Chapter 20
Repentance and Forgiveness in Family Life
Elaine Walton and Hilary M. Hendricks
Quotes and passages to focus on from chapter 20 -
Repentance and forgiveness are two sides of the same coin and are frequently addressed together. For example, apologies facilitate forgiveness, and forgiveness motivates repentance (Holeman, 2008). In families, repentance and forgiveness blend into an interactive process that is strengthened by family members’ commitment to each other (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). The term “interpersonal transgression” implies the involvement of a victim and an offender who are, at the time of the offense, connected through an ongoing relationship. Although the process of repentance and forgiveness is interpersonal, successful outcomes are profoundly intrapersonal—experienced individually, apart from or in addition to any interpersonal interaction. The noted forgiveness researcher Worthington (2006) wrote, “Forgiveness does not occur in a relationship. It occurs within the forgiver” (p. 20). He posited that this was true, even in intimate relationships.
Types of interpersonal forgiveness:
Three kinds of forgiveness will be discussed in this chapter. By implication, the repentance/forgiveness scenario involves an offender and a victim. However, in the first type of forgiveness, the interpersonal transgressions are such that both parties are at fault and the roles of victim and offender are shared. In this case, the resulting process is mutual forgiveness. By contrast, bilateral forgiveness—the second type of forgiveness—presumes there has been wrongdoing on only one side, and forgiveness comes in response to apology and repentance. In the third case, the offender will not or cannot participate in this type of healing, and therefore unilateral, or one-way, forgiveness can be achieved by the victim, without the offender’s apology or repentance (Govier, 2002).
Situations that necessitate forgiveness:
Battle and Miller (2005) found a wide range of situations and events within families that necessitate forgiveness: In addition to infidelity and abuse, many other types of transgressions are reported as important. . . . These include (a) unequal treatment of siblings by one or both parents, (b) failure of a parent to protect a child from harm, (c) hurt feelings from divorce and/or remarriage, (d) lack of parental acceptance of a spouse or romantic partner (particularly in interracial or same-sex relationships), (e) irresponsible or dishonest financial decisions made by a family member, (f) problems associated with a family member’s addiction or mental illness, (g) inequitable distribution of household tasks, (h) repeated instances of broken family commitments or prolonged absences, (i) disagreements regarding care of an ill or elderly relative, and (j) disputes regarding funerals and estate settlement (p. 233).
Repairing the damage caused by such occurrences in families is hard work for all involved. However, the well-established benefits of repentance and forgiveness make those efforts worthwhile.
From a religious perspective, the need for repentance is clear. Hundreds of years before Christ’s birth, King Benjamin taught that “salvation cometh to none . . . except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Mosiah 3:12). President David O. McKay (1953. p. 13) stated that no “principle or ordinance of the gospel” is “more essential to the salvation of the human family than the divine and eternally operative principle [of] repentance.” Elder Dallin H. Oaks (2003) identified the instruction to repent as the gospel’s “most frequent message” and defined repentance as transformation:
The gospel of Jesus Christ challenges us to change. . . . Repenting means giving up all of our practices—personal, family, ethnic, and national—that are contrary to the commandments of God. The purpose of the gospel is to transform common creatures into celestial citizens, and that requires change (p. 37).
For victims of serious offenses, Elder Richard G. Scott (2004, p. 16) recommended forgiveness—although it is “most difficult”—as “the sure path to peace and healing.” And President Gordon B. Hinckley (2005, p. 81) emphasized that forgiveness “may be the greatest virtue on earth, and certainly the most needed.” Benefits to families and individuals. Interpersonal repentance and forgiveness have obvious benefits in repairing or mediating damaged family relationships (Enright & Fitz-gibbons, 2000). In addition, individuals and families who are able to forgive important transgressions are likely to have better emotional and physical health (Battle & Miller, 2005), and positive emotions improve health in a variety of ways (Harris & Thoresen, 2005). Numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship between forgiveness and well-being (e.g., Thoresen, Harris, & Luskin, 2000). By contrast, not forgiving can lead to harm. “Unforgiveness” is considered a stress reaction in response to a perceived threat (Worthington, 2006), and the emo-tions associated with unforgiveness, such as resentment, hostility, blame, and fear, have been linked to health risks (Harris & Thoresen, 2005).
