Rev. Dr Adamantios G. Avgoustidis, Psychiatrist and Theologian
Forgiveness is one of the exclusive human qualities or attitudes, crucial to the basic make-up of the human person, especially when we speak in terms of the spiritual tradition of Christianity. Recent formulations define forgiveness as the opposite of resentfulness, rancor and hatred, entailing the relinquishment for justification and punishment. These issues, initially belonging to the ground of philosophical, theological or sociological speculation, appeared recently on the scene of psychological research and applications.
The reason for the concern of Psychology regarding “theological” or “moral” topics deals with strong evidence, which indicates these moral values to have an influence on psychological or physical health. During the early 60’s, forgiveness was valued for its psychotherapeutic effects in the treatment of alcoholism. Yet, the religious load of the concept haltered psychology from recognizing the possible therapeutic importance of its emotional content –even for alcoholism– at least until the late 80’s.
It was only around 1986, when increasing concern appeared in the medical, psychiatric or psychological literature, the concept having been almost completely neglected until then except for some considerations dealing with the treatment of anger. Nevertheless, literature refered to the healing “paradox” of forgiveness.
The initial effort to use forgiveness in the treatment of alcoholism extended to adults facing psychological disturbances and who had been victims of abuse by alcoholic parents during their childhood. Parallel to this, therapists working with individuals, who had been physically or sexually assaulted by their parents, began to wonder about the importance of forgiveness as a therapeutic means for the relief of those patients from the catastrophic tendencies that mastered the relationship between them and their ancestors. These approaches soon became very popular and many writings on forgiveness, addressed to the public or to the counselors, appeared on the scene. Publicity challenged other caregivers, as well. Questions about the therapeutic value of forgiveness arose, either in the area of physical health -as in cancer patients-, or in psychotherapy, as in strategic family therapy.
Today, an increasing number of researchers work on questions regarding the possible contribution of forgiveness to an effective psychotherapy when the therapist promotes the patient’s forgiving abilities. That is because, according to some references, the physical illness of some hospitalized patients is rooted in emotional ground. Their speculation is that many patients use their illness as self-punishment, while pertinent symptoms and break-down episodes stay as an unconscious avowal of their suppressed guilt.
What is new about forgiveness?
How new and modern are all these speculations? The purpose of this paper is twofold. One is to bring to light some ways of thinking and some information originating in early eastern Christian spirituality. The other is to discuss those issues within the framework of modern Psychology. One of the goals of this research is to show both, how an erring Christianity cannot help the human being, and how psychology may be restrained by its own methodology and predetermination.
The principal source for this study is the work of Saint John Climacus (6th century), known as “The Ladder of divine ascent”. Because of his work, which has deeply influenced the entire Eastern Christian spiritual tradition, the author is also known as “Saint John of the Ladder” (“Ladder”). The text is included among the most read and fundamental ascetic writings, comparable to the importance of theological compilations such as that of Saint Maximos the Confessor.
The writer of the Ladder represents the spiritual tradition of Eastern Christianity. In his work, John Climacus explains that, if someone wants to rid himself from the passion of anger and rage, first he has to struggle against the “daughters of anger”, named as “remembrance of Wrongs (resentfulness or malice), Hate, Hostility and Self-justification”.
In chapter 9, On Malice (on resentfulness), John Climacus argues that this “passion” belongs to the passions originating from other passions. This “dark and loathsome passion, it comes to be but has no offspring, so that one need not say too much about it”. He insists, however, that its importance should not be undervalued, “never imagine that this dark vice is a passion of no importance, for it often reaches out even to spiritual men”.
He suggests that people who can not cope with their raging memories and remain unable to erase resentfulness from their hearts could get a first stage of relief by trying to show to the “enemy” their repentance, even if it is only empty words. He believes that, even then, this manipulation motivates the subject to go through and become conscious of his/her malice. The outcome of doing so might be a realization of one’ s hypocriticism. Then, this self-consciousness can enforce an emotional change, since “if after great effort you still fail to root out this thorn, go to your enemy and apologize, if only with empty words whose insincerity may shame you. Then as conscience, like a fire, comes to give you pain, you may find that a sincere love of your enemy may come to life”.
