Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Waging Peace – A Post-Conflict Forgiveness and Reconciliation Model for Religious  Conflicts
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Waging Peace – A Post-Conflict Forgiveness and Reconciliation Model for Religious Conflicts

  • 680 views
Published

 

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
680
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Waging Peace – A Post-Conflict Forgiveness and Reconciliation Model for Religious Conflicts Darrell Puls, PhD Peacebridge Ministries, Richland, WA Religious conflicts are the most intractable conflicts, and religion plays a leading role in most armed conflicts of the st 21 Century. There are two primary types of conflicts where religion plays a major role: 1. Those conflicts where religion is used as a mask justifying violence while hiding true motives. These conflicts are tractable and are by far the most common. 2. Those conflicts that truly have religious foundations and are based on religious dogmatics and doctrine. These conflicts are mostly intractable, meaning the dogmas at play are in opposition and nonnegotiable. These conflicts are also much less common than is generally thought. "There's nothing going on there but a lot of noise." Martin Lagronsky True religious conflicts are marked by a number of factors: 1. The parties cannot talk to each other in a rational way – it’s just a lot of noise. 2. Dehumanization is deep enough that each side sees all of the other sides as less than human. 3. The other side must be forced to capitulate – or be annihilated. 4. Each side sees the other side(s) as evil (wrong) and itself as good (right). 5. Compromise is intolerable. North American Religious Conflicts are Most Often Centered in Churches    Of 400,000+ churches in North America, 80,000 are experiencing internal conflict today. While positive outcomes were reported, the negatives were more prevalent: damaged relationships 1 (68%), sadness (58%), declines in attendance (32%), and leaders leaving the church (32%). Normative Interventions do not bring forgiveness or reconciliation. Without healthy forgiveness and reconciliation, the conflict lives on in the woundedness of the people. Defining Forgiveness Individual forgiveness is a decision or sequence of decisions to release internal feelings of anger, resentment, fear, and the desire for revenge against someone who has harmed us, whether they deserve forgiveness or not. It acknowledges that what happened was real and undeserved; forgiving does not necessarily mean pardon, though that is an option; and forgiveness does not forgo justice, though the process of forgiving tends to make justice fluid 2 and highly creative. Corporate forgiveness is a process that joins moral truth, mercy, compassion, and commitment to repair torn relationships by intentionally release feelings of anger, resentment, pain, and the desire for revenge. The process requires a truthful examination and turning from the past that neither ignores past wrongs or excuses them, that neither overlooks justice nor reduces justice to revenge, that insists on the humanity of opponents even in their commissioning of inhuman deeds, that values justice that restores above justice that destroys, and that restores 3 trust through merciful justice and mutual restoration. There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. There is no path toward love except by practicing love. War will always produce more war. Violence can never bring about true peace. ~ Richard Rohr, 1999. 1
  • 2. Crucible: A container in which metal ore and other elements are subjected to high pressure and heat, resulting in the refining of pure metals by separating them from dross materials. THE PROCESS Preparation This process assumes that a significant portion of the groups or congregation desires healing from the conflict and is willing to devote an appropriate amount of time and energy to the process. This process further assumes that a competent Peacemaker experienced in group conflict resolution processes has worked with the conflicted congregation and leadership for sufficient time to have: 1. interviewed a statistically significant portion of conflict participants from each major group; o This is not about the conflict per se; it seeks to understand how they have wounded each other and the depth of those wounds by describing their physical and emotional symptoms: anger, depression, digestive issues, fear, headaches, sleep problems, etc. You need a verbatim list. o You also need to know their intentions if this intervention fails and if it succeeds. 