It is natural to be angry and even vindictive when one has been wronged. Sometimes victims are uncomfortable with these emotions and try to skip straight to reconciliation, without adequately acknowledging the wrong or allowing time for meaningful repentance and forgiveness to take place. But forgiveness demands recognition of wrongful behavior.
Murphy (2005, p. 33) warned of this superficial forgiveness, or “cheap grace,” explaining that “hasty forgiveness can . . . undermine self-respect, respect for the moral order, respect for the wrongdoer, and even respect for forgiveness.” Elaborating, Murphy explained that resentment legitimizes the wrongness and empowers the victim to seek redress: “Just as indignation over the mistreatment of others stands as emotional testimony that we care about them and their rights, so does resentment stand as emotional testimony that we care about ourselves and our rights” (p. 35).
Malcolm, Warwar, and Greenberg (2005) warned of “short-circuiting” anger, such that the victim inappropriately condones hurtful behavior or ends up taking responsibility for the injury. They explained that anger provides a self-protective mechanism. Indeed, there is evidence that some forms of anger (such as “constructive anger,” which focuses our energies on ways of rectifying the situation) may actually improve health (Davidson, MacGregor, Stuhr, Dixon, & MacLean, 2000). Such constructive anger can even reduce or moderate an unforgiving attitude. Clearly, the problem with resentment is not in having it but in being dominated by it and stuck in it. An understanding of what forgiveness is—and is not—will help both victims and offenders as they attempt the complicated processes described next.
Repentance is a process of enhancing internal aware-ness and interpersonal accountability (Holeman, 2008). Outwardly, the offender not only acknowledges wrong-doing but also makes reparation. Inwardly, repentance is achieved through humility and empathy, making it possible for the offenders to see themselves and those they wounded with a new perspective that is refreshing and motivating. Humility is the opposite of arrogance, narcissism, or
pride. Transgressors who are truly contrite are able to admit their mistake and make every effort to accept the consequences and conditions desired by the offended party without blaming others or justifying their actions. However, seeking forgiveness should not be confused with submissiveness, non-assertiveness, or inappropriate responsibility (Sandage, Worthington, Hight, & Berry, 2000), such as child victims of abuse who try to make sense of injury by reasoning that a parent who loves them wouldn’t hurt them unless they deserved it in some way. Empathy is the ability to understand the deep feelings of another person. While humility helps transgres-sors see themselves differently, empathy helps them see their victim differently (Holeman, 2008). True empathy is experienced as a feeling, not merely as a cognition. It is not enough to say, “I know I hurt you.” With empathy, the offender can know how it feels to be the offended person.
Guilt or shame? With the offender’s newfound perspective may come feelings of guilt or shame. Shame involves a painful focus on self—feeling small, worth-less, or unworthy: “I am a bad person.” However, guilt is more likely to be associated with a particular act: “I did a bad thing” (Tangney, Boone, & Dearing, 2005). Guilt involves tension, remorse, and regret—emotions that can motivate repentance. Elder Richard G. Scott (2004) explained that guilt can be constructive:
“The ability to have an unsettled conscience is a gift of God to help you succeed in this mortal life” (p. 15).
On the other hand, feelings of shame often result in defensive behavior that inhibits the repentance process. Guilt or shame that serves only to generate feelings of unworthiness without instigating change is counterproductive. Alma counseled his wayward son,
“Let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance” (Alma 42:29). Excessive feelings of guilt or shame may require the intervention of a professional or a spiritual leader in order to transform these feelings into positive changes in behavior.