Although this prescription sounds like an apparent simplification, it hides in its depth the core idea of a well-turned manipulation, that is on common use in contemporary psychotherapeutic technique. John Climacus, actually, proposes a therapeutic intervention that aims in bringing to the surface other deeper conflicts, by copying with the defense mechanisms like negation, rationalization and reaction formation that may characterize hypocritical behavior. His intervention starts with the conflicts closer to conscience, so resistance is softer and the acceptance of the unconscious guiltiness becomes easier. In the case of a successful fermentation, the resistance becomes less rigid, so the road opens to the approach of deeper psychological conflicts, hidden behind resentfulness, nourishing and sustaining it. It is worth mentioning that, in the Ladder’s words, “to forget wrongs is to prove oneself truly repentant”. In Greek, repentance is “metanoia” which means a change of mind (meta-noia).
Before the end of chapter 9, On Malice, the term “hostility” is used as a synonym of resentfulness. According to the Ladder, forgiveness is the proof of genuine repentance, because “to brood on them (the hated) and at the same time to imagine one is practicing repentance is to act like the man who is convinced he is running when in fact he is fast asleep”. This definition indicates a psychological differentiation between those two conditions. Hostility presupposes a conscious abomination and aversion when resentfulness functions either subconsciously or unconsciously, as “long-standing grievance (long stored resentment)”. That is how some people are “silently harboring resentment within themselves”. And, that is why the non genuine and conscious forbearance could only be the result of the intrinsic suppression of emotions which remain hidden and repressed, “long stored”, “harbored”.
John Climacus argues that the case when an interpretation of Christian faith is delivered under the possession of one’s resentful malicious interest it is proof of active (but unconscious) resentfulness. In his words, “Malice is an exponent of Scripture that twists the words of the Spirit to suit itself”.
It is this unconscious function of resentfulness and the suppression of the inner conflicts that maintain the anger in people’s souls, yet making them appear as devoted faithful, gentle and peaceful in their behavior. According to John Climacus as “worms thrive in a rotten tree; (so) malice thrives in the deceptively meek and silent”.
The aforementioned remarks about hostility stand for hate as well, the other “daughter of anger”, except for the fact that here we are facing full conscious resentfulness and hostility. Self-justification, the last “daughter”, had a particular meaning in the context. We must keep in mind that the text is initially addressed to the monks of a monastic community. In the Ladder, self-justification is synonymous to disputation in the sense of repentance negation.
From John Climacus’ “Ladder” to contemporary Psychology.
Modern psychoanalysis defines anger as the imminent emotional response to a physical or thinkable assault (i.e. primary anger) while hate is a secondary response that requires an internal process. This process includes chronic anger and resentment. Therefore, resentment, hostility and hate are the implications of anger (i.e. secondary anger). In John Climacus’ writings we meet a similar distinction, though he expressed himself in a more literary way. He personalizes anger and asks “him” to bring himself to light. In “his” answer, anger declares: “I come from many sources and I have more than one father. My mothers are Vainglory, Avarice, Greed. And Lust too. My father is named Conceit. My daughters have the names Remembrance of Wrongs, Hate, Hostility, and Self-justification”. What we have here is a case of deep psychological thinking, literately expressed, which, in fact, defines primary and secondary anger.
Moreover, the use of expressions like “long stored resentment” or “silently harboring resentment within themselves” refers to withheld, suppressed emotions. We could argue that, those expressions indicate John Climacus is aware of some psychological defensive mechanisms which psychoanalysis described almost fifteen centuries later.