2. analyzed and understand the conflict behaviors; 3. intervened directly in the conflict as a neutral (if possible); The process neither precludes nor requires prior settlement of the issues, although prior settlement is preferred. The process may uncover unanswered issues that require further negotiations and modification of prior settlements. Process Setting The preferred space is one large enough to place all participants in a circle or series of concentric circles so they can see each other as much as possible. The room is moderately lit, but subdued. At circle center is a table adorned with a tablecloth, a large candle, as many smaller candles as there are groups in the conflict, their holy text, and (in Christian settings) communion elements in their customary form for this group. Items may be added or deleted, depending on the desires of the leaders and as appropriate for their religious praxis. Liturgical banners emphasizing peace and unity may be placed around the room if desired. Mood The mood is quiet and meditative with non-obtrusive music in the background. Attendance Staff, elected, and lay leaders must attend (they will be conspicuous by their absence). Prior agreement to attend, participate, and support the process should be reached (if possible) between the leaders of the various conflict factions prior to the actual process. In those cases where faction leaders have decided to end their relationship with the church, an invitation to participate should be extended to them. In most cases, it is not possible to require attendance. An invitation should be made to all who desire healing from the conflict, the repair of wounded relationships, and a new path to the future. The assumption is that those who attend will form the core of healing that will be carried throughout the congregation. Processional and Opening The church leaders enter in a processional. The ceremonial entrance lends gravitas to the proceedings. The entrance style should be determined by the participants and may include liturgical banners, symbolic candles, etc. The Peacemaker should be at the end of the processional to show authority and unity in the leadership. All participants stand and join hands as the senior pastor or other major authority figure as appropriate for the circumstances. (I will use “pastor” for this paper) The pastor assumes leadership by opening in prayer, asking simply for God to join the participants as they seek healing and renewed relationships. Everyone sits. 2
  • 3. The pastor lays out the plan for the time together. The leadership and key conflict group leaders ask for everyone to participate actively. Preliminaries The senior pastor introduces the Peacemaker, thus passing power and authority. The Peacemaker assumes the role of the wise and caring outside healer. He or she briefly explains the religious and empirical reasons for forgiving (see below). This includes information as to what forgiving really means and dispels the various myths and objections that people may hold about forgiving. He or she also includes clear information about the consequences of unforgiveness on both individual and congregational levels. The Crucible The Crucible is designed to show the commonalities between the factions in how they reacted to the conflict, which starts the rehumanization process and allows empathy to enter into them. The Peacemaker is now in charge and moves about the inner circle. The Peacemaker describes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. the results of the conflict, but does not ascribe blame; behaviors that hurt people, but without identifying details; the various physical and emotional manifestations of the conflict felt by the congregants, e.g., headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, anxiety, fear, digestive problems, hurt, grief, etc.; the woundedness of relationships and the confusion and fear that occurred when friends turned on each other; the economic impact on the church from the conflict and the general estrangement that has enveloped the congregation; and, the likely outcomes for the individuals and group if the conflict is not healed. The Peacemaker prays once again for the spirit of God to enter the room and hold each participant close as they begin the journey to healing. The Peacemaker describes the process for the remaining time. The ground rules are stated and each participant is given a copy. The following is an example: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. We will only describe our own experience. We will not accuse or attack others, no matter how strongly we feel about what they have done. We will speak in ways that draw us together. We will listen for understanding, trying to place ourselves in the other person’s shoes. We will not assume that we know what other persons intended by their deeds or words. We will ask questions to clarify, not accuse. We will earnestly seek Gods guidance. The Peacemaker then explains that it will be a time to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Examine what each has done that may have made things worse and hurt others (Mt. 7:3, Luke 6:41). Describe how the conflict has damaged relationships and wounded the people. Own and say what each has done and pray for each other so that they may be healed (Jas. 5:16). Listen deeply for how they may have hurt others. Express sorrow at the conflict in general and what it has cost each in terms of personal pain and relational damage. Express sorrow for how each action contributed to the woundedness of all. Express one’s own woundedness. Describe how the conflict has changed them, what they have learned, and how they will behave in the future (2 Cor. 7:10-11). Seek ways to repair relationships by making amends (Mt. 5:23-24). 3
