This post is a follow up to the short post entitled “The Trap of Forgiveness” at https://www.engagingmultiples.com/trap-forgiveness/ . It was written following feedback and questions from some readers that are very focused on the Christian notion of forgiveness as part of their healing. It is directed primarily to Christian patients and therapists whose therapeutic work is based on forgiveness as one of the central teachings of Jesus.
Some patients and therapists with deep roots in Christianity see forgiveness as the confirmation of healing. It is sometimes their view that being able to forgive is the ultimate expression of being healed. It is my experience that one needs to be extremely wary of how forgiveness is defined in the context of treating survivors of early childhood abuse.
For example, it is not uncommon for a typical female patient who has survived early childhood abuse by her father to face a spiritual crisis when that father, late in life and perhaps with failing health, asserts his dependency on her as a command. Now insisting on a “normal” father-daughter relationship, he may be conveniently ignoring, making light of, or rationalizing his abusive behavior. The patient may then struggle with this: Should she abandon her abusive father or perform her duty as a Christian daughter and forgive him his past sins?
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of defining forgiveness. Depending on the definition you choose, it is either a path to further healing or a path to further retraumatization. In the absence of clearly defining forgiveness, it is a dangerous goal to set for a DID patient.
Therapy must be practical. It must take into account the trauma that patients must process in order to heal. One must consider the likelihood of success, as the goals in therapy must be within the grasp of the patient. Positing conventional notions of forgiveness as the path, goal or indication of success in therapy seems to set both the therapist and the patient up for failure. Setting an unattainable goal will only reinforce the patient’s negative self-image engendered by the abuse.
We must be clear that forgiving a living abuser is not like forgiving someone who stole an extra cookie when your back was turned, nor is it like forgiving someone when they are no longer able to harm you – such as someone who has already died. Promoting or attempting forgiveness can be very dangerous if it involves an abuser who has brutally harmed the patient in the past and is still capable of inflicting further deep wounds and retraumatization through physical or psychological means.
A colleague of mine listened to a woman speak of her sexually abusive father, explaining that he really loved her and the abuse was simply his confusion about how to express it. This seemed to be her conventional version of having forgiven her abusive father for his conduct – having an explanation she thought she could live with. My colleague told her in no uncertain terms that her father did not love her, that calling his molestation “love” was a psychological tactic common used by many abusers – particularly paternal or older male abusers, and that until she understood that power dynamic she would not be free of the abuse, not healed. She reacted as if he had thrown a bucket of ice water on her; causing her to reconsider the import of what she herself had said.
It later came out that her father had continued to abuse other children – including her toddler aged daughter. When this was discovered, she and her family moved within a week to another country to escape him. Had she not “forgiven” her father in that conventional sense, she would likely have been more on guard against him and thereby protected her own daughter as well as others. I use this real example to demonstrate that conventional notions of forgiveness can hold ongoing danger to the patient and others.
Most trauma that leads to DID is so overwhelming that ordinary individuals cannot truly imagine or comprehend the experience. To presume that one will eventually be able to forgive their abuser and, as a result, have an ongoing positive or at least neutral relationship, as a general rule, is a fantasy. From the Christian theological view, Jesus was able to forgive all their trespasses and sins. From that point of view, one can take joy in Jesus’ power to forgive and leave that level of forgiving to Him. However, this is not something within the capacity of ordinary people whether they are DID or not, so do not push that as a therapeutic path or goal.
If you are bitten by a poisonous snake, you can forgive that snake its poisonous venom and understand that it was simply defending itself when you accidentally stepped on it in the jungle. Having venom is in the nature of being a poisonous snake. To forgive the abuser and engage him as if there was no current danger, would be like forgiving that poisonous snake and deciding to carry it back home with you in your pocket to prove your forgiveness. Don’t do that!
One must work with forgiveness in a way that is not predicated on continuing to put oneself or others in danger of further abuse. The risk of retraumatization is too great to permit a patient to confuse conventional forgiveness so as to blur the boundaries of their personal safety.
It must also be understood that the critical sense of safety a patient is developing in therapy is the key. Forgiveness, from a therapeutic point of view, must be understood to be an internal process that does not require endangering proof of accomplishment. There are many important reasons to protect the patient from the danger of retraumatization. There is absolutely no need to test the depth of one’s forgiveness by engaging an abuser as an expression of forgiveness to him. Patients can be encouraged to simply check their own hearts. Neither from a spiritual nor psychological point of view does forgiving an abuser in your heart mean that one presents the abuser with another opportunity to harm you.
I set out some realistic therapeutic goals for this kind of case in Engaging Multiple Personalities Volume 1 and 2 as well as some practical exercises for establishing safe boundaries in those volumes and in my blog posts. Hopefully, they will prove helpful to readers.
I have yet to define forgiveness in this piece, in part because there are many aspects and understandings of this in Christianity. However, before any notions of forgiveness can arise, it is important in DID therapy to understand and make sure the patient understands that it was often the angry and protective alters that enabled the patient to survive the abuse. So, while I consider that it is a healthy aspiration to forgive others, meaning letting go of bitterness and hatred that is rooted in the past, in therapy one must be very careful to allow that to come to its own fruition. Introducing or promoting forgiveness is denying the insight and role of the angry alters. It will be counterproductive to the therapeutic alliance and the overall healing path.
In my view, being unwilling to forgive means holding on to hateful feelings and bitterness which results in further suffering and prevents healing. My definition of forgiveness does not mean that you go have coffee with your abuser and chat about current events in the world. My definition of forgiveness means letting go of the hatred in your heart. That should happen as a by-product of therapy, maturing in its own time as the system’s sense of safety permits. Forgiveness like that, with the warmth and lightness in the heart that results, is an indicator of the final stages of therapeutic success.