Indeed, in the Ladder, one frequently meets expressions that could justify the writer’s awareness of what psychoanalysis defined as “the unconscious”. We can brand such strong indications where he points out the way passions and virtues co-exist. In his formulation, passions and virtues are interlaced: “When we draw water from a well, it can happen that we inadvertently also bring up a frog. When we acquire virtues we can sometimes find ourselves involved with the vices that are imperceptibly interwoven with them. … Malice with prudence, duplicity, procrastination, slovenliness, stubbornness, willfulness, and disobedience with meekness, refusal to learn with silence, … nasty condemnation with love… sarcasm with chastity. And behind all the virtues follow vainglory as a slave, or rather a poison, for everything”.
It took another fifteen centuries for modern western pastoral counseling, with the great help of psychology, to prescribe an almost identical process in order for one to achieve forgiveness. According to recent knowledge, the process starts when the subject recognizes that inside him (her) there is resentfulness and anger. The therapeutic procedure presupposes the overcoming of psychological resistance such as negation and repression of negative emotions, which darken the awareness of his (hers) own ill will. Some researchers split this first stage in two steps. The “hurt-stage”, referring to the recognition of the traumatic events behind resentment and the “anger-stage”, referring to the negative emotions of guilt which obstruct the individual to gain insight of the problem. The next step is the recognition of one’s own blame and guiltiness. The main obstacle to this development is the rationalized acceptance of an indefinite guilt, usually based on abstract, theoretical schemes of general sinfulness in a religious context.
The last remark is indicative of the negative impact that a distorted theological upbringing could cause. The idea of Christ being crucified for the gratification of Divine Justice leads to the inevitable question: If God himself demands a justification by His Son’s sacrifice in order to forgive the sinner, then how could a human being forgive one who hurt him before the potential forgiver got any personal satisfaction and justification? The theological tradition, to which John Climacus belongs, provides a crystal clear teaching on the issue. The Crucifixion of Jesus does not serve a legalistic satisfaction of Divine Justice. It is an absolutely free, willful action in order to combat the power of evil and unbar the way of the human being towards Resurrection. The principal question here is not moral but ontological. For the writer of the Ladder, the demand for justice and moral vindication, as we mean it in the social or secular sense, is almost of no importance during the ascent on the ladder of virtues.
John Climacus is an ascetic. His diligence focuses on the achievement of the highest virtues, such as humility, discernment, dispassion and love. Those are the assumptions of sanctity and salvation to him. It is worth mentioning that these “extremities” do not sound so peculiar today as in the past, thanks to psychology. J.M. Brandsma argues, for instance, that “forgiveness … often requires a humbling of the self to admit a dependency or to give up more or less, a defensively grandiose aspect of the self”.
The healing process integrates with the “blessing” of all those who harmed us. Even though this seems to be a satisfying end, the Ladder demands more than that. John Climacus believes that the criterion of being liberated of this “rot”, of this “putrefaction will come not when you pray for the man who offended you, not when you give him presents, not when you invite him to share a meal with you, but only when, on hearing of some catastrophe that has afflicted him in body or soul, you suffer and you lament for him as if for yourself”.
Genuine and false forgiveness
Psychology maintained, more or less, an aloof stance to what Christian forgiveness really is, suggesting that Christian courtesy constitutes a type of pseudo-forgiveness. Therefore, what seems to be a behavior of absolution is the underground of the interior resentful fomentation of the desire to revenge. John Climacus’ definition of what genuine forgiveness is, answers these objections with prophetic vigor. This kind of psychological interpretation shows a very limited capacity to apprehend the vast dimensions of self-transcendence a spiritually struggling believer has to achieve. The outcome of this narrow sight is an apprehension of forgiveness shrunk inside borders cut out by the function of psychological defense mechanisms, such as the reaction formation and so on. In that case, forgiveness is nothing more than a substitute of hatred.
