Posts

Sermon August 23, 2015 – Death and Dignity

Scripture Lessons: Ecclesiastes 3:1-13 and Romans 14:7-9
Pastor: Rev. Kim P. Wells
Summer sermons based on topics requested by the congregation.

Henry Pitney Van Dusen and Elizabeth Van Dusen led exciting, vibrant lives. Van Dusen was a Presbyterian clergy person who rose to become the president of Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He was instrumental in founding of the World Council of Churches. Van Dusen was a premier leader on the religious scene in mid 20th century America. The April 19, 1954 issue of TIME Magazine featured Van Dusen on the cover. In 1970, Van Dusen, suffered a severe stroke. Elizabeth Van Dusen suffered from debilitating arthritis. In 1975, they fulfilled a suicide pact they had made taking overdoses of sleeping pills to kill themselves. They left a letter for their three sons, relatives, and friends. It read:

To all friends and relations,

We hope that you will understand what we have done even though some of you will disapprove of it and some be disillusioned by it.

We have both had very full and satisfying lives. Pitney has worked hard and with great dedication for the church. I have had an adventurous and happy life. We have both had happy lives and our children have crowned this happiness.

But since Pitney had his stroke five years ago, we have not been able to do any of the things we want to do and were able to do, and my arthritis is much worse.

There are too many helpless old people who without modern medical care would have died, and we feel God would have allowed them to die when their time had come.

Nowadays it is difficult to die. We feel that this way we are taking will become more usual and acceptable as the years pass.

Of course the thought of our children and our grandchildren makes us sad, but we still feel that this is the best way and the right way to go. We are both increasingly weak and unwell and who would want to die in a nursing home.

We are not afraid to die.

We send you all our love and gratitude for your wonderful support and friendship.

[http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20065057,00.html, “A Joint Suicide—and the Right to Choose a ‘Good Death’”]

The action of the Van Dusens caused a stir in 1975 and was covered in People Magazine. I am sure it would cause a stir today. While there has been some progress, I don’t think we have made the strides related to issues of death and dying that the Van Dusens were hoping for when they wrote, “We feel that this way we are taking will become more usual and acceptable as the years pass.” There has been much progress in Europe but euthanasia is not widely accepted in the US.

Medical science has catapulted forward. Bionic joints and limbs are no longer the stuff of TV. Diagnostic procedures scan the inner workings of our bodies and even our cells. The medications and treatments that are available seem nothing short of miraculous. Operations using scopes and robotics seem right out of a science fiction novel. The progress in medical science is beyond the imagination.

But the conversations about end of life issues, available treatments, and euthanasia have not kept pace with medical science and technology. Because someone can be kept alive does not mean that they want to be kept alive or should be kept alive. Ethics boards at hospitals and the courts are being kept very busy dealing with the situations that arise because there has not been a comprehensive societal conversation about the issues involved.

With the progress in medical science and the availability of treatment in hospitals and health care facilities, dealing with death has become more and more separated from daily life. It used to be your loved ones got old and died at home. Or got a disease and died in the bed at home attended by family, neighbors, and loved ones. Now often people die in the hospital or a health facility attended by staff who are virtual strangers to the patients and their families.

With the radical advances in healthcare, medical staff are oriented toward curing an illness, treating a condition, and prolonging life. There is the sense that when person dies, the medical profession has failed and they do not want to fail.

And the cynical side of me says that what’s driving medical care and health decisions today is not ethics or compassion but money. Follow the money and we can see why we have the system we do. Healthcare is one of the biggest industries in America. And the key players leave no stone unturned and are no more upstanding than the tycoons of the oil industry. Florida’s governor is a case in point. Money is the motivator behind much of what is done in the name of the healing arts.

Death and dying are big business. Death and dying are a scientific frontier. Death and dying are also matters of ethics and faith.

The beautiful verses from Ecclesiastes remind us that death is simply part of the natural order of the universe. It is built into the divine fabric of creation. Everything that is living will die. That means you. And that means me. Death is a natural part of life just as the sun rising and setting, the cycle of the seasons, and the tides. Part of our cycle is death. We are born. We die. Death is natural. It is as natural as being born.

The reading from Romans reminds us that we need to have no fear of living or dying, because either way, we are in God’s hands. God’s love is with us. All shall be well. And the epistle writer says this at a time when Christians were being persecuted for their faith. They may very well be killed for their beliefs. They’re reassured that they are in God’s hands, in life, in death, and in whatever lies beyond. Whatever your views on life after death, the Christian faith teaches that we have nothing to fear in death.

Yet we have become a society that fears death. The topic is distasteful. Like, don’t bring it up at dinner, for heaven’s sake. And we have come up with all kinds of euphemisms for it – passing, going to heaven, gone on. You can’t just say, “He died.” You have to say, “He passed.” “She’s gone on to her reward.” “She is no longer with us.” “He cashed out.” “She expired.” “He departed.” “He flatlined.” “She got her wings.” “He perished.” We can’t just say, “She died.” It’s almost antisocially gauche.

Our discomfort with death is also evident in our idolization of youthful appearance. We do all we can to preserve our youthful looks and physique. Our fixation on youth is prominently manifested in the skyrocketing business in cosmetic surgery. We don’t want to look old. We don’t want to feel old. Because getting old means being closer to death. Well, yes. That’s the way life works. From the moment we are born, we are moving in the direction of death. That’s life.

There it is, the universal outcome. The great leveler. We will all die. That we can be sure of. Not much else. So death is something that should be accepted and talked about. But we really don’t like having those conversations. For the most part, we don’t want to talk about death though we talk about everything else – just turn on a TV or laptop.

