an experience that is structured simultaneously, vertically, in their relationship with God and horizontally in their daily communion with the other daughters and sons of Adam. Whoever proclaims love to God, but hates the sinner, the suffering, is nothing but a preacher of lies. Thus, Christians should be the source of love, the source of mercy and should forgive without hesitance.
The application of Christian principles must be based on conformity with God’s Teachings. First of all, it is necessary to let go of manifestations of anger, because anger is destructive, and forgiveness has a healing power. Another aspect of victory according to the Scriptures is total trust, that is, forgiveness of others, without fear of becoming vulnerable. “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” – says the Bible. Applicable to the church community, it is necessary to use the principle of forgiveness, trust and patience. Regardless of the relationship between parishioners, mutual respect must reign in society.
God’s Original Definition of Forgiveness
The understanding of forgiveness can be attributed to Jesus Christ teachings on love and mercy. Jesus played the role of preaching and portrayed a picture of what God would want people to do. Forgiving is the fundamental act of the Christian faith, because, through forgiveness, people enter into the eternal life that Jesus promises them. God forgave humans through the work done on the cross by his Son. Forgiveness is the human action of getting rid of a guilt, an offense, a debt. Forgiveness is a mental process aimed at eliminating any resentment, anger, rancor or other negative feelings about a person. Jesus used this comparison when he taught his followers to pray by asking for forgiveness as they forgive those who trespasses against them.
On the contrary, God may determine forgiveness as a command. It imposes conditions on people receiving God’s forgiveness. If someone does not forgive, God will not be merciful to forgive them when they beg him for forgiveness. Even if one has sinned against a brother, they must ask forgiveness from that brother so that the request for forgiveness is granted by God. The one who feels offended, if he does not forgive the one who asks for forgiveness, his sins will not be forgiven either.
The teachings revolve around unconditional forgiving to all human kinds. The Bible clearly dictates that people must always forgive. Jesus said, when asked what people should forgive, he says people should forgive seventy times seven. This number, in Hebrew, means perfection, that is, forgiveness must always happen because, for those who grant forgiveness, this means being clean from guilt and sorrows, sadness and all sorts that do not please God. The reiteration of sins from one brother to another is a fact that must be questioned. If offenses are repeated, forgiveness does not have the power in the presence of God to erase the sin, even if the offender asks for forgiveness, because the reiteration of sin ends with death.
Forgiveness is the tool people need to break chains and shackles, and free themselves from the bonds that hold them to the past. These prisons, sometimes unnoticed, are what prevent people from living a happy and adjusted present with God. Through love people generate forgiveness, and only through forgiveness can they achieve healing from the wounds of the past. Love and forgiveness are two words that go hand in hand, and are involved with mercy “God is love”. This is the most beautiful definition the Bible presents of the character of God. Were it not for his love and mercy, humans would never be forgiven and, as a consequence, they would be lost. The greatest proof of God’s love for humans was to forgive all humans sins through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.
Man’s difficulty in loving and forgiving others makes him need God, who is the source of love and mercy. Those who do not forgive have their hearts smothered by rancor and resentments, and closed to the action of the Holy Spirit. Humans do not deserve God’s forgiveness, but they experience His love, kindness and mercy, when they show Him a heart that is repentant and open to forgive those who have offended them. Forgiving is an irreplaceable and unconditional attribute of God. When people decide not to forgive, they nullify the relationship and communion with their brother, and they stay away from God. Not forgiving is a sin and evidences the absence of love. Without love there is no forgiveness as insisted by Jesus.
Conclusion
In conclusion, forgiving has great value for Christians in daily life. God promised man to forgive him if he accepts Jesus and practice the value of forgiving the neighbors. The more people forgive the more they are forgiven. To forgive means to stop regarding the other with contempt or resentment. It is having compassion, putting aside the whole idea of taking revenge for what was done, or for the consequences people suffered. Forgiveness is essential to people inner well-being, and it becomes an effective witness that humans are children of God, like Him, and like Christ. The basis for the act of forgiving is in the complete and genuine forgiveness they receive from the Father. As He forgave humans, they must continually forgive other people. They should be kind to one another, merciful, forgiving, just as God in Christ forgave his children.
