Consider the organization "Mothers Against Drunk Drivers" (MADD), which had as its first "office" the still-decorated bedroom of a 13-year old girl who was killed in a hit-and-run accident by a drunk driver. Here's how writer Laurie Danies describes the founding of MADD in the History Section of MADD's website:
"25 years ago, a heartbroken mother made a pledge in her deceased daughter's bedroom -- a decision that quickly inspired a handful of grieving, determined mothers to join in the fight. Though united in cause, they had no office, no money and no clout. They were as their name suggests: MADD. As their fledgling organization grew, they stood toe-to-toe with politicians who knew the stats, but didn't act. They took on a powerful industry that puts profits over safety. They challenged a society that viewed drinking and driving as acceptable -- even laughable."In 1980, the U.S. had 30,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities a year; by 2005, the number was down to 17,000 -- thanks in large measure to steps taken by MADD.
Yet, however, mad, the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers were -- and are -- their primary purpose has been to eliminate drunk driving as well as the attitudes and actions (and lack of action) that have enabled, and even encouraged it. They demand that drunken driving be treated as the crime that it is.
Is this unforgiveness? Perhaps. However, these actions would be soundly supported by the greatest forgiver I know, Jesus Christ, as well as other great people of mercy and justice, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Mother Theresa, to name just a few.
Observes Bishop Desmond Tutu:
"In forgiveness, people are not being asked to forget. On the contrary, it is important to remember, so that we should not let such atrocities happen again. Forgiveness does not mean condoning what has been done. It means taking what happened seriously...drawing out the sting in the memory that threatens our entire existence."Mahatma Gandhi said: "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Jesus lived this truth, and it didn't lead to complacency, but rather his death. When "peace" leads to complacency, perhaps it isn't real forgiveness at all -- but just a very human way to hide.
What do you think?
FORGIVENESS FREEDOM is a blog devoted to exploring effective ways to understand conflict, and restore & reinforce positive connections.
4 comments:
Today the subject of forgivness is and can be very controversial because so many people are hurt by the meaness of others. But to hold it in is to allow their damage to have an eternal affect. It makes one sick, you can't sleep, you have to remember them to shut them out and a lot of negative energy goes on the fact that we eliminated the act of forgiveness. To forgive others is really an opportunity to give yourself permission to forgive yourself. Otherwise, holding in anger causes one to stop growing spiritually
This is a wonderfully provacative question.
Can the peace that comes from forgiveness still us into complacency?
In forgiving we give up the right and desire to harm someone. Forgiveness does not, however, negate the law. God set up the system of justice for the good of everyone, so that we could live in peace with one another. Sometimes that requires people living with the consequences of their actions. And from a spiritual standpoint, when we forgive someone, we are releasing them to own their actions and their consequences. While we are holding on to the infraction and resulting hurt and bitterness, we are holding them and ourselves in bondage. We also block God's opportunity to move within someone else to convict them, hold them accountable, heal them, and make them into a new person. Neil T. Anderson explains it much better than I can in his book, "Victory over Darkness"
Rob Bell (author, speaker and pastor) in his teaching called: "Beautifully Angry" he teaches us that Jesus used his anger regarding injustice as the movitation and energy for creating a solution. Kally's example of the woman who started MADD is a great example of this.
It's my opinion that if she hadn't forgiven, she might be wallowing in the pain - or ruminating as we discussed earlier. She'd be preoccupied with herself rather than justice.
Maybe she started the organization to work out her grief, to process the loss, to do something constructive with her emotions. And maybe that led her to a place where she could forgive....hhmmm interesting idea, that I'll continue to ponder.
Thanks to the one who posted the thought provoking question....great discussion!
It strikes me as I read your posts and Kally's reflection that I and many of my friends have turned inward to find our religion. We believe and even celebrate God but are often cynical about many/most organized religions and the profitability, power, greed, & humanity of them.
With our tendency toward individualized celebration we lose the benefit of religious discussion, philosophy, and expectation setting that comes with worship as a collective - especially with topics such as forgiveness.
At work I know that "I get what I measure". Where is our measurement of forgiveness? Trust? Justice? If this measure is no longer represented in the rapidly dwindling attendance at church where do we find it and are our alternatives suitable for healthy society? (i.e., television, the internet, blogging, the legal system, our government)
Has the cynicism of my generation created a "meaner", less idealistic society?
Hopefully another provocative post,
Karrie
OK. It's 4:00am and I've been awake for an hour thinking about this so I figured I'd better write it down. Apologies in advance for all of the context - I'm still sorting this out in my mind.
After a rather weird morning I had a lovely meeting with Kally today. I walked away energized and feeling good about myself. I have purpose. I have a few things to work on that would help me find direction and make me a better leader - both at home and at work.
When I returned to work I sat in one of those "mission statement" meetings where folks pontificate about the meaning of ONE word and its implications for 10 minutes of a 90 minute meeting (shoot me, please). I was new to the group so I tried to do more listening than talking and just kept my mouth (mostly) shut but when I spoke I was somewhat ignored. Then it happened. 10 minutes after I shared an idea - one of the guys restated it and claimed it. I felt like a balloon with the air let out. In the spirit of forgiveness - I moved on.
Later, I was talking to one of the leaders in the company who mentioned that the head of my division (a woman) isn't respected by her (male) peers. More, her other female counterpart who also reports to the CEO is only respected slightly more because she runs a profitable division.
I realized during the conversation that I didn't know the story of how she was appointed her position or her background so I asked. When I listen to the story that is told I find that we have two female direct reports to our CEO and their main purpose in his eyes is to look good on the cover of the annual report. Otherwise their contributions to the organization as a whole are marginalized - by the CEO and his male direct reports. (I'm simplifying for clarity...).
If the contributions of these two women who are supposed to be respected leaders of the company are marginalized by the CEO - doesn't that give license to his other male direct reports to do the same? Is this why when our leadership team over a certain level meets we can count the number of women in the room our of 100 people on one hand? Is this why an idea that comes out of my mouth is ignored but is brilliant 10 minutes later from a guy? Is it also implied that since our CEO has cultivated this culture of men that the future leaders of the company will convey the same level of marginalization with me?
We talk about our culture, what we stand for, our values - talking isn't living.
So what's a girl to do? How does an organization like this change? How do we find it in our hearts to forgive this kind of behavior today where it shouldn't be accepted but for some reason (groupthink I suspect) it is? What's the healthy direction here because it's clearly not ruminating about it at 4:00am...
Post a Comment