Similar implications are generated from the apprehension of forgiveness as identical to guiltiness. This conception understands indulgence as a self-serving use of forgiveness on the purpose of the subject’s effort to avoid a potential failure of communication with the other person. In addition, forgiveness is identified with a defensive psychological function used by the subject in order to avoid potential conflicts and psychological traumatization. This attitude may also conceal conscious or unconscious trends of mastership or authoritarianism, while declaring -indirectly but with clarity- either the superiority of the one who forgives or the depth of the forgiven to the forgiver.
All these possible variations are out of the Ladder’s mentality. John Climacus declares that “to forget wrongs is to prove oneself truly repentant”, and genuine repentance does not compromise with any neurotic self-justification. He underlines that “a sign of true repentance is the admission that all troubles, and more besides, whether visible or not, were richly deserved”. Realistic or not, this kind of spirituality does not leave space for any kind of pseudo-forgiveness.
All of the aforementioned leads us to a crossroad, where we meet a crucial differentiation between what could be called patristic anthropology versus anthropology of psychology and their sociological and cultural projections. In other words, we arrive at the area where the truth and value of any theoretical presumption is tested. Indeed, the ideas and inspiration behind any philosophical, theological or psychological anthropology constitutes the takeoff that determines the human cultural guise and morale. The guise that is being shaped by values inspired from the contemporary anthropological stream, formented in the string of wrong or right psychological assumption or a genuine or warped religious faith.
Towards a therapy of malice
John Climacus does not propose any specialized “therapy” for resentfulness but the effort to overcome it in the frame of trying to fight the passion of anger by using the means of traditional eastern spirituality, that is, by one mainly trying to achieve repentance and humility. In his experience “the man who has put a stop to anger has also wiped out remembrance of wrongs, since offspring can come only from a living parent”, and, as we mentioned above, remembrance of wrongs, hate, hostility and self-justification are the “daughters” of “anger the oppressor”. He argues that meekness is a most effective curative factor, contributing to a successful confrontation of anger’s daughters, who obstruct the growth of forgiveness. We ought to have in mind, that John Climacus is rather indifferent to an extrinsic imitation of virtuousness with no intrinsic spiritual substructure.
Unlike what is thought to be self-evident in western Christianity, where the criterion of a proper behavior is an extrinsic one, rather unaware of any ontological or anthropological requirements, he does not interpret the passions with moralistic or legalistic criteria. At any rate, he does not underestimate the significance of the expressed behavior, especially when he compares a passion to its opposite virtue, because, he believes, it can be of great help in diagnosing or treating. In his words, “this sea (“the foul and bitter ocean of passions”) has to be stirred up, provoked and made angry so as to jettison onto dry land the wood, the hay, the corruption carried into it by the rivers of passion. Notice what happens in nature. After a storm at sea comes a deep calm”.
In our times, while Christianity has become a secularized, religious utilitarianism, meekness is apprehended as a value itself, a “must” of the pious behavior. But in the Ladder such a justification is unknown. Its author ignores any kind of self-justifying virtues. The battle for the conquest of virtuousness cannot be limited into the narrowness of an extrinsic behavioral calmness but it has to be extended to the conquest of other more fundamental virtues, which presuppose the “gymnastic” to acquire and consolidate meekness. In the eastern Christian tradition, meekness is not some kind of a release from tension, anxiety or hyperexcitability but an intermediate stage and a means in striving to achieve genuine humility. As Climacus quotes, “it is impossible to destroy wild beasts without arms. It is impossible to achieve freedom from anger without humility”.
The formulation of John Climacus on what is meekness sounds very interesting. He says that meekness “is a mind consistent amid honor or dishonor”. We can assume that he refers to vainglory, self conceit, arrogance, which are included among the “ancestors” of anger. It is obvious that for him -and Eastern Christian tradition at large- meekness is not just a pious behavior, but the externalization of an internal spirituality based on the possessions of a holy humility, which is not a pathetic but rather an assertive one.