The distortion of God’s love is established as follows: God’s grace is invoked as the guarantor of a life of sin, on the excuse that forgiveness makes people immune to the consequences of our irresponsibility. Being a disciple of Christ requires a heart that turns to God in everything, all the time. Once forgiven, it is people duty to be holy, full of compassion and mercy towards all. The liberating power of asking for forgiveness as a breakthrough experience is a church perspective that opens horizons – in social, ecumenical and interdisciplinary terms. In social terms, confession opens up one of several ways of processing guilt. The church should offer a place of reconciliation for the individual, who no longer has to be left alone with his guilt.
Bibliography
Carter, Tim. The Forgiveness of Sins. Cambridge, UK: The Lutterworth Press, 2016.
Cheon, Robert K., and Frederick A. DiBlasio. “Christ-like Love and Forgiveness: A Biblical Foundation for Counseling Practice.” Journal of Psychology & Christianity 26, no. 1 (2007): 14-25.
Cook, Jerry O, and Stanley C Baldwin. Love, Acceptance, And Forgiveness: Being Christian in A Non-Christian World. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2009.
Coutts, Jon, and John Webster. A Shared Mercy: Karl Barth on Forgiveness and The Church. Downers, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016.
Escher, Daniel. “How Does Religion Promote Forgiveness? Linking Beliefs, Orientations, And Practices”. Journal For the Scientific Study of Religion vol. 52, no. 1 (2013): 100-119.
Evans, Matthew. “A Future Without Forgiveness: Beyond Reconciliation in Transitional Justice”. International Politics vol. 55, no. 5 (2017): 678-692.
Griswold, Charles L, and David Konstan. Ancient Forgiveness. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Hägerland, Tobias. Jesus And the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Hepburn, Allan. “The World My Wilderness and the Possibility of Forgiveness: War, Guilt, Atonement.” English Studies 103, no. 2 (2022): 297-316.
Huber, S., M. Allemand, and O. W. Huber. “Forgiveness By God and Human Forgivingness: The Centrality of The Religiosity Makes the Difference”. Archive For the Psychology of Religion vol. 33, no. 1 (2011): 115-134.
Jamieson, Philip D. The Face of Forgiveness: A Pastoral Theology of Shame and Redemption. Downers, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016.
Jones, L. Gregory, and Célestin Musekura. Forgiving As We’ve Been Forgiven: Community Practices for Making Peace. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010.
Johnson, James Turner. “‘Harsh Love’ and Forgiveness.” Studies in Christian Ethics vol. 28, no. 3, 2015: 266–72.
Ledgerwood, Elaine C. “The Hope of Forgiveness.” Compass 47, no. 1: 14-20, Web.
Möller, Francois P. “Forgiveness: A Christocentric Perspective”. In Luce Verbi vol. 49, no. 1 (2015): 1-9.
Richstatter, Thomas. “Forgiveness in our Church Today: Key to Healing.” Catholic Update (04, 2003): 1, Web.
Rutledge, Jonathan Curtis. Forgiveness and Atonement: Christ’s Restorative Sacrifice. Routledge, 2022.
Strabbing, Jada T. “Divine Forgiveness and Reconciliation”. Faith And Philosophy vol. 34, no.3 (2017): 272-297.
Terry, Justyn. “The Forgiveness of Sins and The Work of Christ: A Case for Substitutionary Atonement”. Anglican Theological Review vol. 95, no. 1 (2013): 9-24.
Torrance, Alan J. “Forgiveness and Christian Character: Reconciliation, Exemplarism and The Shape of Moral Theology”. Studies In Christian Ethics. vol. 30, no. 3 (2017): 293-313.
Worthington Jr, Everett L. A Just Forgiveness: Responsible Healing Without Excusing Injustice. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014.
The ability to forgive one’s own faults has never been valued on par with forgiveness towards the others’ failures, which is rather unfortunate, as the recent research shows.
According to the article titled “Self-Forgiveness: The Stepchild of Forgiveness Research” conducted by Julie H. Hall and Frank D. Fincham, people’s attitude towards the others is in most cases defined by their standards for their own behavior and personality.