  • 4. In order to use a crucible, one must first have the container, fuel, oxygen, and raw materials. The Crucible process provides all of these. Why forgive? is the first and often greatest obstacle. While some argue for all sorts of ethical and moral reasons, most people respond much better to personal benefits, which include: 4 A. forgiveness has psychological healing properties for both forgiver and forgiven; forgiving can result in 5 psychological healing and improved mental health; higher levels of self-esteem and lower levels of 6 7 anxiety and depression; death anxiety was significantly lessened in elderly people; ” adolescents 8 experiencing divorce experienced statistically significant greater hope and decreased anxiety; a significant reduction in anxiety, anger, and grief following abortion; making amends (apology) was useful 9 in ending feelings of self-blame, thus promoting recovery from bereavement; forgiving “decreased levels of anger and hostility, increased feelings of love, improved ability to control anger, enhanced capacity to 10 trust, and freedom from the subtle control of individuals and events from the past;” inpatient adolescent drug abusers had significantly more improvement in “total trait anger, depression, total and 11 trait anxiety, self-esteem, forgiveness and vulnerability to drug abuse;” B. There is a strong positive correlation between the role of forgiveness and physical health: forgiveness 12 served as a buffer against stress in a study of traumatic stress and forgiveness in post-9/11 New Yorkers; 13 cardiovascular health is proved; men effectively reduced their hostility by learning to become more 14 15 forgiving; forgiving resulted in lowered blood pressure; and there is “. . . greater synchronization of 16 immunological and cardiovascular functioning.” -------------------------------- The past . . . has an embarrassing and persistent way of returning and haunting us unless it has in fact been dealt with adequately. Unless we look the beast in the eye we find it has an uncanny habit of returning to hold us hostage.” Desmond Tutu, No Future without Forgiveness, 28. The Acrostic: T.R.U.T.H. TURNING If we do not remember and examine the past honestly, there is nothing to forgive and no reason to seek forgiveness. However, this examination must be done very carefully. We seek to arouse empathy between the parties, are many are afraid that revisiting the past will just bring more pain. Revisiting that past and its pain is the portal to healing. Simply ask the participants to examine silently for 3-4 minutes what they did, said, thought—or did not do—that may have made things worse in some way. Have them write it down and place the folded papers in a basket on the center table. All of this is done silently. This begins the process of self-examination. REMEMBERING The Peacemaker controls the process by enforcing the ground rules. No one is allowed to challenge the statements of others, e.g., “That’s not all you did!” We do not use the term “confess” as some will rebel automatically. To confess is to make admissions against one’s own interest by taking ownership of an action that injured another or was morally wrong. While wrongdoing is usually associated with such actions, this may not be the case in that the action may have been damaging but also well-intentioned and neither morally nor legally wrong. The key is that the action injured another in some way and 17 that the actor is taking ownership and acknowledging both the act and injury, validating what happened. The effect of confession and its voluntary vulnerability both strengthens and validates the confession itself in the 18 eyes of the victim, thus increasing empathy and easing the process of forgiveness. Acknowledgement of 19 wrongdoing may be sufficient grounds for forgiveness if one empathically understands the world of the offender 20 and it improves how the confessors are seen by others. 4
  • 5. K.I.S.S Simplicity works best. We simply ask for verbal statements of “I did this. . .” NO REASONS! In not giving reasons we avoid the temptation to give excuses blaming others for what we have done. Group memories are always distorted in favor of the member group and against the opponent group. That is why we focus only on actions and thoughts of the individual. It is also why we have them make simple ownership statements of “I did this…” Telling truths against the confessors’ interests, appears to be the single most important factor in confession, what Graybil terms “redemptive memory”, noting that in order to forgive, one “must know what and whom one is 21 forgiving; hence, remembering that past is vital” (Emphasis in original). This simple truth-telling must be perceived as authentic. Both victims and offenders distort their memories in self-serving ways through exaggeration Offenders are more likely than victims to emphasize details that minimize their actions, but 22 conversely, victims are more likely to exaggerate the severity of the event and its impact. Interventions that reduce attributions of responsibility for the conflict while at the same time finding ways of mitigating the damage 23 will be more successful than those interventions that focus on one or the other. Offenders who are seen as not having stated the full truth give their victims good multiple reasons not to forgive. The failure to make the human connection through confession simply adds insult to injury. Though knowing the truth