I suspect that part of our fear of death and discomfort with talking about death is rooted in our feelings about life. Are we living true? Do our lives have meaning and purpose? Do we feel valued? What is the quality of our relationships? I think our feelings about these kinds of issues influence our attitudes about death and talking about death. In my experience as a pastor, I have seen in numerous situations that people who are grounded and solid are much more comfortable talking about death. They want to have those conversations about end of life issues. They know it is important. Talking about death is just an extension of talking about life. It is a continuation of being who we are and expressing our values, morals, and faith. And, maybe most importantly, they know that such conversations are a gift to their families and loved ones. Making their wishes known about end of life issues greatly reduces the burden on loved ones making decisions in difficult circumstances. So how we deal with death and dying is often a reflection of how we live and look at life. If we are foundering in life, we may also find ourselves foundering around the decisions that inevitably accompany the process of dying which we all will face, one way or another.

We really do have many choices related to death and dying. There are decisions about what treatments to have or not to have. There are conversations about the cost, expense, and the financial implications of death and dying. There are issues to do with comfort and pain relief. There is what to do with the body. Cremation. Embalming and burial. Organ donation. Giving the body to science. There are decisions about feeding tubes, ventilators, and what to do when the body may function but the brain is essentially dead. There are considerations about quality of life versus quantity of life. And, there is the almost taboo topic – physician assisted suicide – which is now legal in 4 states, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Montana, with New Mexico in line to follow. In Oregon, the law is called the Death with Dignity Act.

Euthanasia, or choosing to end life, is not something that is new. Humans have used this approach with animals for eons. Of course we put an injured animal out of its misery. Of course we compassionately end the life of a pet rather than prolong its suffering. This kind of approach can be applicable to humans as well. People may choose to end their lives rather than live with prolonged suffering. The ancients supported this option: Plato was against it at first, but eventually changed his mind. Socrates made no objection to taking the hemlock. Seneca the Stoic said, “As I choose the ship in which I will sail and the house I will inhabit, so I will choose the death by which I leave life.”

There were also those in the ancient world that were against euthanasia. Pythagoras among them. He believed that we are “the chattels of God and without his command we have no right to make our escape.”

And, more recently, the Catholic Church has weighed in. In 1957, Pope Pius declared, “The removal of pain and consciousness by means of drugs is permitted by religion and morality to both doctor and patient, even if the use of drugs will shorten life.” [Euthanasia quotes from http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20065057,00.html, “A Joint Suicide—and the Right to Choose a ‘Good Death’”]

We live in an era of choices. We choose where to live. We choose where to go to school. We choose what to wear. We go into the grocery store and have a startling array of choices of things to eat. We choose what to do with our lives. We choose what to watch on TV. We choose what to post on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media sites. We choose our friends. We choose our entertainment. We choose our hobbies. Choices. Choices. Choices.

And part of the reason we have so many choices is that we believe that part of living with dignity is having choices. Dignity involves the ability to determine the course of our lives. Dignity is rooted in the right to self determination. This means making choices about our lives.

How do we bring dignity into conversations about death and dying?

Issues around death and dying are extremely personal. These decisions are grounded in our experience, our personality, our character, our ethnicity, our values, and our faith. Death with dignity implies having choices, legal choices, that are respected by the medical establishment as well as by the courts. If you don’t want to pursue physician assisted suicide, then you should not have to. There should be no pressure to do so. But if you do want to pursue that path, it should be open to you, legally and with the sanction of the medical profession. The same is true of the many, many other facets of the care available as life ebbs. These are things to be talked about. Sorted out. Investigated. Prayed over. And our feelings about death and dying may very well change over the course of our lives and as we get nearer the end. And we should expect that and continue to be in conversation.

There are so many issues and options to be considered and the situation will get even more complex as medical science and biology continue to advance. Yet we can still be reticent to talk about these things.

Interestingly, the city of La Crosse, Wisconsin decided that people needed to be talking about end of life issues. And through an intentional process of community education over a period of years it has worked. Here’s the story. In 1991, 15% of the population of La Crosse, WI had some kind of advanced care planning. A program was put in place with the goal of increasing the percentage to 50%. As we learn, that goal was far exceeded.

In 1998 the first La Crosse Advance Directive Study was published. While it was not designed to be an evaluation of the education program, it seemed to have had a profound impact on the use of advance directives. In a review of 540 medical charts, the number of patients who had died with advance directives in place had increased from 15 to 85 percent. When the LCAD study was replicated ten years later [2008], advance directive use had risen to 90 percent.

Today, GHS [Gundersen Health System] offers individualized advance care planning in three stages: First Steps ACP is for healthy adults 55 and over; Next Steps ACP is for patients with chronic, progressive illness; and Last Steps ACP is for frail elderly patients or those close to the last year of life.

[“Advance care planning in La Crosse, Wisconsin,” The Christian Century, Nov 3, 2014 by Jennifer L. Hollis]

The program is called Respecting Choices. Very fitting!

Medicare might not want to pay for you to discuss end of life issues with your doctor, but in the church, we believe that this is very important. We went through a season in the life of this church recently when on a monthly basis one of the chaplains from the congregation was available to work with people doing the paperwork about end of life options and choices. If you would like to do this, we can arrange for one of the chaplains to help you. It is very important for you. It is also a gift to your family and loved ones.

People die every day in ways that are awful. Unethical. Unjustified. Undignified. People die of hunger. People die of poverty and lack of access to medical care, medications, and proper nutrition. This happens in our communities, not just in Africa or some foreign land. People die at the hands of drunk drivers. Unarmed people are killed by police. Civilians are killed in war and violence. People die of cancer caused by pesticides or toxic chemicals or radiation. Things they had no control over. People are killed when the death penalty is implemented. There are all kinds of ways that we are dying, day in and day out, that do not involve dignity. That do not respect the sacredness of human life. That do not involve a full range of ethical choices.

While this is the case, there is still much that we can do to bring dignity to death. We bring dignity to death when we intentionally consider the options that we do have. We can face death with dignity when we have considered our lives and values and faith and seek to approach death in a manner consistent with how we have lived. We bring dignity to death when we make choices ourselves, on our terms, and respect the choices of others. There is more than one right way to die with dignity. What might be right for you may not be right for someone else. We face death with dignity when we are humble and reverent. And, we face death with dignity when we are living our lives fully, abundantly, in service to others and the good of the world.