There are many ways for offenders to acknowledge their wrongdoing and express remorse. According to Lazare (2004), a successful apology includes several parts:
(a) an accurate acknowledgment of the offense;
(b) an appropriate expression of regret, remorse, or sorrow;
(c) a suitable offer of repayment or restitution;
(d) a pledge for behavior reform to ensure that the offense is not repeated.
The apology will fail if any of the steps is missing or inadequate. For example, wrongdoers may minimize the offense or not recognize the injury suffered by the victim, resulting in a less-than-authentic apology (see Holeman, 2004). Regardless, victims may find inadequate apologies bet-ter than none. Apologies are essential for reconciliation (Lazare, 2004).
However, in the case of severe interpersonal transgressions, it takes more than apology to restore love and trustworthiness. It takes genuine repentance. Repentance implies that a sin has been committed and involves an acknowledgement of the damage done to the offender’s relationship to God as well as to the victim. Holeman (2004, p. 238) defined repentance as a decisive turning away from thoughts, words, and deeds that have betrayed love and trust, and a wholehearted turning toward attitudes and activities that can restore love and trust to the relation-ship. [It] includes confession and a commitment to consistent changed behavior over time.
...Repentance is more than apology. It is a hum-bling, all-encompassing experience. It requires offenders to see themselves through the eyes of the injured party as well as through the eyes of God. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the repentance process is explained in the manual Gospel Principles (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2009), and includes the following:
1. Recognize the sin. We admit to ourselves that we have done something wrong.
2. Feel sorrow for the sin. Feeling sorrowful, we are humble and submissive before God, and we come to Him with a broken heart and contrite spirit.
3. Forsake the sin. We stop committing the sin and pledge to never do it again.
4. Confess. We should confess all our sins to the Lord. In addition, we must confess serious sins that might affect our standing in the Church to the proper ecclesiastical authority.
5. Make restitution. Insofar as possible, we make right any wrong that we have done.
After true repentance, if forgiveness is not forthcoming, self-forgiveness can facilitate healing for the transgressor (Hall & Fincham, 2005). Ultimately, offenders must forgive themselves in order to restore self-respect or complete the process of reconciliation where reconciliation is possible (Dillon, 2001).
For victims, forgiveness means being released from anger and developing empathy for the offender (Gordon, Hughes, Tomcik, Dixon, & Litzinger, 2009). This implies a change of heart and a change in expectations—there will be no later recriminations or paybacks (Walton, 2005). Being able to say “I forgive you” means that the feeling of injury no longer supports resentment, though the definition of forgiveness does not specify how the injured person arrives at this change of heart. The change may happen through the victim’s realizing that resentment was a mistake (for example, no wrong was done), or the harm may be excusable, such as an honest misunderstanding.
Another possibility may be that the victim recognizes that feeding resentment and dwelling on injuries is a bad idea, with negative implications for health or a valued relationship. Genuine forgiveness is a process, not a product. It is hard work and it takes time. It is a voluntary act that gives meaning to the wound and frees the injured per-son from the ills of bitterness and resentment.
Several models of forgiveness have been examined in the scholarly literature (Worthington, 2006). Some are inter-personal models with reconciliation as the goal. Others are intrapersonal with a cognitive, behavioral, emotive, or process-oriented approach. For this chapter, we chose to focus on Worthington’s (2001) cognitive–behavioral, five-step process, which is summarized below:
1. Recall the hurt. It is human nature to try to protect ourselves from pain. Too often we try to deny or forget the pain of the offense and avoid the dis-comfort associated with addressing that offense in an interpersonal relationship. In order to forgive, we have to be clear about the wrongdoing and acknowledge the injury.
2. Empathize. Empathy involves borrowing the lens of another person so we see something from their point of view. In order to forgive, it is important to understand the transgressor’s feelings. Was the offense committed knowingly or was it an honest mistake? What were the pressures that influenced the offender to commit the offense? Is there an understandable reason for the offender to dis-agree with the victim regarding the seriousness of the offense? In what ways may the offender have been victimized in the past? What pain might the offender be experiencing associated with guilt and remorse?
