© 1998 Ann Bendall
© 1998 The Brotherhood of Man Library
| Human Sources and The Urantia Book. The Strong Force and Supernova | Volume 5 - No. 2 — Index | Who Wrote The Urantia Book? It doesn't really matter—IMHO |
“To forgive is divine.” So we are told. And as each of us strives to be more god-like, we are confronted with the dilemma of identifying who did what to us and why and what are the consequences.
To forgive another requires first of all identification of the evil perpetrated. It is the epitome of vaingloriousness to consider that we can forgive sin which is solely God’s prerogative (or at least it is under the jurisdiction of the appropriate spiritual Court of Inquiry).
It is also highly unlikely that we are capable of gathering sufficient information to make an informed decision as to whether the “perpetrator” has committed an error, sin, evil act, or is iniquitous. For example, when I look at the chaos caused by Adam and Eve’s transgression I would have ranked them as having “sinned,” and yet they were classified as having perpetrated “an error of judgment.”
From a human perspective in trying to assess what the “evil act” was which requires forgiveness being extended, we strive to appreciate both the victim’s and the perpetrator’s perspective—and discover that each often has a totally different view of the act. Commonly the perpetrator has a decided bias to minimize what occurred and also has a tendency to blame their transgression on external influences whether it be alcohol or drugs or the “they made me do it” syndrome.
This striving to diminish responsibility appears to be encouraged by current society, perhaps because we feel uncomfortable with the fact that “nice people” can commit evil acts.
The victim, on the other hand, has a tendency to see the act as premeditated, more pervasive in its deleterious impact on their well-being, and to view the act in a way that frees self from any blame or responsibility for one’s own misfortune.
Consequently three issues become involved, the first dealing with what the evil act actually was, the second, who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, and the third, can the perpetrator be held to be responsible, or to have diminished responsibility for their acts due to external influences?
In our society there is a growing need to see events in either/or, yes or no, black or white terms, so as to clearly identify perpetrators and victims. Due to the real difficulties in doing so, we have created a “grey area” that we label “diminished responsibility.”
Who is the victim? Is it possible that a perpetrator can also be a victim and the converse? In our society, in the interests of cognitive parsimony (minimized thinking), there is a need to identify and classify people as “good” or “bad,” and, on the assumption that for each perpetrator of an evil act there must be a victim, we seek to identify who is what.
For example, we prefer to think of family violence as a matter of evil and sick individuals who lash out against totally innocent, helpless family members. Unfortunately, there are many cases in which this assessment is accurate. However, among adults, more often the evil act of violence may emerge from a cycle of events in which victim and perpetrator both act dangerously or aggressively, and violence is the end point of an escalating quarrel.
Whilst we focus on the extent of visible damage done as indicative of who is the “evil one,” we fail to address the problems of the “victim.” Many times people puzzle as to how “she could have gone back to him after he did that,” we fail to help her deal with her guilt as perpetrator (sorry for sounding sexist but research does show that males are more prone to physical violence than females). Thus we tend to confuse blame by assuming a guilty and an innocent party when the interaction has really taken place between two imperfect individuals.
Consequently, in such circumstances, each party must strive to clearly identify that two sets of events have occurred—which necessitates from each party, extension of forgiveness for their role as victim and acceptance of forgiveness for their role as a perpetrator.
Childhood sexual abuse is another matter. Due to the power differential and position of trust, the child is a victim and is violated by the perpetrator. The perpetrator of evil is often a person close to the child, and the victim has memories of loving times along with those of abuse of trust and power.
If only people could be either all good or all bad, life would be so much less complicated. But the reality is that people are imperfect, a mixture. Hence it is difficult to forgive if we strive to understand them based upon the expectation of consistency. (“The better man understands his neighbor, the easier it will be to forgive him, even to love him.” UB 2:4.2)
At some point, as we grow, we realize we are stuck in the perpetrator’s past transgression, continuing to harbor anger and pain at their misdeed whilst struggling to forgive.