The Van Dusens, who were mentioned at the beginning of the sermon, prepared for their death, with dignity, on their own terms, with careful intentionality, and grounded in their values and beliefs. They ended the letter to their loved ones saying:

We are not afraid to die.

We send you all our love and gratitude for your wonderful support and friendship.

‘O Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world
Have mercy upon us

O Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world
Grant us thy peace.’

Sincerely, Elizabeth B. Van Dusen Henry P. Van Dusen

May we live with dignity and die with dignity. May we see to it that everyone may live with dignity and die with dignity. May God have mercy upon us – for our choices, for avoiding choices, and for dictating the choices of others. And may all know God’s peace. Amen.

A reasonable effort has been made to appropriately cite materials referenced in this sermon. For additional information, please contact Lakewood United Church of Christ.

Sermon August 30, 2015 – The Holy Spirit: A Biography

Scripture Reading: Matthew 28:16-20
Pastor: Rev. Kim P. Wells
Summer sermons based on topics requested by the congregation

The Holy Spirit has been described as “the most neglected doctrine of the Christian faith.” [A Handbook of Christian Theology, Arthur Cohen and Marvin Halverson, eds. p.170] I had never thought about it that way. But I realized that I would probably find it a lot easier to talk about the doctrine of God, or doctrine around Jesus as Christ, or doctrine around the Trinity as a whole, than just the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. So, I consider myself guilty of just such neglect. Then, I wondered, why? And, I can only speak for myself, but here I will make my disclaimer and declare my prejudice. I think of people who do a lot of talking about the Holy Spirit as people who do not place as much value on reason and logic as I do. I associate heavy reliance on the Holy Spirit with anti intellectualism. Like the case of Alani, a child in Brazil. Her father became convinced that she had healing powers, and when she was just 51 days old, he placed her infant hand on the distended stomach of a woman, and claims that it immediately deflated. That, apparently, was her first healing. [The Christian Century, 7/8/15] That’s the kind of story I associate with people who are obsessed with the Holy Spirit. This is my bias having grown up in a setting that was very religious but also very intellectual. So, now you know my prejudice in this discussion.

I will also admit that having done more investigating into the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, I continue to have reservations about giving this doctrine more attention.

We first meet what later becomes referred to as the Holy Spirit right up front at the beginning of the Bible. The word for Spirit is also used for breath and wind. At the beginning of Genesis, the Spirit of the creator God is portrayed brooding over the waters of creation. Later references to the Spirit as Wisdom, Sophia, are also connected with creation. So the Holy Spirit is associated with the Spirit of Yahweh present at creation, the life force, animating the clay of the earth; breathing life into creation. The Spirit is also the life force that reanimates the dry bones in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel. So the Holy Spirit is associated with the life force.

In the Hebrew Bible, there continue to be references to the Spirit of Yahweh. It is the power and presence of the preeminent God of the Jews. The Spirit leads the people. It teaches them. And it causes people to do things that carry out God’s will in the world. Things that are bold, unpredictable, and perhaps superhuman. Here’s an example involving Samson, of Samson and Delilah, from the book of Judges: “Then Samson went down with this father and mother to Timnah. When he came to the vineyards of Timnah, suddenly a young lion roared at him. The spirit of God rushed on him, and he tore the lion apart barehanded as one might tear apart a young goat. . . .” [Judges 14:5-6] That’s the kind of thing the Spirit of Yahweh is famous for.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Spirit is also associated with anointing for a particular role or office. Kings and priests are thought to be blessed with the Spirit of God. Prophets are also considered to be Spirit-driven, called by God, and the mouthpiece of God to the wider society, particularly speaking truth to power. These prophets challenged the authority of kings and rulers calling them to account on behalf of God. These prophets were power disrupters and were put in a dangerous situation. Many were killed for being the voice of God. In Micah, the prophet tells us, “But as for me, I am filled with power, with the spirit of God, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin.” [Micah 3:8]

As we mentioned, the Spirit is personified in the Hebrew scriptures, in the figure of Wisdom, Sophia, featured in the book of Proverbs. Wisdom is associated with the process of the creation of the universe. She stands on the street corner, teaching the people. She functions as a prophet, calling the people to the right path. With a feminine figure associated with the Spirit of God, there are both male and female aspects to God. God is presented in a way that would have fit into a cultural setting of polytheism with many female divinities. An early Christian presentation of the Trinity featured God, the logos (the word expressed in Jesus Christ), and Sophia (the female wisdom figure). So the portrayal of Spirit in the Hebrew tradition is rich and varied with a strong feminine aspect.

In the Hebrew Bible, we see the Spirit as a powerful force in the world, working in people and situations to see that the will of God is done. It is the life force. It teaches people and leads people and empowers people. It is a force for justice. It may put people into a trance or an ecstatic state. It may cause people to dance, sing, and praise. It is associated with bold, unpredictable, happenings. So the Spirit of God was not just something active in the world, in creation, but it is also active and present in the lives of people, influencing their behaviors.

In the New Testament, we see this happen most fully in the life of Jesus. We think of Jesus as the model of a life that expresses the full indwelling of the Spirit of God. This idea begins with the story of the annunciation of Mary, when she is told that she will give birth to a child and this will come to pass as the work of the Holy Spirit. God is making something happen in this child that is to be born. So, even before he is born, we are told that Jesus’ life will be intimately connected with the Spirit of God. This is affirmed by the Zechariah, Simeon, Anna, and John the Baptizer, who, filled with the Holy Spirit, confirm the identity of Jesus as the bringer of God’s salvation to the world.