In their paper, the authors explain the link between forgiveness and self-forgiveness, as well as define various offence-related factors. It is important to stress that the researches of that kind have never been undertaken on a scholarly scale before, since the issue in question has never been considered worthy of a scholarly research.
However, Hall and Fincham have successfully proved the opposite. The key issues that the given research responds to or, at least, attempts to solve, are the definition of self-forgiveness, the relation between self-forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness, and the means to differentiate between self-forgiveness and pseudo self-forgiveness.
As for the results of the research, it must be admitted that the latter proved rather unexpected. It turned out that the forgiveness of others is closely related to self-forgiveness; moreover, the latter often predetermines the former.
In addition, the authors have come up with a model of self-forgiveness that encompasses the stages of the forgiveness process, explaining the specifics of human behavior in the process of forgiving.
According to the authors, self-forgiving people tend to compromise in the process of conflict solving, as well as admit that they are guilty, in most cases. Hence, it can и concluded that self-forgiveness defines forgiveness.
The issue seems to be beyond exciting. Even though the idea that forgiveness stems from the ability to forgive one’s own faults is not quite new, the research offers a new vision of the problem. Hence, it seems that the paper by Hall and Fincham provides a foil for the further research.
In addition, the paper raises a number of questions that are yet to be answered. For instance, Hall and Fincham claim that at present, there are no measures for forgiveness, which makes the assessment process rather complicated according to the results of Hall and Fincham’s research (Hall & Fincham, 2005, 635).
Moreover, the paper by Hall and Fincham raises a number of questions concerning people’s standards and the necessity to follow them. For example, the fact that forgiveness stems from self-forgiveness presupposes that one should have certain standards to evaluate his/her own behavior.
Projecting these standards on others, people often forget that not only the rest of the humankind, but they as well cannot live up to high standards all the time; hence stem a number of misunderstandings and misconceptions. The research results also give a lot of food for thoughts.
It was more than obvious that the way in which people assess the others’ actions and decide whether the other people deserve being forgiven are much more complicated than the idea of relationship between forgiveness and self-forgiveness.
Hence, the fact that Hall and Fincham came with the description of relationship-level factors and personality-level factors is quite important. In addition, the two aforementioned factors remind of the gap between an individual and the society.
Hence, it can be considered that self-forgiveness and, therefore, forgiveness is predetermined not only by the specifics of one’s temper, but also by the moods and morals of the society that an individual lives in.
Like any other idea, the theory concerning forgiveness and self-forgiveness needs a thorough practical testing. To consider Hall and Fincham’s assumptions closer, it will be a good idea to use the theories suggested by the authors in the counseling setting.
For instance, the following case can be a good example of how Hall and Fincham’s ideas of forgiveness and self-forgiveness should be applied. Supposing, in counseling setting, a client has asked me as a clinician for help. After a short session, it has turned out that the client, Mr. Brown, has issues with forgiving.
However, he has not considered the given feature a flaw until recently. To be more particular, Mr. Brown has constant conflicts with his stepson, whom he is still blaming for failing at the tests and not going for higher education.
In the course of the therapy session, it became obvious that Mr. Brown has very high standards, and not everyone in the neighborhood can live up to them. To make the situation even more complicated, Mr. Brown confessed that even he could not live up to these standards all the time, which makes him feel extremely guilty.
As a result, not only he, but also the people who live with him suffer. To solve the given situation, it will be necessary to make Mr. Brown realize the inevitability of making mistakes, as well as the importance of being able to admit that he has the right to make these mistakes.
Reference List
Hall, J. & Fincham, F. (2005). Self-forgiveness: The stepchild of forgiveness research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(5), 621-637.
Spouses go through different challenges, which might degenerate into abuse in some cases. Women form the highest percentage of victims of spousal abuse. According to Reed and Enright (2006), around 35% of women in marriage or romantic relationships report being abused by their husbands or partners. Reed and Enright (2006) carried out an empirical study to determine “the effects of forgiveness therapy on depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress for women after spousal emotional abuse” (p. 920). The researchers hypothesized that the victims of abuse undergoing forgiveness therapy recover and forgive their abusers faster as compared to their counterparts taking alternative treatment. The researchers used the interview methodology by enlisting 20 participants, who were victims of spousal abuse. The design used was a “matched, yoked, and randomized experimental and control group” (Reed & Enright, 2006, p. 922). After gathering the relevant data, the researchers compared the recovery of the participants to their controls to determine the effects of forgiveness therapy. The results indicated that victims of spousal abuse undergoing forgiveness therapy healed faster as compared to their counterparts using alternative therapy. This trend was attributed to the view that forgiveness therapy focuses on the abuser as opposed to other forms of therapies that dwell on giving the victims a room to express their anger and frustrations without tacking the cause of their woes.