and truth-telling do not imply a promise of forgiveness, it clears the way for the victim to “go on with his or 24 her life” as it “redefines one’s trauma into language that can be understood.” Conversely, when victims feel that truth has been buried, they are more likely to engage in retribution and 25 revenge. Without truth, then, confession is hollow and may escalate tensions rather than de-escalate them. Bar-Tal states that collective memory has several characteristics: (1) it is shared by the group and seen as an accurate depiction of the past; (2) it tends to be biased, selective and distorted; (3) it is a unique, distinct and exclusive telling of the groups past; (4) it is used to justify societal actions in the past, present and future; and (5) it serves to form, maintain and strengthen social identity. In changing collective memory, “The new narrative emerges through negotiation in which the owned past is critically revised and synchronized with the past of the 26 other group.” UNDERSTANDING We have now reached the heart of forgiveness: locating and expressing remorse at how we have been injured and how we have injured others. Again, it is a matter of carefully orchestrated statements. In Christian settings, I ask them to pray for the healing and well-being of their enemies for about 3 minutes. I then ask, “Who prayed for you?” The cognitive dissonance is jarring. They have only thought of the “others” as enemy; things brings home the reality of how they have acted, and been perceived, in the same ways—they, too, have been seen and feared as “enemies.” 1. 2. Stating, without blaming, how they have been physically, emotionally, and spiritually wounded during the fight reaches across the room and people begin to understand the depth of the wounds they have received and inflicted. They will now locate and express their sorrow at how they have wounded others. Activity: The participants are asked to meditate 3-5 minutes on their own woundedness and how they feel about how their actions affected others. Participants may identify specific individuals and their feelings about how they have wounded others by writing them on a piece of paper (provided). By prior agreement, faction leaders state their regrets at having hurt their friends, identifying specific individuals if they wish. Others are encouraged to follow. Strong emotion is expected during this phase, but reassuring them that this is positive will allow former combatants to begin comforting each other as they begin to mutually see the destruction they have created and as they express their regrets through apology. 5
  • 6. Closing: The Peacemaker gives thanks to God for the courage the people have shown in expressing their own woundedness and need for forgiveness. He or she prays for godly forgiveness and asks for human forgiveness throughout the room. Major Break (30-60 minutes): The participants will need time to decompress. Food and drink should be provided. It is expected that the apology process will continue throughout the break as people begin to reconnect and repair their relationships. Others, not yet ready to forgive, will also probably There are two parts of this stage: Background There exists a very strong relationship between confession, remorse, and empathy leading to forgiveness. McCullough states, “Sincere expressions of remorse might be the most potent factors under the offender’s control 27 for influencing the likelihood that an offended relationship partner will forgive the offender.” An apology by its very nature cannot stand alone—it requires at least two people, the offender and the offended. Further, he says that apology is a three-part act: (1) naming the offense, (2) the apology itself with a centerpiece of sorrow and 28 regret, and (3) the response of the injured party. Tavuchis offers that apology has “thaumaturgical” (miraculous) 29 properties in that it is a “self-abnegating act of speech” that may result in forgiveness of terrible debt. Self-abnegating speech is tied to a sense of honor as well as the concept of “face.” Augsburger states, “Dishonor is 30 a loss of face in the community, a loss of self before the ideal of being human.” Facilitated dialogue can address face concerns by operating within a dialectic of politeness. In this vein, facilitators generally control dialogic processes by establishing speech norms through basic ground rules that foster civility. Katz argues that fostering 31 politeness during conflict in turn fosters increased collaborative language, resulting in lowered tensions. Gobodo-Madikezela states, “Naming the deed, owning up to responsibility without any rationalization, clarifying 32 what was involved, and showing regret allow victims to process their emotions about their trauma.” The very nature of apology, by dropping all defenses, results in a loss of face as a form of public humiliation, but the process of relinquishing honor restores it. This loss of face by the offender fosters empathy in the victim. However, maintaining various defenses to save face while apologizing not only negates the apology but creates a conundrum where the act of trying to save face results in deeper face loss than if no defense were mounted in the first place, 33 and without an increase in empathy towards the