The Contract of Forgiveness

There are two sides to the coin of forgiveness summed up in the phrases “I’m sorry” and “I forgive you.”

“I’m Sorry”

The depth beneath these two words is immense. Saying these words at the surface means accepting that something you did or said caused another pain. From there we need to look at the intent of the one offering the apology. Do they believe what they did was actually wrong or are they simply sorry that they caused another pain? Perhaps it doesn’t matter as long as the regret for the pain of another is actually heartfelt. I do not plan to even bother with the “sorry” offered under duress or without actual apologetic intent. There is too much to unpack here without diving into petty nuance.

If we assume heartfelt intent for the apology we should be able to move on to what happens next in the contract of forgiveness. In this picture we are painting there are two parties and you are probably identifying with one or both sides already. It’s fair to say that at some point everyone falls on each side of this contract. For simplicity and clarity let’s name each side. The “aggressor” and the “recipient.“ Naming is difficult and imbues so much subtext that these may not be the best names. Let’s stay away from labels like “victim” given the baggage that comes along with that term. Aggressor may seem harsh. It sounds a bit harsh but let’s be clear that the “aggression” is not necessarily intentional. If the recipient is hurt then the source of that pain is aggressive whether it was intentional or not. Now that is established and we can look at each side.

The Aggressor

We have all at some point caused another pain. The question here is, what is the responsibility of the aggressor? Given the loose scenario already defined the apology is a given. The aggressor offers the apology. What’s next? This is where things get tricky, dangerous, and potentially manipulative. Let’s give credit to the internal work of the aggressor in acknowledging their wrongdoing and being bold enough to apologize. Again, what comes next?

Often times the aggressor immediately shifts the responsibility within the interaction to the recipient. From their perspective they have recognized and own their wrongdoing. They have done the work to apologize. Now they either desire or feel that they are owed forgiveness.

There is nothing wrong with desiring forgiveness. We all wish to be absolved of our wrongdoing. The dangerous part here is where the aggressor acknowledges the power of the situation. Have they surrendered the power over to the needs and the control of the recipient or do they hold onto the power by expecting forgiveness? Failing to surrender the power of the situation does nothing but pile more pain and stress onto the shoulders of the recipient. It’s an additional injury that deserves another apology. Step back and look at the situation from the outside. The aggressor hurts the innocent recipient who is now forced to work through pain they did not bring on themselves. If the aggressor now apologizes and expects forgiveness they are piling on stress for the recipient in not only dealing with the original pain but also now having to work through that pain to achieve forgiveness. This often happens in a very short amount of time and fails to offer the recipient of the wrongdoing the support and space they need to work through the pain. There is no grace offered. There is no empathy and surrender only selfishness and expectation on the part of the aggressor. They wrestle for control of the situation. They are piling on the pain.

There is another aspect of the aggressor that needs to be looked at. It can follow the expectation of forgiveness but it doesn’t need to. Another aspect of what comes next in the contract of forgiveness should be reconciliation. For this we still need to look to the aggressor. They have caused pain by hurting someone. What are they going to do about it? We have looked at some aspects of the apology. Not all. There is too much to cover everything. They can’t “fix” the situation. This is another trap of control that an aggressor often falls into. They want to make everything okay and they simply can’t. We can look at the other side of this when we explore the recipient. The aggressor can’t fix the situation. They obviously can’t roll back the clock but they have offered a heartfelt apology and accepted their wrongdoing, what then? This is where the aggressor can fall on the side of apathy or reconciliation.

If the aggressor thinks that their only responsibility in the contract of forgiveness is to apologize then their work stops there. They either relinquish control giving the recipient the space they need or they apply the pressure expecting forgiveness in the short or even the long term. This is the side of apathy. The aggressor considers their work done in offering the apology.