Therefore, the conclusion formed is that the female victim of abuse should be taken through forgiveness therapy in a bid to recover from the debilitating effects of such an occurrence. In the long-term, this therapy plays an important role in allowing the victims to forgive their abusers, which is the ultimate healing stage of the process.
Reflection
Initially, I did not appreciate the contribution of this article to the healing process of spousal abuse. I thought that alternative therapies are better than forgiveness therapy because they focus on the victim. After all, the last thing that a victim of abuse would want to do is to remember her abuser. However, after reading through this article, I appreciate the view that alternative therapies deal with symptoms without addressing the cause of suffering. This article presents a unique approach to dealing with spousal abuse. Forgiveness therapy allows the victim to focus on the abuser. I realize that by not focusing on the abuser, the victim will always have a relapse into bitterness and other psychological sufferings. However, by forgiving the abuser, the victim can embrace the healing process. In most cases, the victims of spousal abuse feel betrayed and this feeling evokes bitterness and the urge to revenge. However, by forgiving the abuser, the victim approaches the issue pragmatically by focusing on the important aspects of life like regaining self-confidence and moving on with life.
I am particularly interested in this topic because the number of spousal abuse cases is on the increase. Unfortunately, the empirical evidence to back up these claims is lacking because social researchers have not focused on the issue conclusively. Therefore, in a bid to understand this topic better, I will read all the available literature on spousal abuse, the coping mechanisms, and the ultimate way out of this social ill. I believe in preventive approaches to social vices, and thus I will focus on ways that spouses can be sensitized in a bid to prevent spousal abuse.
Application
Scenario: Daisy has visited the pastor’s office in our church, and as the pastor in charge, I have to address her issues. She has been separated from her husband for 2 years after their marriage of 10 years failed. She is depressed. In addition, she has lost her self-worth because she feels that her husband used and dumped her. The following dialogue ensues:
Pastor: Hello Daisy
Daisy: (She does not say anything, but she keeps on fidgeting on her seat)
P: You look very uncomfortable, Daisy
D: I simply feel bad, I feel used, I feel useless, how could he?
P: I know how it feels; I once separated from my wife of 4 years
D: What’s more, he has moved on and married another woman
P: And you have been unable to let go and move on
D: Yes, I just can’t
P: Why not
D: This man just used and dumped me, I feel wasted, I hate him, and I will never forgive him, not in this lifetime
P: That’s where the problem lies. You do not forgive people because they need it, but because you want it for your healing. The healing process can only start after forging Steve and letting go. According to a recent study conducted on the effects of forgiveness therapy on people in your situation, victims of abuse heal faster, regain their self-worth, and move on with their lives after forgiving their abusers.
D: That makes sense. Why do I even keep on thinking about him yet he moved on
P: It’s because you have not forgiven him. All you need to do is forgive him, but you may need professional help. I recommend that you enroll in forgiveness therapy for professional help
D: I can do that; I just need to move on with my life
P: Thank you for opening up and the willingness to receive help
D: Thank you pastor for opening my mind.
Reference
Reed, G., & Enright, R. (2006). The effects of forgiveness therapy on depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress for women after spousal emotional abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(5), 920–929.
The article explores various aspects of forgiveness on the victims of unfair or inconsiderate acts. The article discloses that forgiveness is vital for the psychological well-being. Once a victim deals with the resentment, he/she can progress on in life. However, most victims are unwilling to open up and forgive.
As such, they project their resentment as anger towards other people in their lives. Thus, many victims who are unwilling to forgive have difficulties creating lasting relationships in their lives. Forgiving is a process which requires a cautious approach.
The specialists assisting victims should facilitate the process by assuming a cautious approach, which will enable their victims express their feelings at their own convenience. Examples provided reveal that forgiveness is a psychological remedy for some of the emotional strains that victims of offensive acts encounter.