offender. TRANSFORMING This section is upbeat and positive. The Peacemaker thanks and congratulates the participants on their courage and hard work, but cautions them that they are not done. He or she describes the next section as one of describing what they have learned and how they can change for the better when conflict next arises. It is a time for commitment to change as they become transformed by the renewing of the mind through the Holy Spirit (Rom: 12:103). He or she then prays for the continued transformation of the people in the room from what they are to what they can be. How does one rebuild broken trust? By acting in a trustworthy manner over a period of time. Strong conflict changes us – we cannot come through it unscathed and unscarred. In the pain of learning how we have been seen by other and how we have hurt both them and ourselves, it becomes possible to change. We “learn a lesson,” and we change. Once again, this is a solitary act, one of stating lessons learned and commitments to behave in different ways made before the entire group. Making these commitments before enemies and friends alike holds one accountable. Activity: a 5-10 minute meditation focusing on how the Lord wishes them to act the next time they find themselves in conflict, with a resolution to change in a godly way by imitating Christ (Eph. 1:17-19), and how they have already changed in their actions. Reconvene: By prior agreement, faction leaders describe the lessons they have learned and how they have changed or will change their behaviors in the future. They announce previously negotiated behavioral protocols that will help them avoid future conflict. Participants are then asked to describe ways that their new understandings of the impact of the conflict have changed them for the better, with commitments for future behaviors. 6
  • 7. HEALING: The Relationship of Mercy and Justice The senior pastor resumes the leadership position. The pastor, with prior consultation with the Peacemaker, describes both justice and mercy. The Peacemaker remains present to assist, but control has clearly transferred back to the senior pastor. Justice finds everyone guilty, and requires them to make things right again. Justice requires everyone to be open to whatever is necessary to repair wounded relationships. Mercy says, “I forgive you. Let us work together for the future.” Mercy requires finding ways of rebuilding trust between persons and groups. The pastor describes the following activity as one of changing the focus away from the past towards the future. Individuals are to seek out those they have hurt, asking what they can do to make things right between them, and committing to making things right. Since everyone is guilty, the focus must be on the future and reaching understandings and specific agreements with each other on how to build that future together. The human condition dictates a desire for revenge when wronged, as revenge is informed by anger. Anger demands strict justice, and strict justice demands that the penalty be equal to the crime. The desire to inflict at least as much pain as that which was received is normal human behavior. However, healing requires telling the truth, even this painful truth. To deny a desire for vengeance is to practice hollow love that leads not to 34 reconciliation but to repressed bitterness and hatred. It is difficult to forego vengeance, yet Jesus told his followers to not only forego revenge or even repay evil equally, but to endure ill treatment by stepping beyond ones’ normal comfort zone in what many would term as assisting the enemy (Mt. 5:43-48). The contextuality of justice is biblically acknowledged when believers are required to administer justice with mercy: “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.’” (Zec. 7:9, cf Mt. 18:33, Lk 10:36-38). Mercy melds with justice, making a more slippery concept that is open to creativity and nuance. 35 Therefore, love informs justice through mercy. Justice says, “I must punish you in equal measure to what you did.” Mercy says, “I value you above what I have lost; I value our relationship above what you took from me. I forgive you.” Thus, justice and mercy are no longer separate but combined into an intimate relationship which 36 some have described by paraphrasing the Psalmist to say, “[J]ustice and mercy have kissed” (Ps. 85:10). In this intimacy is a dance of opposites coming together to create a restoring love, whereas justice without mercy is a return to the law of revenge, and mercy without justice fails to restore. Justice when mixed with mercy becomes a dynamic, even fluid, process whose direction one cannot predict but whose outcome will probably be both creative and beneficial. As Volf states, “If we see human beings as children of the one God, created by God to belong all together as a community of love, then there will be good reasons to let embrace—love—define what 37 justice is.” How: After describing justice and mercy, how everyone has been tried and found guilty, we all find ourselves craving for mercy that we know we do not deserve. After another short preparatory prayer or meditation, the pastor asks each participant to approach those whom he or she has seen as enemies, to apologize, and to ask this one question: “What can I do to make this right between us?” The most common answer? “You just did it.” Ending Ending: The senior pastor and staff pastors reconvene the group. Each person ceremonially destroys the pieces of paper with their confessions of wrongdoing and their emotions of regret and sorrow written on them. They sing an appropriate song, and communion is served in a manner appropriate to the congregation and the specific situation. It is suggested that the participants serve each other as a symbol of forgiveness and reconciliation Postlude: A Celebration The congregation joins in a celebration of reunification. 7