We see the Spirit again in Jesus’ life in the story of his baptism. We are told that the Holy Spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism. The dove was a symbol for the goddess of love, Aphrodite, and the bird was a common image for female deities in Near Eastern religions. [See She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse by Elizabeth A. Johnson] Like a ruler or person with authority, Jesus receives the Spirit. Like a prophet, Jesus is given the Spirit to be a mouthpiece for God. And the Spirit immediately drives him out into the wilderness to be confronted with evil and to be tempered and prepared for his ministry.

This prophetic image of Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, is vivid in the story in the gospel of Luke of Jesus going to his hometown synagogue and reading the lesson for the day from the prophet Isaiah: “The spirit of God is upon me, because God has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. God has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of God’s favor.” [Luke 4:18-19] In the ministry of Jesus, it is by the Spirit that demons are cast out, and people are delivered from sin and death. Sometimes in scripture, we see the Spirit take possession of people for a limited time. But in Jesus, we see the full, ongoing indwelling of God’s Spirit.

Then we have the stories in the New Testament that tell of the Spirit being given to the community of followers of Jesus. Jesus is killed and his Spirit is given to his followers to continue his mission for God. In the gospel of John, we hear of Jesus breathing upon the disciples declaring, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” An echo of the creation story, creating the church, a new beginning. In the Pentecost story from Acts, we hear of the Spirit of God present as flame and wind coming upon the followers of Jesus. The prophet Joel is referenced in the Pentecost story – God’s Spirit is poured out upon all flesh. Young and old, women and men. All see visions and dream dreams.

In the book of Acts, we see the followers of Jesus led by the Spirit to spread the life giving message of God’s love beyond just the Jewish community to the world as a whole. We heard this call in the Great Commission that was read from Matthew this morning. The Jesus community goes into the world. It reaches out with an extravagant welcome to all. The Spirit leads the people to ethnic groups, other communities, and religions that have been enemies of the Jews. The work of the Spirit overcoming division and creating diverse community is very exciting in the early church. People are bold and courageous, reaching out well beyond their comfort zones, embracing new understandings and radical departures from former beliefs all in the interests of spreading divine universal love. Life in the Spirit, as the Christian life was called, was a new life for the believer in egalitarian community. The Spirit is challenging, guiding, and liberating. It is very exciting. Love in action. This unpredictability, dynamism, and wildness of the Spirit is captured in the Celtic image of the Spirit as a wild goose. Again, a bird image, a cross religious symbol of the divine.

But as the church becomes more of an institution, as hierarchy and homogeneity are imposed to solidify the identity and control of the church, it seems like the Holy Spirit becomes coopted to fulfill the agenda of the human church rather than the agenda of the universal God. Yes, I know, these agendas should be the same, but we all know that often they are not. As the church emerged, there was power to protect and political interests to appease. So the Holy Spirit was put into service.

Christians were baptized with water and the Spirit. This could only be done by countenanced church leaders with the proper authority. So, now the Holy Spirit could only come to people who were baptized, through the leadership of the church. And thus the Spirit was only available to Christians. Those of other religions did not have the Divine Spirit. They were not valued and respected because they did not have the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit was also defined and confined by its incorporation into the Trinity. This doctrine which emerged in the first few centuries of the church was fraught with controversy and was then concretized forever and ever, amen. There were those who saw the Trinity as God, Logos (word), and Sophia (wisdom). There were those who believed the son and Spirit came from God. Others believed the Spirit issued forth from God only, not from the son. This is one of the root causes of the split between the eastern and the western expressions of Christianity. Was there submission within the Trinity? Or were the three parts completely equal? These were topics of fierce debate as Christianity struggled to solidify its identity and its power. So, in our stream of Christianity, we basically got an all male, all equal Trinity. Three aspects of one God. And a hierarchical, patriarchal church.

The Holy Spirit now did the bidding of the church, basically, in the name of God. In some ways, it seems as if the Holy Spirit went from being a free agent of a mysterious God to the lackey of an institution. Calcified in a doctrine. A bird in a cage. No longer disrupting power, no longer universal and inclusive, but blessing certain human power arrangements and those they favor.

My spouse, Jeff, teaches at a Catholic High School. We see the well-intended domestication of the Holy Spirit in a cheer that was led by the school chaplain at an opening assembly. The chaplain led, “Seniors, who loves you most?” And the students cheered back, “The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!” And it went on from there, class by class, setting the tone, reminding the students of their spiritual roots and the core values of the school. Not a bad thing.

But are they thinking about the Spirit calling the students to challenge the power arrangements of society? Or calling the young people to confront their leaders and those in authority even in the school? Are they thinking about the kids being called to serve in situations, beyond the military, that might prove fatal? Do they think about asking these young people to be led by a force that, as we read in the gospel of John, “blows where it wills”? About submitting themselves to a force that leaves them no control? I don’t think the chaplain thinks he is promoting rebellious radicalism. Yet that’s what the Holy Spirit used to be all about. . .

In his poem, “Spiritus,” Steve Turner beautifully shares the contradictions in the common conceptions of the Holy Spirit:

I used to think of you
as a symphony
neatly structured,
full of no surprises.
Now I see you as
a saxophone solo
blowing wildly
into the night,
a tongue of fire,
flicking in unrepeated patterns.

[Steve Turner, in Resources for Preaching and Worship Year B, compiled by Hannah Ward and Jennifer Wild, p. 151]

We are left thinking about the possibility of the Holy Spirit being liberated from the imprisonment imposed by the doctrine of the church. Can we think of the Holy Spirit in new ways? Actually, maybe in old ways? Can we think of the Holy Spirit unleashed to heal the pain of the Earth? Can we conceive of the Spirit poured out upon all flesh, not just some flesh? Can we open ourselves to the Holy Spirit empowering bold actions which challenge the divides of our day? Can we receive the Holy Spirit breathing new life into the church, the human family, and creation? Do we have the courage and the freedom?

Considering the domestication and containment of the concept of the Holy Spirit, maybe it is better to simply neglect the doctrine of the Holy Spirit so that Spirit may be redeemed. Amen.