The article investigates various clinical methods that would assist people in the process of forgiving their offenders. Initials research had unearthed three methods (Baskin & Enright, 2004).
The three methods differed in the way in which they undertook counselling. The differences were procedural and in terms of the design. The first and the second model were procedural. Nonetheless, the third was straightforward and required the victim to write-down his/ her frustrations.
There are varieties of models, which seek to analyze forgiveness, but they also differ on certain philosophical basis. The philosophical variations in the intervention mean that they also differ in the manner they undertake counselling.
Consequently, the processes have different results owing to the way in which they handle victims. The article culminates in a study, which seeks to evaluate if the methods of intervening can be classified into one category. This is established by utilizing data from subjects on forgiveness (Baskin & Enright, 2004).
Interaction with the article
According to the article, forgiveness is critical if an individual is to fight resentment that arose from being hurt. Forgiveness is a process. It allows the hurt individual to review his/her feelings with regard to the offender. Consequently, the person can choose to forgive or not. The research into forgiveness is exceedingly systematic.
The methodologies utilized are adequate and provide insight to human psychological tendencies. The study of interventions reveals disparity in forgiveness patterns among the subjects. This is because people are different in character and many other aspects.
The disparity in character emanates from differences in upbringing and the values an individual cherishes. Some people are more willing to forgive while others are adamant. These variations in personality can account for the variation in forgiveness patterns.
The researchers have attempted to curtail these variations by choosing subjects that fit within certain constrains.
The factors considered in choosing the subjects could be age or the nature of traumatic events, which caused resentment. However, some of the studies failed to consider such factors (Baskin & Enright, 2004).
Forgiveness is bound to vary among people of different age groups and gender. Children are more willing to forgive owing to innocence and inexperience in matters pertaining to life. Women are more forgiving than their male compatriots are.
Nevertheless, they do not forget easily. The studies seem to overlook such factors. The forgiveness pattern revealed in the research undertaken will be largely applicable to a certain group that have experienced traumatic events of a certain nature. Forgiveness is a subjective matter.
Hence, most of the details that emerge form this research may be irrelevant in many scenarios. Every victim should be approached in a unique manner.
The psychologist should first develop a rapport with the victim. Based on the initial interaction, the psychologist should form an opinion on the approach to adopt (Baskin & Enright, 2004).
Application of the information in the article
The article provides insight into the importance of forgiveness. Many people suffer from psychological strain owing to resentment. Forgiveness provides a platform to address various emotions. The article highlights that allowing the victim to reveal the emotional pain they are experiencing is key to forgiveness.
In the church, members come to the pastor with a variety of social and psychological issues. The issues may entail depression, stress and substance abuse. The first step the pastor should undertake is to sympathise with the victims. Subsequently, the pastor or counsellor should set up meetings.
The pastor should encourage the victims to undertake counselling. However, the pastor should be satisfied with the victims’ willingness to undertake therapy.
The pastor should be a facilitator only providing guidance to the victims. This will ensure that the victim takes some charge in the process. The victim should participate actively in the process.
When the victims participate actively, he/she understands why it is imperative to undertake counselling. Initially, most victims are unwilling to open up in detail with regard to what triggered their problem, which could be grief, depression, abuse or drug use.
At this juncture, the pastor should assist the victims to come into reality with their emotional or psychological status. Most of the victims normally deny existence of such problems, yet there are symptoms indicating its existence.
Once the victim admits, the pastor should then focus on the healing process, which may involve forgiveness, or speaking to the offenders.
References
Baskin, T. & Enright, R. (2004). Interventions studies on forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counselling & Development, 82, 79-82.
Forgiveness is a virtue that people need to have to maintain peace in the world. At one point or another, people will come face to face with occasions when other people wrong them. If we allow anger and revenge to cloud our judgment, we will end up fighting all the time. Shedding blood will be the order of the day. People will hold grudge against each other, and unity among members of a community will be jeopardized. In this regard, people have to learn to forgive each other. However, the Amish people have a different way of forgiving those who wrong them.