3. Offer the altruistic gift of forgiveness. Forgiving with altruism is easier when the victim is humbled by an awareness of his or her own shortcomings and offenses, with special gratitude for those occasions when he or she was freely forgiven.
4. Commit publicly to forgive. The victim has a better chance of successful forgiveness if he or she verbalizes the forgiveness commitment to another person (for example, telling a friend or counselor about the decision). Some victims have formalized their decision by writing a letter, making a journal entry, or creating a certificate of forgiveness.
5. Hold on to forgiveness. After completing the forgiveness process, victims may still be haunted on occasion by the pain of the offense. During this stage it is important to move forward. When thoughts revert to the painful injury, the victim is reminded that the decision to forgive has already been made. He or she does not have to repeat that process. Also, it is important for the victim to remember that having forgiven, he or she has promised that there will be no paybacks or grudges. Although painful memories are not necessarily replaced by forgiveness, the pain should be a reminder to move forward with one’s life instead of revisiting the transgression committed against him or her. Deliberate efforts to stop unwanted thoughts are often unsuccessful. Instead, when victims have successfully re-framed their thought processes, it is probably because they have replaced the unwanted thoughts with some-thing more meaningful or important.
Elder Richard G. Scott (2008, p. 42) explained how faith in Christ brings about the ultimate healing:
The beginning of healing requires childlike faith in the unalterable fact that Father in Heaven loves you and has supplied a way to heal. His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, laid down His life to provide that healing. But there is no magic solution, no simple balm to provide healing, nor is there an easy path to the complete remedy. The cure requires profound faith in Jesus Christ and in His infinite capacity to heal.
The most meaningful and growth-promoting repentance and forgiveness require a relationship with the Lord—the willingness and humility to be taught by the Spirit. The process is about reconciliation with God first and foremost. That is the reconciliation that makes reconciliation with family members possible. Healthy guilt and godly sorrow are gifts that motivate repentance. And remembering the graciousness of God in forgiving our sins makes it easier to forgive the sins of others. Cathy moved toward forgiveness as she prayed, like the publican in Luke 18:13, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”
Reconciliation is often, but not always, the desired result of repentance and forgiveness (Worthington, 2001). Park and Enright (2000) conceptualized the process of resolving an interpersonal transgression as a series of possibilities in which forgiveness may be achieved with or without reconciliation and reconciliation achieved with or without repentance.
People generally work at reconciliation because they have invested a lot in the relationship and do not like to accept failure (Worthington, 2001). In addition, they are likely to still value the other person and the relationship, and they recognize that if nothing is done to mend the relationship, it is likely to worsen.
Reconciliation is a give-and-take process wherein the parties gradually move closer to each other. For example, victims are more likely to reconcile with offenders who have repented, and offenders are more likely to confess and apologize to victims whom they believe will forgive them. However, false starts and missteps are common, and there are barriers to overcome. Offenders may dis-agree with the charge, or they may be afraid of punishment or restrictions associated with confession. Victims may be reluctant to give up the leverage associated with victim status (Exline & Baumeister, 2000), or they may fear appearing weak and being hurt anew. Courage and humility are required for both parties in order to repair the injury—especially because in most cases of inter-personal transgression there is neither a “pure victim” nor a “pure villain” (Holeman, 2008).
Nonverbal assurance, such as eye contact and touch, provides verification of the sincerity of an apology or evidence of acceptance on the part of the victim. Also, explanations and discussions are part of the clarifying process. Offenders need an opportunity to share, without inappropriate justification, their side of the story along with motives or reasons surrounding the infraction. Waldron and Kelley (2008, p. 115) state that “explanation may help the offender save face but it also helps the wounded partner interpret the transgression and assess its seriousness.” Reconciliation is a process of renegotiating the rules of the relationship, reframing shared memories and, in the case of couples, starting over again with a second courtship. At some point, future planning will be an essential component in the process. When partners or family members collectively plan activities or set mutual goals, they are imagining a future together and moving away from a painful past (Waldron & Kelley, 2008).