Forgiveness frees us but is dependent upon being able to “love the sinner whilst hating the sin.” To separate the person from their behavior enables us to to retain fond memories of the relationship of mutual respect and caring, whilst isolating the act of abuse, the act that alienated us. Based on a relationship of love, we now seek to forgive the person for their evil act.
Unfortunately forgiveness has common connotations with condoning the act. We are also told to forgive and forget. This is impossible. Acceptance and forgiveness do not mean condoning the act. Nor can we forget the past. All we can do is prevent it having a deleterious impact on our future.
Forgiveness firstly means asking what exactly we must forgive. And this requires an objective as possible exploration of the act and its consequences on ourselves. Has it warped our image of ourselves and our life.The healing process after a misdeed by another necessitates us exploring its impact on our self-esteem and attitude to life and to others. That is our task.
Then comes the approach to the perpetrator for the purposes of extension of our forgiveness for their evil act (The Urantia Book provides guidelines on how to approach the perpetrator on UB 159:1.3). This step requires awareness on the victims part that there is usually a magnitude gap between perpetrators and victims.
Perpetrators see the effect of what they do as smaller in scope, importance, and severity than do victims. A violent and repressive event tends to recede into the past much faster for the perpetrator than for the victim. For the perpetrator it may quickly become ancient history whereas the victim may see it as crucial for understanding the present.
Consequently, where the victim experiences in initial sense of relief in forgiving the perpetrator, this is often followed by anger as they discover that the two parties view the event quite differently. Perpetrators see it as being in the past and have the desire to be forgiven so they can forget. The forgiveness by the victim frees them. Conversely, the victim often sees the evil act as having a continuing effect, still causing anger, and still interfering with their ability to enjoy life.
Does this anger with the perpetrator signify the victim has not really forgiven? I believe not. However, it will reduce the likelihood of reconciliation between the parties.
It is commonly believed that forgiveness also means resumption of a relationship due to the forgive and forget adage. To forgive is freeing, but to reconcile with another requires that they truly accept our forgiveness. This now is a relationship issue, dependent upon the perpetrator first acknowledging the evil and its impact upon the victim.
Reconciliation based on acceptance of forgiveness means acknowledgment of the wrong-doing and its impact on the other. The next challenge is reparation. Can the perpetrator help the victim? Normally the fact of making the offer is sufficient. But should the victim view reparation as “making them suffer” then what they are seeking is vengeance and they have not forgiven.
On the other hand, the perpetrator may see the reparation as punitive, which means that they have not understood the extent of their evil action on their victim. In accepting forgiveness they have not appreciated what the victim was offering.
Often the reparation phase is approached by society as a striving to undo the damage, a restoration of the status of the victim to that of the pre-evil act. Where material loss was incurred, this may be achievable—all that is required is to repay the loss to the victim. However, the victim will often state that it is not the money they seek but their restoration of faith in humanity and perhaps the perpetrator. Hence the “evil act” tends to be the focal point for society and the perpetrator, whereas its consequences are the focus for the victim.
In those instances where the victim suffers loss of health or even life, as a society we are faced with a dilemma which we usually try to solve with monetary reparation. Although this may bring some relief for the perpetrator it definitely does not for the victim and usually causes even more trauma.
Although I can draw attention to some of these problems, real solutions are in the hands of the victims and perpetrators. The process of forgiveness and reparation can only lie within themselves—and it is in their hearts that, thanks to the mediation of the Spirit of Truth, a real solution can be found.
I was angry,
with my friend,
I told my wrath,
My wrath did end.I was angry,
with my foe,
I told it not,
My wrath did grow.William Blake, A Poison Tree
| Human Sources and The Urantia Book. The Strong Force and Supernova | Volume 5 - No. 2 — Index | Who Wrote The Urantia Book? It doesn't really matter—IMHO |