Usually, people who have been wronged will pour out their anger on those who offend them immediately the mistake has been done. After some time, the insulted people will slowly come to terms with reality and then forgive their enemies. For the Amish people, this is not the case. First, they forgive a, nd then go through the emotional process of accepting the truth. It is important to note that the immediate forgiveness of the enemy does not mean that the Amish will let the perpetrators of crime go free. No, they will still like to see people held responsible for their actions.
I should state here that I agree with the Amish mode of forgiveness. To begin with, the Bible teaches people to integrate forgiveness into our lives. We should forgive our enemies even before they offend us. On the same note, the Bible insists that one should forgive his or her enemies countlessly and unconditionally. When one of them was sprayed with bullets and murdered, the Amish people declared their forgiveness even before the end of the day. This can be interpreted to mean that they had already forgiven the perpetrator even before he executed his heinous deeds. Similarly, by making forgiveness a routine as the Amish people have done, one can let go even the crimes that other people find difficult to forget. Ordinarily, people have categorized crimes into various groups, and there are those groups that people do not forgive easily if they do at all.
Moreover, the Amish philosophy of forgiveness requires that one should forgive first and then go through the emotional process of coming to terms with what happened. Forgiveness does not just entail the physical process but also presents the emotional and psychological processes of healing. If the mind has not let go of the issues that happened, one will always remember the perpetrator in the wrong way, and this will deter the emotional process. On the other hand, if the mind lets go of the events that took place, then the emotional healing becomes easier. Consequently, the way the Amish people forgive those who wrong them ensures that they do not suffer emotionally for long. Holding onto what one considers as bad events will elongate the process of forgiveness and reconciliation.
Other people will argue that the person who is on the wrong way should ask for forgiveness. But let us think for a second, does it mean that one has to ask for forgiveness? If we allow ourselves to follow this route, then our forgiveness will be conditional, and this will be against the fundamental essence of forgiveness. Forgiveness has all to do with the offended person and minimal to do with the perpetrator of the wrongful act. As a result, the person who is wronged is the one to decide when to initiate the forgiveness process. The sooner the process is initiated, the easier it will be. The Amish people forgive those who wrong them immediately, and this eases the process for them.
Additionally, forgiveness frees one’s mind and reduces psychological torment that one could go through if he or she keeps the grudge. As long as one has not forgiven a person who insulted him or her, the issue will keep on lingering in his or her mind causing discomfort. On the same note, keeping grudges for whatever time brings about enmity in the community. Moreover, our happiness depends on how and when we want to be happy. Supporting this idea reduces our chances of being a happy while, at the same time, increasing hatred and bitterness in our hearts. In this regard, the Amish people choose to free their minds as soon as possible. They also choose to be happy in their souls rather than holding onto a grudge. Even when they are grieved, they let go what they can and deal with what remains. Happiness is a personal initiative, and they choose to have it.
Forgiveness should be a habit. Making it conditional will mean that there are occasions when we do not have to forgive. It is within our capacity to forgive or not to forgive, and this will affect our relationship with others. Unless we learn to forgive unconditionally, the revenge will be the order of the day. Nonetheless, the Amish people have a philosophy of forgiving before they are asked, and this makes them happy.
Self forgiveness can be defined as the state of being at peace or of goodwill to the self and free from self hatred and loath resulting from hurting another. Psychology literature however defines self-forgiveness as “a willingness to abandon self–resentment in the face of one’s own acknowledged objective wrong, while fostering compassion, generosity, and love toward oneself.” (Julie, 2005). Self-forgiveness is normally achieved through stages. The first stage has the individual going through an uncovering phase. The second stage is decision phase which is then followed with the work phase and finally the outcome phase.
Interpersonal forgiveness can be defined as a process where one tends to replace destructive responses with constructive behavior. In both, reproach is directed towards the offender. The set of forgiveness share a lot of common grounds and differences. The similarities include the fact that they both take time to be achieved and both include forgiveness of actions that one do not deserve to be forgiven but they are forgiven nonetheless.