A reasonable effort has been made to appropriately cite materials referenced in this sermon. For additional information, please contact Lakewood United Church of Christ.

LUCC helps Helen Nims celebrate her 100th birthday!

Forgivenes – Claire Stiles

UCC_Logo_Color

The Guest Speaker on July 26th, 2015 was Lakewood parishioner, Claire A. Stiles, Ph.D., Professor Emerita, Human Development, Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL.

The title of her talk was Getting to Forgiveness: A Return to Wholeness. To listen, right-click HERE and select the save link option and play the downloaded file with your computer’s media player. If you have a one-button mouse (on a Mac), press and hold the “Control” key and click the link and select the save link option.

What follows is the written text of that audio.
FORGIVE

Getting to Forgiveness: A Return to Wholeness
Claire A. Stiles, Ph.D.

Adaptation of Paper written for
The Council of Faculty Fellows Seminar
Center for Spiritual Life at Eckerd College on February 21, 2007

Presented to Lakewood United Church of Christ on July 26, 2015

Good Morning. I am humbled to be able to share some ideas with you in Pastor Kim’s absence, and although I can only scratch the surface on this topic, central to Christianity and our faith tradition, I hope some of the ideas will be of value to you personally and to all of us as a faith community. I am reading an adapted version of a paper that I wrote as a member of the Council of Faculty Fellows Seminar for the Center for Spiritual Life at Eckerd College in February 2007. Six faculty members were selected to be fellows during the 2006-07 academic year, and each of us wrote a paper from our own disciplinary perspective on the topic of forgiveness.

As a professional in the behavioral sciences, my intention was to bring a social science perspective to the topic of forgiveness. In doing so, I hoped to further clarify the process of forgiveness not directly addressed in the sacred scriptures of the Judeo-Christian religious traditions. The questions before us today are: How do those who look for guidance within this religious tradition find the path toward forgiveness and a release or healing from the experiences of real or perceived victimization? How do we “get to forgiveness” and return to a state of wholeness? Can modern science fill in the gaps and point us toward a practical method of raising the probability of actually being able to forgive ourselves or others? And finally is forgiveness always the best choice in every circumstance?

Just what is forgiveness? Many definitions can be offered but one description by Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998) as cited by Whitbourne on January 1, 2013 is

Instead of revenge, resentment, and judgment, you show generosity, compassion, and kindness. In forgiveness, you don’t forget that the offense occurred nor do you excuse it. You substitute your negative with positive feelings, thoughts, and behavior. (para. 1)

Beaumont (2009) tells us that “When you forgive someone, you make the choice to give up your desire for revenge and feelings of resentment. You also stop judging the person who caused you the hurt.”

He also lists the following that might be part of forgiveness:

Definitions

  1. The decision not to seek punishment for those who have harmed you.
  2. A decision to release yourself from anger, resentment, hate, or the urge for revenge despite the injury you suffered.
  3. To let go of hope of a different past.
  4. A change of heart; ceasing to hate.
  5. Responding to unjust hurt with compassion, benevolence, and empathy.
  6. Moving beyond bitterness.
  7. Cancelling a debt.
  8. Choosing not to act on vindictive passions.
  9. Discharging—removing the obligation for—a debt owed to you.
  10. Ending estrangement and letting go of resentment and the urge for revenge.
  11. Surrendering feelings of animosity and hatred when others harm us
  12. Peace and understanding that come from blaming less that which has hurt you, taking the life experience less personally, and changing your grievance story

 

Regardless of the specific definition, as so well expressed by Jim Andrews in his children’s sermon, we all have within us the power to forgive.

When seeking answers to life’s difficult and painful challenges, like those of forgiveness, many of us in the Judeo-Christian traditions frequently first turn to the Bible and other spiritual or church-based readings. We often rely on our faith-based solutions when we are perplexed, discouraged, frightened, or overwhelmed by the demands of our relationships, family, jobs, finances, health, and even national and world events. During these distressful times, we often feel a loss of well-being, and we long to return to a state of balance and wholeness. As we face the stresses of modern life in the 21st century and our own unique life experiences, we search for insight into how to resolve our difficulties and live a moral and satisfying and even joyous life while being true to our personal values and to the core tenets of our faith.

Turning to the Holy Bible (1989), can we find a prescription for the restoration of well-being and a return to wholeness, especially when faced with the pain of wrongdoing against the self or significant others? Here we find some guidance as forgiveness is presented as the character of God and of the Christ. Examples from scripture include the story of the return of the Prodigal Son from Luke 15 and the words of the Lord’s Prayer, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,” (Matthew 6:12). Other verses confirm the forgiving nature of the divine, e.g., “Then the Lord said, ‘I do forgive, just as you have asked.’” (Numbers 14:20); and “Then Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing’” (Luke 23:34).

In numerous places the Bible directs us to forgive, e.g., “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses,” (Mark 11:25); tells us why we should forgive, e.g., “For if you forgive others their trespasses, our heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses,” (Matthew 6:14); who we should forgive, e.g., “but I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;” (Matthew 5:44); and even how often we should forgive, e.g., “Then Peter came and said to him, ‘Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times’” (Matthew 18:21-22). Forgiveness, thus, is a basic precept of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

However, as inspiring and clear as the Bible is about our duty to forgive, it does not reveal the exact process leading to forgiveness. Fortunately, we have access to additional resources to help illuminate the path. For the modern human in a world where the scientific method has unraveled many mysteries of the natural world, we find a wealth of potential in the research and literature of the social and behavioral sciences. Turning to the field of psychology and counseling may provide strategies for coping with this dilemma and, along with Biblical wisdom, help to find the path to forgiveness and a return to wholeness.

A major source of human stress and suffering, the experience of having intentional or unintentional harm inflicted on ourselves or one’s loved ones by the other, e.g., an individual, a group, or an institution, can wound us at a deep emotional level. This experience of victimization usually involves a significant loss that may be physical, psychological, social, financial, or a combination of losses. The death of a loved one may be one of the most devastating losses of all. Based on the disruptive effect on our lives and the extent of readjustment necessary afterwards, the pain we experience upon the death of a beloved one can be even more devastating when the loss was caused by someone else’s violent or irresponsible behavior.

