On Forgiveness

Forgiveness is a difficult thing for all of us to extend when we have been hurt, especially by people or deities who should know better.

I think part of the conflict is that we've conflated forgiveness and restoration into a single act; i.e., "If you've forgiven me, why am I still in the doghouse?" It's like when Bill Clinton apologized for his adultery, his denials and obfuscations and then his perjury. "I said I was sorry. Why are we still dealing with this?" Because while forgiveness may be extended and received, there is still an aftermath to the offense that includes damaged trust among the other more obvious consequences of the offense.

Even God's forgiveness is like this. He may have forgiven David for having Uriah set up to be killed, but consequences lingered. Joab had a hold over the king that helped lead one day to civil war.

Forgiveness can, and perhaps should, take place in an instant. But restoration can take years of someone demonstrating to the other person that they can be trusted with the power, authority and position they once had. I don't doubt that Swaggart received God's forgiveness for his scandal back in 1987, or that Haggard could receive forgiveness for his escapades and scandal, but I think in both cases their advisers/supervisors were right to say "It's time for you to step down from this ministry."

All that said, I think there is a power in real forgiveness (as opposed to just "letting go," which is often a means of avoidance) since christocentric forgiveness involves restoring a relationship that has been sundered. But that's also a forgiveness that can't be done in a vacuum, by yourself. It requires talking to the person who needs to be forgiven, and explaining why what they did was so fucking painful, so they can actually appreciate for themselves what they have done.

Of course, that's really easy to say, but it's much harder to accomplish. I've had some really good conversations with Natasha in the past where I was able to explain just how badly she had hurt me and why I didn't want it to stay there ... and I've had conversations with pastors, former co-congregants, friends and even a mother who just could not understand what I was on about, no matter how I explained it.

In the former scenario, it's wonderful; you have salvaged a relationship that otherwise might have been dealt a fatal blow. In the latter, you at least have made the effort, taken the lead toward reconciliation, and can have a clean conscience that you have extended a true olive branch to someone else.

What I can say is that I have found Christ to be in that effort of reconciliation. In reaching out to people who have wronged me, I have found forgiveness myself for resentment I hadn't realized I was harboring; I've found the mystic communion with Christ that comes when two people make peace; and I've also known his suffering, since he often has extended forgiveness to people like me who rebuff him because they just don't see why they need it.


Copyright © 2009 by David Learn. Used with permission.


Tweet

david learn on camille paglia on hillary clinton

So a friend of mine asked me to read a column on Salon by Camille Paglia, about Hillary Clinton.

How does something that harsh and acidic warrant publication? It makes a bunch of assertions, fails to back any of them up, either with a pertinent comment from someone familiar with the situation or at least from some professional who can say "This is characteristic of blah blah blah situation"; and comes so laden with caustic language it was an effort to read it through to the end. Clinton's supporters aren't committed to her election effort, they're "mostly of adoring women, with nerdy or geeky guys forming an adjunct brain trust." She's not allowed to find football a ho-hum boring affair, no, somehow it's worthy of mentioning 20 years later that she had the unmitigated gall to read a book during a football game. (Ruddy resourceful of her, if you ask me. Wish I had thought to bring a book when I got conned into attending a college game. Our host spent two-thirds of the game somewhere else, and I nearly went into a coma from boredom watching a group of geology majors running up and down the field.)

My favorite irony: While Paglia with some justification castigates Clinton for her contributions to the sharp tone of the political debate the last 20 years, she seems oblivious to just how inexcusably sharp her own column is. If she really thinks Obama is setting a good example of how we should be, then she should follow his lead.

Here's a shocking possibility: Maybe she just doesn't like Clinton. I've met or covered plenty of politicians I found I just didn't care for as people, and I've known from personal experience (both sides of it) that if that dislike is intense enough, it becomes impossible to be fair, reasonable or objective about what they do. You've seen and commented on this yourself. Sometimes people have hated President Bush so intensely that he could end hunger worldwide and they would be up in arms for his impeachment because it relied too much on healthy food and didn't allow enough for chocolate and cola.

Given the extreme and visceral reaction Paglia has to Clinton, I'm unconvinced that there's anything going on here more sophisticated than old-fashioned hatred.

I don't see how this is printworthy. I'd send it back to Paglia and tell her to back up her claims and tone down the vitriol. Opinion or not, it has to be reasoned and reasonable.

hillary clinton and sexism

Interesting and thought-provoking piece. I do agree, wholeheartedly, that much of the anger and "humor" generated by Sen. Clinton's candidacy is due to her being a woman rather than to the positions she's staked out. I'm still annoyed at McCain over his pass on "How do we stop that b****?" question, and I get annoyed by the double standard she's held to on the matter of "too masculine, but not feminine enough." Some of the other things the writer mentioned angered me further: the nutcracker for one. It's a reminder of how far we have to go in this country, for all the progress we have made and are still making.

I also wonder why it's OK to refer to "Hillary" and "Barack," but not to "John," "Mitt" or "Mike."

I have to add, given the results of Super Tuesday, that I am stunned to find that this November -- for the first time in memory -- I probably will not be able to use my favorite line, "If God had meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates." Whether it's Clinton vs. McCain, or Obama vs. McCain, I'm actually going to be able to vote without holding my nose for once, and I'll be fairly well content no matter which one wins.

But I still hope it's Obama.