The next, best step forward is to seek reconciliation. The aggressor needs to continue the work toward reconciliation as directed by the recipient. That last part is important. The recipient is given control to direct the method of reconciliation. This can come in many forms and should not be confused with “fixing” the situation. Reconciliation is a surrender to the needs of the recipient to do the work to “make things right” or as “right” as they can be. This may mean a lot of work by the aggressor to change and show progress around the aspect of the hurt and to sacrifice themselves to do work for the good of the recipient. It may also mean that they need to walk away and disconnect from the recipient forever. It may mean that they need to disconnect for a period of time until the recipient can work out how and if reconciliation is even possible. The point is that the aggressor needs to seek the needs of the recipient in the situation and honor them with sacrifice, respect, and surrender.

“I forgive you”

The purpose of these words are often misunderstood. It is probably also fair to say that these words are sometimes used too early or applied to a situation with misguided intent and for the wrong reasons. There is also the complete lack of this part of the contract that can be so painful. From that perspective perhaps contract is a misguided term. Ironically forgiveness is not a requirement to fulfill the contract of forgiveness.

The Recipient

We have all been hurt. We have to work through the pain inflicted upon us by another and find our way to the other side. No matter how small the slight this is never easy. Through practice one can get better at it and solidify a process within themselves that helps them navigate through the negative emotions and land solidly and with confidence on the other side. The tricky part is that each interaction comes with its own nuance that changes the emotions one has to navigate. Perhaps the slight is a horrific insult from a stranger on the street you will never see again which you can shrug off easily. Then again perhaps it is a small, passive aggressive comment from the one you love that requires confrontation and conversation to resolve to a satisfying conclusion over the course of days, weeks, or even longer. Maybe it’s a horrific violation that takes years of work to even face. Being the recipient in the contract of forgiveness means that you were given pain and stress that you did not deserve or want from another human being. It feels wildly unfair and yet we all have to come to terms with this as a part of life with other people.

The path to forgiveness is difficult. Forgiveness in this context means that the recipient has decided to no longer punish the aggressor for the pain they inflicted. It means letting go of retribution you may feel entitled to. There could be any number of scenarios you have cooked up in your mind which would seem “fair” to subject the aggressor to based on the pain they caused. Forgiveness means coming to a place where you can let those go. The core of the definition of forgiveness is a simple one but the journey to that place of truth and peace within yourself is anything but simple. It also doesn’t mean the journey is complete.

The story of what forgiveness does NOT mean is much bigger than what it does mean. Coming to a place of forgiveness…

• does not mean coming to a place absent of pain.

• is not for the aggressor though they may desire it. Forgiveness serves the recipient.

• does not mean the aggressor is absolved of the need to seek reconciliation.

• is not required.

• cannot be forced upon the recipient. Any offer of forgiveness under that pressure is hollow.

• is solely under the control and within the purview of the recipient and not the aggressor.

So many times the recipient is left all alone with their pain and expected to “forgive and forget.” What an awful phrase. It’s one designed by an aggressor who wants to erase not only what they have done but also any responsibility they have related to it. Recipients rarely forget even when they forgive and isn’t that better? Should we wish for the act of forgiveness to be forgotten? The recipient needs to feel empowered and supported in dealing with their pain to find their path through it. Some are tough and better at this than others in and of themselves. Some slights are easy for most to find their way through to forgiveness and some are so traumatic that the path through the pain and to any form of forgiveness may not be evident for years if ever. One over arching theme in the contract of forgiveness in relation to the recipient is support and love. It is not judgement and expectation.

The gift of forgiveness is awesome. However, it needs to be seen for what it is. It is a benevolent gift that is not necessarily deserved. Forgiveness is a gift that does not shift possession as other gifts do. It is always owned by the recipient. The giving of forgiveness to the aggressor does not pass the ownership. It simply brings the aggressor under the healing blanket of forgiveness meant for the recipient. The aggressor should and often does not realize that the act of forgiveness does not mean that pain is gone for the recipient. Realization of this could lead so many to the path of reconciliation.

Here lies the main point that is so often lost. The path of the recipient is the search for peace and possible forgiveness. The path of the aggressor should not be one of forgiveness seeking but of reconciliation. Imagine this world. The recipients of hurt are loved and supported on their journey through their pain no matter how small. The aggressors of the world humble themselves into a position of service supporting the recipients and seeking reconciliation. How much healing could the world see if we just worked to approach the contract of forgiveness this way in our daily lives?