These two types of forgiveness also differ in regard to reconciliation. Interpersonal forgiveness does not regard reconciliation with the offender while the self-forgiveness reconciliation with the self is necessary Julie (2005). Considering this, it can be concluded that self reconciliation occurs through self-forgiveness meaning that the impacts of not forgiving the self typically will be worse than interpersonal forgiveness. Other than the similarities and the differences, the two types of forgiveness relate to each other as self-forgiveness facilitates interpersonal forgiveness, this is through allowance of one to identify with one’s offender. Self-forgiveness comes before interpersonal forgiveness since one cannot forgive others if they cannot forgive themselves (James, 2001).
Self-forgiveness can be viewed in two ways in regard to injury. One may forgive one’s self for an injury to self or injury to another person. The two are however related since in the pursuit to injure the other, one injures one-self. This then prompts the forgiveness of oneself. It is however important to reiterate that the forgiveness of self in this case is to the injury caused to the other but not the injury caused to the self as one cannot forgive one for hurting oneself.
To achieve true self-forgiveness however, one must acknowledge that his or her behavior was wrong and then accept responsibility of the behavior perceived as wrong. Pseudo-self forgiveness occurs when one refuses to acknowledge responsibility of a wrong doing, in such case, one may indicate that they have forgiven themselves but then do not believe that they did any wrongdoing, this leads to the form of forgiveness termed pseudo-forgiveness. Whether self-forgiveness is always appropriate is much of a debate since a lot depends on the situation. (James, 2001)
Guilt plays a major role in the emotional determinants of self-forgiveness. The feeling of remorse and empathy towards the victim and acting in a reconciliatory manner may help the transgressor forgiven them. Shame focuses on the self while guilt focuses on the action of the self; this makes the relationship between guilt and self-forgiveness less strong as that between shame and self-forgiveness. Socially, one is more likely to be stable while interacting with the external environment after having self-forgiveness than without self forgiveness. Offenders who seek self forgiveness are more likely to seek forgiveness from the offended than the offenders who do not seek self forgiveness. Factors that play a role in self forgiveness can be summarized as the following:
Conciliatory behavior
Perceived Forgiveness from Victim or Higher Power
Severity of the Offense
It is however important to note that the above factors do not form all the determinants of self forgiveness and that there are other factors that may influence self forgiveness. Therefore, it is critical for one to identify appropriate methods of measuring self forgiveness.
In a wrap up, self forgiveness is as important as is interpersonal forgiveness and should as such be accorded equal attention in terms of literature and research.
Interact
The article has a lot of insights in regard to self-forgiveness. It is interesting how comprehensive the research was conducted and the extent of reference and consultation that took place in the writing of the article. The article talks about self forgiveness at length and thus my interest in reading it. The research methodology involved in the acquisition of facts that are presented in this article provides the reader with a well faceted view of the topic in concern; self forgiveness.
It has well researched definition and comparisons between other forms of forgiveness and self forgiveness. The most interesting comparison is that between self forgiveness and interpersonal forgiveness. Interpersonal forgiveness has recently formed the major pivot of discussion and literature. A lot of literature has been dedicated towards interpersonal forgiveness at the expense of self forgiveness (James, 2001). This has led to neglect in research insofar as self forgiveness is concerned.
The article has also focused on the emotional aspect of self forgiveness with major spotlight on guilt and shame. It is interesting how the article links these two and also isolates them from one another. It was equally interesting to find out that shame is closer to self forgiveness than guilt is. This has opened a whole new angle of research as I was holding a contrary view prior to the reading of this article. The article has inculcated in me the interest to read more related articles especially on shame, guilt and self forgiveness in order of acquire more insight on the relationship of these three(Julie, 2005).
Application
While counseling a spouse who has engaged in infidelity, there are questions that are likely to influence the counseling session. The questions include whether or not the aggressor, in this case the spouse who engaged in infidelity, is ready or not to accept that he or she engaged in the same. If he or she has refused to accept it, the session will then focus on having them appreciate the importance of accepting a wrong doing in order to initiate progress. If they have already accepted having engaged in infidelity, then the session will focus on achieving self forgiveness for the offence.
The spouse should seek redress from the other spouse by informing them on about the infidelity and asking for forgiveness. This will facilitate the process of dealing with the guilt. Achievement of true forgiveness will begin with the spouse accepting that they had engaged in infidelity. This is important in dealing with the shame that comes with memory of the act. If the spouse is willing to interact, he or she will be asked to come with the other spouse for a joint session where the other spouse will be given an opportunity to express their view on the matter. At this point, reconciliation will be achieved.