Regardless of the nature or severity of loss, if we perceive that the cause of the loss was harm inflicted, deliberately or unintentionally by another, and that we were powerless to control it, our anger, grief, or fear can lead to a burning desire for revenge or punishment, depression and a sense of futility, an acute traumatic stress reaction, or a debilitating longer term post-traumatic stress disorder when the trauma experienced was profound, e.g., battle stress, homicide, terrorist attack, childhood abuse, and domestic violence (APA Help Center, 2004). Witnessing harm to another or even hearing the stories of harm from someone known or unknown to us, can also create a vicarious trauma experience with a similar emotional reaction even if we are not the victim. Take for example the emotional effects on children of witnessing violence. We also know from veterans of war the emotional impact of witnessing battle field horrors and the torture of fellow POW’s. Clearly victimization with its subsequent flood of painful emotions is a widespread problem. From the sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic clergy against children to the senseless killing of Amish children in Pennsylvania, to the brutal revenge murders televised daily from the Middle East, and to the racism and violence on our streets towards African Americans, we are awash in news reports of victimization and trauma.

What is a possible antidote for healing of this victimization and the emotional fallout from the real or imagined deep offenses against oneself or another? One such antidote in forgiveness although some would also say that justice plays an important part as well. In exploring the social science literature, the first thing we note is an increase in the number, frequency, and diversity of research studies on forgiveness since 1985. This explosion of research and theory suggests both the acceptability of this topic as a research topic and the urgency to understand how forgiveness and reconciliation occur in order to help break the cycle of anger, grief, pain, and desire for revenge experienced by so many people in the world. We even see increased funding by major philanthropic organizations like the John Templeton Foundation and other donors who support programs like the Campaign for Forgiveness Research led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Pulitzer Prize winning author Dr. Robert Coles, community activist Ruby Bridges Hall, and former US President Jimmy Carter. Campaign for Forgiveness Research alone between 1999 – 2005 resulted in an upsurge of studies investigating forgiveness at all levels and under many different circumstances, e.g., from individual and family forgiveness to among nations, and from forgiveness and its relationship to health to forgiveness after sexual, alcohol, or drug abuse, trauma, grief, loss, or violence, and in place of revenge.

Based on this research, what do we know about getting to forgiveness today? Mostly we have many different perspectives on everything from a) WHAT IS FORGIVENESS, i.e.,the definition, conceptualization, and measurement of forgiveness, b) WHAT IS THE REAL GOAL OF FORGIVENESS, i.e., the optimal endpoint or goal, c) WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCE OUR ABILITY TO FORGIVE, i.e., the influence of personality variables and contextual factors, and d) WHICH APPROACHES TO FORGIVENESS ARE VALID AND EFFECTIVE to resolve anger and pain. Just as in all academic fields of study, we find many brilliant minds hypothesizing, reasoning, debating, and finding evidence to support a particular understanding of any phenomenon. The methods may vary but the search for truth drives all of them. So what is the truth about getting to forgiveness and is there only one truth or one way?

Well, what we do know is that according to an extensive and recent review of the forgiveness literature in psychology by Strelan and Covic (2006)

Forgiveness:

  1. Provides mental health benefits such as increased hope and self-esteem, decreased anger, and alleviation of depression
  2. Reduces physiological stress and coronary heart disease
  3. Varies according to an individual’s disposition and personality as well as environmental factors

The literature is unclear in describing how people actually come to a point or a time where they have forgiven a wrongdoer, including themselves, in their lives. Of the 25 models reviewed by Strelan and Covic (2006) in their ground-breaking article, all of them describe “an individual’s progression through a series of interdependent (though not necessarily linear) phases, each consisting of mental, emotional, and behavioral responses or intentions” (para. 6). An individual proceeds in a basically sequential manner, performing certain cognitive, affective, or behavioral tasks or actions before moving on to the next stage. What these models share is agreement that the following stages are part of the process:

  1. Initial feelings of hurt and anger accompanied usually by shock and sometimes disbelief
  2. Ongoing negative, painful, or discomforting emotional and mental consequences
  3. Realization that one’s efforts to cope with these responses is not effective
  4. Decision to forgive or consider forgiving
  5. Understanding of or empathy for the offender

Where the models differ is on the exact order of steps, the transition between stages, and the what triggers movement to the next stage. The importance of the social nature of the process versus the internal characteristics and perspectives of the victim, and even the final goal or endpoint of the process also differ in each model. Finally, models are religious or secular in that some include or place emphasis on the role of God’s forgiveness in this process and some do not.

One example of this process of change that recognizes the role of the divine can be drawn from the life of the Reverend Frank Windom. This United Methodist minister who presided over Action Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia, was shot by a mentally ill stranger in May 1999 at a gas station in Decatur (Montgomery, 2006). After recovering physically from a near death encounter, Reverend Windom struggled emotionally, mentally, and spiritually to regain his equilibrium and live up to his Christian commitment to forgive. He suffered from several years of post-traumatic stress and was plagued by irrational fears of strangers. Over time he became determined to change and credits his faith in God with helping him overcome the ordeal. From what is reported, this man spent at least a year in the process of coping with his feelings and thoughts of victimization before he was “able to forgive in his heart the deranged stranger who shot him and find peace” (p. D1). We can surmise the likelihood of his working through the five stages listed above even as he relied on his religious faith for support to get to this heartfelt act of forgiveness.