For victims whose offenders cannot or will not repent, forgiveness is understandably more difficult. Although reconciliation may not be feasible or even desirable, forgiveness is still an important part of the healing process. All victims need to be relieved of the burden of resentment and the entanglements of a painful relationship. Govier (2002, p. 63) asserted that “no victim will benefit, psychologically or morally from clinging to a resentful sense of her own victim-hood and dwelling on the past.”
Repentance and forgiveness are divine expectations that are particularly relevant to family life. The question is not if forgiveness should take place, but how? When the offense is associated with a simple misunderstanding, forgiveness can be almost immediate. But with deep betrayal and serious injury, the process is lengthy and painful, and there is no shortcut. True healing comes only through experiencing the pain of loss and completing the tasks associated with repentance and forgiveness. In the end, sincere repentance and genuine forgiveness are gifts from God made possible through the Atonement of Christ. With enhanced humility and empathy, the offender can gain new perspectives—that of the victim and of Jesus Christ, who atoned for that transgression. Likewise, victims also achieve forgiveness through sharing Heavenly Father’s perspective—infinite love for all His children.
Personal Thoughts
“Recognize and acknowledge angry feelings. It will take humility to do this. But if we can get down on our knees and ask our Heavenly Father for a feeling of forgiveness, He will help us. The Lord requires us to forgive all men for our own good because hatred retards spiritual growth.”
“Hatred retards spiritual growth.” That is such a powerful phrase! The definition of ‘retard’ according to Google Dictionary is to “delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.” Anger easily leads to hatred and by choosing to be angry we are stopping our own spiritual progression! We have no one to blame but ourselves for how we react. Elder L.G. Robbins put it best in his talk entitled “Agency and Anger” (Ensign magazine, May 1998) -
“He made me mad.” This is another phrase we hear, also implying lack of control or agency. This is a myth that must be debunked. No one makes us mad. Others don’t make us angry. There is no force involved. Becoming angry is a conscious choice, a decision; therefore, we can make the choice not to become angry. We choose!
I don’t know about you, but I have most definitely used the phrase “he/she/you/they made me mad/angry”. We tend to blame anyone and anything for how we feel because… well… why would we ever CHOOSE to feel angry or sad. And in a marriage it gets even more confusing. Why would we want to feel those feelings? Surely we can’t believe that our spouses who committed their lives to us would actually want us to feel angry at them! But that is exactly what happens. In ‘The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work’ by John M. Gottman it states that issues within a marriage are either solvable or perpetual (occurring repeatedly). Some difficulties are inevitable but you either find your own ways to cope or work through it, or you gridlock over it, having the same issue come up again and again. Tone is huge in determining whether a conversation will be productive or destructive.
My spouse and I started dealing with the stress of perpetual issues (or any issues for that matter) by hugging it out. When one of us is angry or upset (usually me) we wrap up in each other's arms and speak gently about the issue. It follows a great quote by LDS Church Elder David O. McKay - "Let husband and wife never speak in loud tones to each other, 'unless the house is on fire'". That is us now and it is working really well. Now I need to figure out how to work on anger and upset feelings outside of the home. Not everyone would be accepting of my hugging technique.
This Week's Goals
Empathy helps a transgressing spouse. Please spend time separately thinking about the following questions:
“What if something strange happened, and you were suddenly transformed into your partner? Knowing how you treated [him or her], how would you feel? What would it be like being in an intimate partnership with you?”
( Jory, Anderson, & Greer, 1997, p. 408).
If you have a journal (if not, please start one) please write down your responses and feelings to these questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment