This is beautifully written and a really profound topic, but I disagree on the premise asserted here: "forgiveness must be a two-way street, where both parties work toward real change." I would argue that the better term for THAT is "reconciliation."
Forgiveness is an act and an attitude of the wronged. It has nothing to do with the one being forgiven, who might remain obstinate and awful the rest of their life. Their only role can be repentance. They can regret their actions, apologize, and live justly from here on out, but they play no actual part in the forgiveness except for receiving it (though many don't.) When one party forgives AND the other repents, then reconciliation can begin, and that requires the integration of the two. That's where accountability and mercy forge a new way forward.
Forgiving someone does not mean forgetting the wrong, or opening oneself up to the exact same wound to repeat, or minimizing the pain inflicted. It's the letting go of bitterness and resentment and ill will. It does just as much if not more for the one doing the forgiving, as the one being forgiven.
One of my favorite Bible verses is Micah 6:8, which says:
"What does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
It's not contradictory to do justice and yet be merciful in your personal dealings. I think we can and must do both for a society that values both responsibility and grace. One does not wait upon the other, but together, they strengthen each other.
I wish you had expanded more on your initial praise of Joe’s essay being “beautifully written and a really profound topic.” Your supportive comment piqued my interest, but then you quickly shifted to “disagreeing on the premise.” Which premise, though? There are about six in his piece.
Also, what happened to highlighting the great stuff Joe did? The fantastic reinterpretation of a classic sci-fi tale? His humility in referencing scholarly work?
To be honest, I always get uneasy when someone quotes the New Testament on “humility” and “mercy” while not seeming particularly humble or merciful toward a fellow writer. Maybe Joe got under your skin a bit, which is fine—we’re all here to be open to challenges, which is why I love Substack. But sometimes it feels like moralizing gets in the way of real conversation. I know I’ve done that myself.
Keep writing, Joe—open our eyes to new worlds (and maybe a queer one, too!).
I quoted the exact premise with which I disagreed by using this phrasing...'I disagree on the premise asserted here: "forgiveness must be a two-way street, where both parties work toward real change."'
Not humble or merciful toward a fellow writer? Don't worry—Joe didn't get "under my skin." He's actually one of my best friends and I love having these conversations with him both in person and by writing. This Substack series is beautiful and I think a marvelous platform for his obvious talent. I'm glad you appreciate it, too.
It does indeed challenge thinking. It got me thinking about the differences between forgiveness, repentance, accountability, and reconciliation...what parts they must play separately and what parts they can play together.
I would have loved to hear more of your own reflections on the piece itself, and how it challenged your thinking. My comments are simply a footnote in the post-conversation!
This is beautifully written and a really profound topic, but I disagree on the premise asserted here: "forgiveness must be a two-way street, where both parties work toward real change." I would argue that the better term for THAT is "reconciliation."
Forgiveness is an act and an attitude of the wronged. It has nothing to do with the one being forgiven, who might remain obstinate and awful the rest of their life. Their only role can be repentance. They can regret their actions, apologize, and live justly from here on out, but they play no actual part in the forgiveness except for receiving it (though many don't.) When one party forgives AND the other repents, then reconciliation can begin, and that requires the integration of the two. That's where accountability and mercy forge a new way forward.
Forgiving someone does not mean forgetting the wrong, or opening oneself up to the exact same wound to repeat, or minimizing the pain inflicted. It's the letting go of bitterness and resentment and ill will. It does just as much if not more for the one doing the forgiving, as the one being forgiven.
One of my favorite Bible verses is Micah 6:8, which says:
"What does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
It's not contradictory to do justice and yet be merciful in your personal dealings. I think we can and must do both for a society that values both responsibility and grace. One does not wait upon the other, but together, they strengthen each other.
I wish you had expanded more on your initial praise of Joe’s essay being “beautifully written and a really profound topic.” Your supportive comment piqued my interest, but then you quickly shifted to “disagreeing on the premise.” Which premise, though? There are about six in his piece.
Also, what happened to highlighting the great stuff Joe did? The fantastic reinterpretation of a classic sci-fi tale? His humility in referencing scholarly work?
To be honest, I always get uneasy when someone quotes the New Testament on “humility” and “mercy” while not seeming particularly humble or merciful toward a fellow writer. Maybe Joe got under your skin a bit, which is fine—we’re all here to be open to challenges, which is why I love Substack. But sometimes it feels like moralizing gets in the way of real conversation. I know I’ve done that myself.
Keep writing, Joe—open our eyes to new worlds (and maybe a queer one, too!).
I quoted the exact premise with which I disagreed by using this phrasing...'I disagree on the premise asserted here: "forgiveness must be a two-way street, where both parties work toward real change."'
Not humble or merciful toward a fellow writer? Don't worry—Joe didn't get "under my skin." He's actually one of my best friends and I love having these conversations with him both in person and by writing. This Substack series is beautiful and I think a marvelous platform for his obvious talent. I'm glad you appreciate it, too.
It does indeed challenge thinking. It got me thinking about the differences between forgiveness, repentance, accountability, and reconciliation...what parts they must play separately and what parts they can play together.
I would have loved to hear more of your own reflections on the piece itself, and how it challenged your thinking. My comments are simply a footnote in the post-conversation!