Three Aspects of Forgiveness: What Does Forgiveness Mean I Am Promising to (Not) Do?

As I continue to trek through and chew on the content of the excellent book Making Sense of Forgiveness, another point made by the author, Brad Hamrick, is that forgiveness exists on three dimensions: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social. One premise of the entire book is that forgiveness functions like the cancellation of a financial debt (e.g., I will not sue a person for failure to repay a loan, but I also would potentially be foolish to give that same individual another loan in the future). But what implications does cancellation of a debt have in terms of how I think towards that person, how I treat that person, and how I speak about them towards others? This is what the three dimensions of forgiveness relate to.

Intrapersonal

Intrapersonal just entails what happens inside of me. In terms of forgiveness towards another person, the intrapersonal dimension is about my heart and attitude towards the person who previously wronged me. Here are some insights by Hambrick on this dimension.

• What might it look like to hold someone’s wrongs against them in my heart? “It looks like writing a narrative about this person that reduces them to their offense and evaluates the rest of their life through the lens of their offense.”
• “For instance, someone lies to us. Internally, we make them a flat character (a one-dimensional character like those in Winnie the Pooh, where Tigger is only an extrovert and Piglet is only a worrier). The offender is now a liar. They have no right to talk about honesty, integrity, justice, or virtue to anyone in any setting for any reason. For them to do so is disruptive to us because it conflicts with the character we’ve declared them to be.”
• “An intrapersonal effect of forgiving is allowing someone to become a three-dimensional person—someone with multiple facets to their personhood, any of which may be most relevant to a given situation. Our friend who lied to us may be a great parent, teacher, or coach who is appreciated for their excellence in these roles. That can be true, and at the same time, they can still be a lousy friend whose lack of ownership for their sin against us makes it unwise for us to trust them.”

In this dimension of forgiveness, we are allowing the person who hurt us to be a “walking contradiction” without it sending us into a tailspin. We are choosing to not hold their offense against them (releasing them from their debt) or to reduce them purely to their offense. Beyond that, we are leaving room for God to deal with them as he sees fit.

Interpersonal

This dimension of forgiveness is about the relationship between us and the person who offended us. Though our attitudes do often show themselves in visible ways, by “interpersonal” Hambrick is honing in on how we might more overtly treat another person in light of their wrongdoing. These are ways that potential bitterness on our part are no longer so well hidden. Here are some insights by Hambrick on this dimension.

• “We can leverage an offense against someone by the expectations we place on them or the special rules we expect to govern the relationship.” This can be done intentionally or unintentionally.
• “Returning to the example of the friend who lied to us, we could expect that they give deference to our preferences moving forward (expectations) or that they give tangible evidence that all their statements are true (special rules). If our friend is unwilling to voluntarily offset their deceit with more forthrightness, there is reason to question their repentance. In that case, forgiveness should not progress toward trust. But if we try to force the fruit of repentance, we get baited into matching their lack of repentance with attempts to coerce change (leverage). We respond to one unhealthy pattern with a different unhealthy pattern of relating.”
• “Forgiving means not using past offenses as trump cards in present decision-making. When we forgive, we forgo the verbal formula ‘Because you did [sinful action], I expect you to [positive action]’....”
• “This means we make requests rather than demands. So it would sound like, ‘It would help me if you would [positive action] because I’m still recovering from [sinful action].’ If a reasonable request is made and is met with an aggressive, defensive, or neglectful response, the relationship is not at a point where trust and reconciliation are warranted.”

I personally find that this dimension is subtly challenging. There is something that feels inherently right about someone who has wronged us taking pains to show us that they feel badly for what they did. And that’s because in a perfect world, this should be the response of someone who has wronged another person. But this world is not perfect, and genuine repentance cannot be forced. If we try to force this, not only are we fighting a losing battle, but it shows that any forgiveness we have extended may be incomplete and/or misunderstood on our part. Forgiveness by a Christian is meant to be unconditional. The same is not true of regained trust; for trust to be regained, there are conditions to be met.

Social

We come now to the dimension that all of humanity — Christians are often no exception here — may struggle with the most. How are we going to speak about a person who has wronged us to other people who may also know this person? As the saying goes, Christians don’t gossip, we just “share prayer requests.” We feel it is our duty to let others know the facts about what this individual has done, and we are good at finding sneaky, off-handed ways to do this. Here are a few more insights by Hambrick on this dimension of forgiveness.

• “Using our example of the friend who lied to us again, we talk to someone else who is interacting with that friend. We remember what happened and try to discern, ‘Is this person in danger of being lied to, or do I just want to create mistrust toward the person who hurt me?’ Either answer may be accurate. The first would be protecting a mutual friend. The latter would be unforgiving toward the person who hurt me.”
• “Socially, forgiving means refraining from tarnishing the reputation of the person who hurt us for reasons other than protecting others.”

When living fully into their identity as a child of God, a Christian desperately wants good for every person around them. They are horrified at the thought of damaging the reputation of another (especially a brother or sister in Christ), and in fact desire to use their power-giving words to build up how others are perceived (Proverbs 22:1; Romans 14:19). Charles Spurgeon says, “Loving our neighbor as ourselves will make us jealous of his good name, careful not to injure his estate, or by ill example to corrupt his character.” I came across one particular church covenant that states, “We further engage …to guard each other’s reputation, not needlessly exposing the infirmities of others.” Don’t you just love that? What an ideal! Each word of that goal is important, and here is not the space for delving into nuances and exceptions (i.e., times when the “infirmities” of others needs to be exposed for the good of others). For most of us, it is the rule (guarding the reputations of others as if it was our own) and not the exception (making a person’s offense more public) that our sinful nature battles with.