Summarizing all of the aforementioned we could now suggest that what the Ladder proposes for the treatment of malice is “gain the placidy and meekness and you gained forgiveness”, an option which might be also acceptable from psychology as an end to its self. However, in the context of eastern Christian spirituality it is still nothing more than a prerequisite to the conquest of dispassion and love, these two being the end of a therapy aiming to a reconciliation and personal communication with God.
Ontology vs. Deontology
Even this very limited information allows us to defend that a basic difference between modern psychology and patristic anthropology is the lack of an ontological verification from the standpoint of psychology. This permits the formation of theories that interpret the human being’s functions and behavior in a dehumanizing context that neglects the complexity and the “humanity” of mankind. The implications of such simplifications can be observed in psychological theories, like in behaviorism or even in psychoanalysis, when they postulate to minimize the human existence within the limits of their speculations or interpretations.
We must be aware of the distance between the understanding of a certain behavior and its causal factors and the formation of dogmatic formulations about what a human being is, based on these partial understandings. It is worth mentioning that in this patristic anthropological approach, it is the ontological prerequisites that lead to the modulation of a certain morality and not the ethical laws.
Yet, a fundamental question needs to be answered: Is there any practical significance of all that information, derived from the very past? In what way could a writing of monastic literature, or even the patristic mind at large inspire the formulation of proposals able to be adjusted to contemporary life?
The answer could be easy. If we try to get into the “mind of the Fathers”, understand their anthropological prerequisites and the rationale of their therapeutic approach, then we may find ourselves facing answers standing above dualistic classifications of type modern-past, monastic-secular, progressive-traditional, liberal-conservative and so on. Kallistos Ware argues, it is wrong to believe that “the Ladder is of no interest to those in the “world”. Surely not. It has been read with the utmost profit by many thousands of married Christians; and, whatever the author’s original intention, there is nothing surprising in that. … Whether monastic or married, all the baptized are responding to the same Gospel call; the outward conditions of their response may vary, but the path is essentially one”. A genuine patristic text is characterized by its effort to seek and express possible ways for the faithful who seek to meet a factual evangelical ethos. This kind of a morality, based on love and not on abstract laws, constitutes the substantial component and the standard for a civilization that demands to be called Christian.
This suggestion might seem strange for those who believe that the human being is born evil in itself, and, unfortunately, the physiological or psychological determinism leans toward this view. But this is not in the spirit of the Fathers. John Climacus’ teaching is crystal clear on that issue:
“God neither caused nor created evil and, therefore, those who assert that certain passions come naturally to the soul are quite wrong. What they fail to realize is that we have taken natural attributes of our own and turned them into passions. For instance, the seed that we have for the sake of procreating children is abused by us for the sake of fornication. Nature has provided us with anger as something to be turned against the serpent, but we have used it against our neighbor. We have a natural urge to excel in virtue, but instead we compete in evil. Nature stirs within us the desire for glory, but the glory of a heavenly kind”.
The most desperate quest of recent times is for values and criteria that could lead us to overcome the decay of cultural principles, and the rediscovery of patristic authenticity could be a treasure trove for that search. The attempt to lay the foundations for a dialogue between Theology and Psychology might bring up some crucial issues, such as the importance of humility as a cultural factor, of forgiveness in a world that starves for peace but does whatever possible to undermine it, for love as an existential achievement and not as bare sentimentalism, and so on. We may need to re-discover a type of asceticism for ordinary life. The data for this inspiration seem to be hidden for almost two thousand years in the forgotten old Christian writings. It is up to us to profit by it.
Source: Orthodox Pastoral Counseling Center at Belgrade
themselves with the latest news from the newspapers, or read books that are irrelevant to our spiritual life – especially those books that arouse the passions – and they must not strive to learn out of curiosity whatever pertains to the lives of others. All these things bring foreign thoughts to mind, and when a person attempts to elucidate them, they confound his mind even more.