A more secular example is that of Bud Welch, father of Julie Welch, one of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh in April 1995. He admitted in an interview (A father’s struggle to forgive, 2001) that during the first month after his daughter’s violent and tragic death, his anger, pain, and hatred was so intense he could understand the desire to kill the perpetrator. By the end of that year he was drinking heavily and smoking excessively because he was stuck emotionally on the events of his daughter’s murder. He then knew he had to do something about his emotional state when he realized that he would not feel any better once the murderers were executed. At this point he became an advocate against the death penalty by traveling and speaking nationwide about his opposition to capital punishment. The real turning point for Bud Welch, however, came when he visited Timothy McVeigh’s father and met Timothy’s 24 year old sister, Jennifer. When he saw Tim’s high school graduation picture in the family home and made a positive comment about it, Bud Welch and the McVeigh family broke down and shared real grief, compassion, and empathy as they realized that they were all deeply connected by the terrible tragedy of April 19, 1995. At the time of the interview, Welch stated, “Forgiving is not something you just wake up one morning and decide to do. You have to work through your anger and your hatred as long as it’s there. You try to live each day a little better than the one before. I do have setbacks, even when I’m sure I want to forgive. That’s probably why I can’t handle that word ‘closure.’ . . . How can there ever be true closure? A part of my heart is gone.” After McVeigh was executed, Welch continued to campaign against capital punishment and said, “About a year before the execution I found it in my heart to forgive Tim McVeigh. It was a release for me rather than for him” (The Forgiveness Project). Welch came to understand McVeigh’s mind-set of revenge against the US government and even though he believed the bombing was horrifically wrong, Welch realized that the cycle of violence must stop (Welch, 2001).

With Bud Welch we see stages in the process of forgiveness starting with Welch’s initial feelings of hurt and anger (Stage 1), followed by ongoing negative, painful, and discomforting emotional and mental consequences, i.e., excessive drinking and rumination about the bombing (Stage 2). Finally, Welch realized that his efforts to cope with these responses was not effective (Stage 3), and he decided to consider forgiving or at least not seeking revenge toward McVeigh (Stage 4) A year after the execution, Welch, in understanding the mind-set of McVeigh and his motivation behind the heinous act, actually felt empathy for the offender and forgave him (Stage 5).

Of course, the process does not necessarily unfold in a neat linear progression nor does it always take a long period of time for everyone who has suffered from wrongdoing. In the recent case of the nine church members of the Emmanuel AME church in Charleston, SC murdered by a young man who had been welcomed into their midst at a prayer meeting, we see the almost immediate offering of forgiveness to the killer. The Christian faith of members of the victims’ families and friends clearly led them to state their forgiveness of him publically. We can only hope that after the shock and horror of these losses begins to fade and as the realization of the violent and hateful intent of the murders comes into sharper focus, that these deeply bereaved people of faith are able to continue to feel forgiveness in the privacy of their own hearts. In Jeanne Safer’s book, Forgiving and Not Forgiving: Why Sometimes It’s Better Not to Forgive we learn that despite persuasive evidence that not forgiving can be mentally and physically stressful, pressuring people into forgiving can be harmful as well. Deciding to let go of angry thoughts and not seeking revenge is one form of forgiveness Decisional Forgiveness, but replacing negative feelings with love, compassion, and empathy or Emotional Forgiveness can only be encouraged not coerced. Some people reach one level but not necessarily the heart forgiveness level.

Despite the popularity of the stage models, they are limited so alternative models have been proposed. One particularly effective model is derived from the stress and coping research done by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and also favored by Strelan and Covic (2006). This model helps define forgiveness and the actual coping mechanisms involved in the process as well to advance theory and research about the forgiveness process in the future.

According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), our reaction to any stressor is determined by our subjective evaluation of the stressful situation. First we evaluate or appraise the degree of harm or threat of harm done to us or our loved one, i.e., a primary appraisal, and then we evaluate what resources within ourselves and in our environment we have to cope with this harm or threat of harm, i.e., a secondary appraisal. . Believing that we have the resources to manage this harm allows us to cope with it and reduces the negative emotions and their accompanying physiological reactions. If, however, we believe that we do not have adequate resources, we respond in two different ways, by using either or both emotion-focused coping and problem-focused coping. Emotion-focused coping helps us regulate the intensity of our feelings and disturbing thoughts associated with the stressful event, e.g., expressing our emotions of grief and pain, praying or meditating, reading inspiring or faith-based texts, or reinterpreting the situation. Problem-focused coping is also used when we try to bring about a change to the situation and resolve it, e.g., seek more information, plan, or take action for justice or change. In situations which cannot be changed, we tend to use more emotion-focused coping, but most often a combination of coping strategies is used as the stressful situation evolves.

We can see the similarities between the forgiveness process and the coping process described above when we note that 1) the forgiveness process is an attempt to reduce the stress reaction to being wronged or harmed, 2) individuals make both a primary appraisal of the extent of the harm experienced and secondary appraisals about what one can do (retaliate, demand justice, withdraw, or express anger) as well as the availability of one’s resources to cope when an injury has been experienced, 3) both emotion-focused and problem-focused coping strategies describe what people actually do during the forgiveness process, 4) the effectiveness of coping processes varies and can change over time, e.g., rumination over the transgression appears to be a barrier to forgiveness (McCullough et al, 2001), emotion-focused coping may be effective immediately after an incident but not as effective if no action is taken later, for instance, developing empathy for the wrongdoer may be a key in the long term resolution of the process, 5) both coping and forgiveness involve internal mental processing and interpersonal processes (communication and interaction with others) as well as situation-specific factors unique to each incident, and 6) forgiveness, like coping with any stressor, is a dynamic, unfolding process with both positive and negative responses occurring and reoccurring over time (Strelan and Covic, 2006).

The more we explore the process of forgiveness, the more clear it becomes that for most people, most of the time, forgiveness is an challenging process with no certain or even unanimously recognized endpoint attainable by all. However, whether we rely solely on Biblical scripture or seek knowledge and guidance from the social sciences, we can be assured that the process of forgiveness, even if it does not result in closure, is a worthy one. Whether we view forgiveness as the restoration of our original human nature or, more specifically, restoration of our lost or underlying unity with God, with others, and with ourselves (Foltz, 2006), or a psychological process determined by internal and shared coping strategies, the way to forgiveness does clearly involve a process of transformation or change that restores us to our wholeness or, as expressed in the language of faith, to our original unity with the spirit of God dwelling within us.