References
James, W. (2001). Psychology: The briefer Course. New York: Courier Dover Publications.
Julie, H & Frank, F. (2005). Self-forgiveness: The step child of forgiveness research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 621-637.
It is sixty-eight years since the end of the Second World War. As the younger generation, we are lucky to learn this dark history from books, mass media, or our grandparents but for those who experienced Second World War in person, besides endless nightmares of chaos, disease, and hunger, some of them needed to face the moral sanctions and condemnations for what they did to others, or what others did to them, even after the war had ended.
In his book The Sunflower, whether Simon Wiesenthal should have forgiven the SS soldier, Karl, who was confessing on his deathbed, seemed to have become a question, which troubled Simon in his life. In this case, forgiveness from Wiesenthal not only relieves the soldier of his sense of guilt and regret but most importantly, it can also bring Simon Wiesenthal peace of mind.
First, we have to understand the reasons why Simon chose not to forgive. The first reason that comes to mind is “hatred.” What did hatred bring him? It drove him to take revenge towards the Nazis and made him the foremost Nazi hunter, but the price he paid was that he never got peace of mind. It is not difficult to understand why Simon rejected the soldier’s request to be forgiven. Simon was a normal person living a happy life and had a bright future ahead of him, but these were all taken from him when he was suddenly sent to the camps under horrible living and working conditions.
I believe that if anyone had gone through all the pain and horror that Simon had, and was asked to forgive Karl, the instinct, and most humane reaction at that moment would be to strongly decline the request without second thoughts, just as Simon did. Consider what the Nazis did to the Jews, detaining them in concentration camps, torturing, persecuting, and murdering approximately six million Jews.
He could not relieve himself of the terrible things he had experienced and questioned himself whether his silence at the bedside of the dying Nazi was justified. He was confused by his hatred and guilt for not forgiving Karl. If his mind was filled with negative thoughts and feelings, how could he have been happy? Consider Prince Hamlet, who dedicated his entire life to revenge, but did he get peace in his whole life? Was he satisfied with himself in the end? The answer is no.
If Simon had forgiven the soldier, perhaps he could have released the hatred in his heart, slowly, if not at once. He would have woken up from the nightmare that had haunted him for so long, and he could have lived happily in tranquility after all this chaos. Just as Mark Twain says, “Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet sheds on the heel that crushed it.” What had been done was done, and could not be undone, then why not live our best at present? When the dying man who had killed hundreds finally confessed and eagerly waited to be forgiven, what could be crueler than denying his final wish, and sending him to his grave with remorse? Why not let it go, at least so that the old man could have died in peace.
Simon might have thought the soldier was too evil to be forgiven and believed that most people would agree with his argument since everyone pitied the victims of the Holocaust but forgiveness means forgetting the past. Fundamentally, the Nazis’ extensive brainwashing and the evil social and political environment at that time had caused the tragedy. To be specific, Nazi was an official ideology, which had wiped people of their basic moral values, intelligence, and kindness. Without intellectualism, most of the Germans did not distinguish between good and evil and lived without empathy or kindness. Simon and everyone else who had experienced the terror could forgive the Nazis but go on remembering them as people who created permanent scars in their lives.
He could forgive the Nazis to prove to be moral and calm his own heart, although he did not. Karl truly regrets what he had done. However, if we had been in Germany during World War II, not as Jews, we would probably have forgotten our moral values and hurt some innocent Jews without self-consciousness due to political pressure. Moreover, SS soldiers were like Karl, they were not born to kill they should not have been fully responsible for their murder; it was not all their fault hence Karl was not that evil and was worth having been forgiven.
As a Buddhist follower, I learned the saying that we should always have compassion for others and even act nicely towards the person who hurts us. The same saying is also in the Holy Bible and Karma has made me believe that forgiving Karl would have been a better choice. Forgiveness can be good for both sides but forgetting is never because it is a form of denial and only recognition of guilt by both sides can begin to prevent a repetition of heinous deeds and so forgiving a person or a group means you can forget the atrocities. There is nothing we can do about the past, but we still have the chance to make ourselves and others feel better at present, as well as in the future.