This article picks up something I wrote further back [or did I just think it?], Dr Tutu says: "You should never hate yourself for hating others who do terrible things: the depth of your love is shown by the extent of your anger."
I think that we need to recognise anger and even hatred as a side-bar to love. If we love, anger when the object of our love is marred or destroyed really is a sign of our love; indifference feels no such anger because it feels no love. Even hatred of the perpetrator is a sign of the fact we love. I'm not saying we should be content to stay with such feelings but we shouldn't censure them, rather we should recognise them and learn from them; what do we learn about ourselves and our relationships from the fact that we feel them?
I think that perhaps this gives us a window into the wrath of God who loves each of us and all of the creation fiercely .... If God loves and there is evil, then God must be wrathful where people and creation are wrecked and marred.
In the early stages of grief and anger it is hard to hear the next bit "Remaining in that state [of anger and hatred] locks you in a state of victimhood, making you almost dependent on the perpetrator."
That is the sad irony of unforgivness and hatred and so forgiveness is really enlightened self-interest. So, " If you can find it in yourself to forgive then you are no longer chained to the perpetrator. You can move on, and you can even help the perpetrator to become a better person too."
What if the perpetrator is also someone we love? We might want to remain 'chained to' them but in a differnt kind of way -I'm thinking here also of the situation of God who loves even us who are the perpetrators of hurt to those others God loves....
Dr Tutu goes on to say, " the process of forgiveness also requires acknowledgement on the part of the perpetrator that they have committed an offence.". And here I hit a semantic barrier; what do we mean by forgiveness? Some would say they can forgive without acknowledgement by the perpetrator; I've heard more than one relative of IRA bombing victims say they did. I'm actually very sympathetic to Tutu's definition here in the light of God's self-revelation; Christian forgiveness from God does seem to havre an important componenet of repentance involved, so perhaps reconciliation is the fuller meaning of forgiveness? But it does seem possible for some people to hold the disposition to forgive and to have let go so that they "are no longer chained to the perpetrator" and can move on. Perhaps this is part of the condition of finite temporality we exist under, forgiveness cannot always be consummated in reconciliation.
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
No comments:
Post a Comment