Whether our inspiration to make the difficult journey toward forgiveness comes from the Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition, or from the social sciences, we can be heartened by stories of unexpected role models. When we hear and identify with the ordinary person facing extraordinary circumstances, who finds the strength and courage to move through a painful cognitive, affective, and oftentimes behavioral process to achieve wholeness, we are lifted up and offered new hope. Indeed, from those who have experienced even the most difficult life circumstances, we learn that the way is steep and the pain at times unbearable, yet perhaps, as The theologian Marcus Borg tells us, “we can midwife the process” (p. 120) by turning to our faith and our reason to truly find a return to wholeness. Our willingness to approach this task and the intentionality we bring to it is the work of all who would seek forgiveness.

I would like to end by saying a few final added words about self-forgiveness which may be the real key to forgiveness.
In many ways self-forgiveness allows us to release the hurt and pain of real or imagined wrongdoing for which we blame ourselves or take responsibility. Could be something we said, felt, or did or avoided saying, feeling, or doing when we thought we should have done so.

As we already know, self-forgiveness is a process – begins by accepting where we are even if we don’t like where we are Kind, gentle, and compassionate acceptance sets the stage for what is to come next. No predictable timetable – varies with individual and what he or she would like to forgive. Needs patience and faith that things will change – you will change, the situation will change, and your receptivity to change will change.

Forgiveness of self and forgiveness of others is a healing process that takes time and occurs on many levels of our consciousness. We may feel ready to forgive on a conscious, rational level, but not on another more fundamental unconscious or trans-rational level. Intellectually we may want to forgive, but emotionally we may not yet be ready. Honoring and respecting our readiness without judging or chastising ourselves is essential while at the same time doing the inner and outer “healing work”.

What is that healing work? Again this varies for individuals but some ideas are contemplation, meditation, prayer, journaling, affirmation, visualization, reading of inspirational texts, sharing your heart with a trusted others, and making amends if possible may all be part of this work. Trusting the process, not rushing it, going forward gently, and recognizing that we will experience ups and downs, that the process is not linear or straight forward is helpful to know too.
And so each of us can begin this process by taking small steps on a daily basis to learn the habit of self-forgiveness. And so by building the habit of compassion and forgiveness of ourselves, we also lay the foundation for the habit of forgiveness of others.

I might suggest starting by affirming verbally or in writing that “I love and forgive myself (name) for ______________________(whatever I think I did wrong.”)

And I will begin by stating aloud that I love and forgive myself, Claire, for perhaps trying your patience with a rather lengthy treatise on forgiveness! And I hope you will forgive me as well!

Thank you and God Bless.

REFERENCES

 

A Campaign for Forgiveness Research Website accessed on January 14, 2007 at: http://www.forgiving.org

APA. (January, 1998). Training EMSC Providers in Violence Prevention. A Report by the American Psychological Association to the Emergency Medical Services for Children Program, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed on line on January 13, 2007 at http://www.apa.org/pi/emsctraining1.html#

 

APA Help Center. (2004). Mind/Body Health: The Effects of Traumatic Stress. APA Fact Sheet accessed on line at http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=122

Bandura A. (1977.) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

 

Beaumont, L. R. (2009). Forgiveness. Retrieved at

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/forgiveness.htm
Berger, T.J. (September 13, 2006). Congressional Issue Briefing on the Nature and Impact of Psychological Trauma. Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Remarks submitted by Thomas J. Berger, Ph.D., Chair, PTSD & Substance Abuse Committee, Vietnam Veterans of America. Accessed online on January 13, 2007 at http://www.witnessjustice.org/advocacysta/berger.cfm
Borg, M.J. (2003). The Heart of Christianity – Rediscovering a Life of Faith. New York: HarperCollins Pub.

Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Foltz, B. (2006). “As We Also Forgive” Asceticism and Forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer,

According to St. Maximos the Confessor. Unpublished essay delivered at the November 29, 2007 Council for Faculty Fellows forum, Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL.

Holmes, T.H., and Rahe, R. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 11:213-218.

Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Pub.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.

MacArthur, J. (1997). A Living Lesson on Forgiveness. Accessed on January 13, 2007 from the Bible Bulletin Board at http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/57-1.htm.

McCullough, Michael E., C. Garth Bellah, Shelley Dean Kilpatrick, and Judith L. Johnson. “Vengefulness: Relationships with Forgiveness, Rumination, Well-Being, and the Big Five.” Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 27.5 (May 2001): 601. Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. LIRN. 19 Jan. 2007. Retrieved at
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&docId=A75249361&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=lirn_main&version=1.0

Montgomery, B. (Monday, December 25, 2006). Minister learned to forgive gunman. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, pp. D1 & D16.

Seaward, Brian Luke. (2006). Managing Stress – Principles and Strategies for Health and Well-Being. 5th Edition. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Strelan. P. & Covic, T. (2006). A Review of Forgiveness Process Models and a Coping Framework to Guide Future Research. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,25:10, 1059-1086. Accessed via PROQUEST database on January 14, 2007

Welch, B. (March 8, 2001). Bud Welch Statement about Timothy McVeigh. Coloradans against the Death Penalty website. Accessed from the internet on January 15, 2007 at http://www.coadp.org/thepublications/pub-2001-WelchOnMcVeigh.html
Welch. B. The Forgiveness Project. Accessed on the internet on January 15, 2007 at http://www.theforgivenessproject.com/stories/bud-welch
Whitbourne, S. K. (January 1, 2013. Live Longer by Practicing Forgiveness. Forgiveness can help you feel better, and even lengthen your life. Retrieved at https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201301/live-longer-practicing-forgiveness