Repair Not Retaliation

Repair Not Retaliation

Understanding the Anatomy of Amends

I’ve been struggling with amends.  Not as the individual making them, but as one who feels they have been wronged.  Step 9 says “make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when it would injure them or others”. One particular aspect sticks out in my mind; “…Except when to do so would injure them…”

Frankly, I don’t like this.  At first glance, this presents as an escape hatch if I’ve ever seen one.  If a person can avoid making an amend because it might hurt someone, then where is the accountability?  Where is the truth? Where is the justice for the injured party?

This remains a legitimate question. 

The key distinction is that perhaps step 9 was never designed to guarantee closure for the wounded party, but rather spiritual growth in the offender. 

Those are not the same thing. How they choose to show up is a reflection of their character, and another person’s character is outside of my control.

My sponsor reminded me that when another offers amends, it’s not for me. 

The spiritual challenge for me may not be “Can I forgive them?”  It may instead be “Can I release my demand that they acknowledge what they did?”.  Those are fundamentally different questions.  The first keeps my eyes on them, the second turns me toward freedom. 

Do I want to be right, or do I want to be free?

Even though I would completely own my side, have the hard conversation, and bring to light what has been hidden, others are not required to have my values.  They are only required to live with the consequences of theirs. 

Perhaps peace is likely to be found not in receiving amends, but in no longer needing it.