So the cookie (virtual though it may be) says, "To love is to forgive." And I think that's true, but it certainly isn't a complete definition. To love is to do a lot more things than just forgive (one of my favorite definitions is, as hackneyed as it may seem, 1 Corinthians 13).
What's more interesting about the fortune cookie saying though is something that it implies, by virtue of the definition, but doesn't state. And the implication is what really got me thinking. What it implies pretty clearly is that the absence of forgiveness is an absolute indicator of the absence of love.
It has been true in my own experience. Warning YDS is about to get more personal than he usually does, but this is about forgiveness and it's hard to think about it in the abstract. That an absence of forgiveness is an absolute indicator of the absence of love was certainly true on my ex's part during our marriage. She could not forgive my faults in a way that would renew our relationship. She couldn't forgive me in a loving way and in retrospect that (perhaps more than anything) shows me that she wasn't really in love with me (or couldn't be in love with me). A deeper question is whether she had that capacity even before we were married. YDS will not explore that right now.
And even more important (or just as important), that as I healed from the divorce, the absence of real relationship renewing forgiveness was the clearest sign to me that I didn't love her anymore. I was no longer willing to spend that emotional energy to forgive her completely for what happened during and after our marriage. I had done it time after time during the marriage and the relationship. It was sometimes easy, and sometimes hard. But I had done it, and had the emotional energy to do it, because I loved her. A person in love will do no less.
Part of it is that there must be two kinds of forgiveness. The first is that everyday "oh, it's okay, no problem, we can still get along" sort of forgiveness. The second is the real, deep seated forgiveness, the kind of forgiveness that is given unconditionally and renews a relationship completely. The first is a social forgiveness. A heartfelt, if ordinary, forgiveness. The second is a full forgiveness. An elightened forgiveness. A loving kindness fogiveness. If "to love is to forgive," then that's the sort of forgiveness that they are talking about. I know that what I have for my ex is the first kind of forgiveness and not any sort of the second kind...
Perhaps a fully enlightened person is able to forgive anyone anything in a completely relationship renewing way. If so, it is one more sign that YDS is not fully enlightened. This should come as a suprise to no one.
I think the point might be stronger one way than the other. You can forgive someone without loving them. Although perhaps that fully enlightened person loves everyone, so forgiveness from that type of person always means that the enlightened person loves the forgiven. You can absolutely forgive someone with out being "in love" with them. But you can't love someone without being able to forgive them. And you can't be in love with someone you can't forgive.
It becomes really painful when you think you ought to be in love with that person because of your relationship and you aren't. You can't forgive them anymore, you can't go back and completely renew that relationship with them. But you made those promises. You remember the love that you had. You remember that you used to be able to forgive and you want that back. But eventually you are too hurt and the pain that that your husband or wife is causing is too much to forgive. So you shut down, like I did, or you are in pain all the time.
All this begs a really interesing question. Do you have to completely forgive (my "enlightened forgiveness" described above) a former love before you can love again? I don't know. That seems really hard. I've forgiven my ex in the social way, but not in the enlightened way. What does that mean for my future? Will I have to find enlightened forgiveness for my ex to love again? I hope not. Seems hard.
3 comments:
Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.
Second! So wanted to be FIRST on this one. Good, no excellent, post! How does one forgive if the "offender" has not asked for forgiveness? Where's the justice or learning in that? That's with what I struggle and yet looming over me are the words, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." So, if we aren't forgiving our debtors, how can we expect to receive forgiveness? Then, if we have extended forgiveness, do we need to let the other person know they have been forgiven? How do you let them know they've been forgiven without making them feel inferior? I think, maybe there is a level of forgiveness that allows us to erase the angst associated with the issue without trumpeting that we have extended forgiveness. While we carry that angst, our behavior towards the "offender" and others is modified, as a result. When the angst is released, our behavior changes again to a healthier behavior. Maybe, instead of forgiveness, we can teach ourselves how to skip the whole justice thing by being merciful out of recognition that the human race is imperfect. We then call on whatever power that is good, that resides in us, to assist us with centering ourselves back being merciful. I hope that all makes sense. Even though I'm not feeling all that merciful to the Arizona Cardinals right now.
Thanks, Greg. Excellent thoughts. I appreciate you taking the time to write them out.
Post a Comment