  • 8. NOTE: It is possible that follow-up sessions may be desirable to assist the congregational leaders during the ensuing six months as they examine and act on any structural / policy / procedural issues recommended by the Peacemaker. It is also possible that various groups within the congregation may wish to go through the process as specific subgroups, and between specific groups, e.g. Board of Elders and Board of Deacons. This paper is a short synopsis of the background research and process described in the book, The Road Home: A guided Journey to Church Forgiveness and Reconciliation (Cascade Books, 2013) by Darrell Puls. For clarification, more information, or just to talk,: Darrell Puls, PhD Peacebridge Ministries 1153 Gage Blvd. Richland, WA 99352 Office: 509-627-1109 ext. 109 Cell: 509-308-2737 Darrell@conflicttopeace.com 1 Ibid., 12. Darrell Puls, The Road Home: A Guided Journey to Church Forgiveness and Reconciliation (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013), 43. 3 Ibid. 4 Denton, Roy T., and Michael W. Martin. “Defining Forgiveness: An Empirical Exploration of Process and Role.” The American Journal of Family Therapy 26, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 1998): 281. 5 Debra Kaminer, Dan J. Stein, Irene Mbanga, Nompumelelo Zungu-Dirwayi, “Forgiveness: Toward an Integration of Theoretical Models,” Psychiatry 63, no. 4 (Winter 2000): 355. 6 Charlotte VanOyen Witvliet, “Forgiveness and Health: Review and Reflections on a Matter of Faith, Feelings, and Physiology,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 29, no. 3 (Fall 2001): 214. 7 N. Krause and C. G. Ellison, “Forgiveness by God, Forgiveness of Others, and Psychological Well-Being in Late Life,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 31, no. 4 (Winter 2003): 366. 8 Suzanne Freedman and Amy Knupp, “The Impact of Forgiveness on Adolescent Adjustment to Parental Divorce (Abstract),” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 39, no. 1/2 (New York 2003). 9 Nancy Weinberg, “Does Apologizing Help? The Role of Self-Blame and Making Amends in Recovery from Bereavement,” Health & Social Work 20, no. 4 (1995 November): 298. 10 Richard Fitzgibbons, “Anger and the Healing Power of Forgiveness: A Psychiatrist's View,” in Exploring Forgiveness, ed. Robert D. Enright and Joanna North (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1998), 71. 11 Wei-Fey Lin, David Mack, Robert D. Enright, Dean Krahn and Thomas W. Baskin, “Effects of Forgiveness Therapy on Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability to Substance Use Among Inpatient Substance-Dependent Clients (Abstract),” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72, no. 6 (December 2004): 1114. 12 Jennifer P. Friedberg, Marios N. Adonis, Heather A. Von Bergen and Sonia Suchday, “September 11th Related Stress and Trauma in New Yorkers (Abstract),” Stress and Health. Chichester 21, no. 1 (February 2005): 53. 13 Witvliet, 217, citing Kaplan, 1992. 14 Ibid., 217. 15 Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet, Thomas E. Ludwig and Kelly R. Vanderlaan, “Granting Forgiveness or Harboring Grudges: Implications for Emotion, Physiology, and Health (Abstract),” Psychological Sciences 12, no. 2 (March 2001): 117. 16 Carl E. Thoreson, Alex H.S. Harris and Frederic Luskin, “Forgiveness and Health: An Unanswered Question,” in Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice, ed. Michael E. McCullough, Kenneth I. Pargament and Carl E. Thoreson (New York: Guilford, 2000), 257. 17 Michael Henderson, “Acknowledging History as a Prelude to Forgiveness,” Peace Review 14, no. 3 (Fall 2002): 266. 18 Sandra Young, “Narrative and Healing in the Hearings of the South African truth and Reconciliation Commission,” Biography 27, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 147. 19 Molly Andrews, “Forgiveness in Context,” Journal of Moral Education 29, no. 1 (March 2000): 82. 2 8
  • 9. 20 B. Weiner, S. Graham, O. Peter, and M. Zmuidinas, “Public Confession and Forgiveness (abstract),” in Dimensions of Forgiveness: Psychological Research and Theological Perspectives, ed. Everett L. Worthington, Jr. (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 1998), 298. 21 Lyn S. Graybil, “The Pursuit of Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa.” Africa Today 45, no. 1 (Jan-Mar 1998): 111. 22 Jill N. Kearns and Frank D. Fincham, “Victim and Perpetrator Accounts of Interpersonal Transgressions: Self-serving or Relationship-serving Biases? (Abstract),” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, no. 3 (March 2005): 321. 23 Frank D. Fincham, Hope Jackson and Steven R.H. Beach, “Transgression Severity and Forgiveness: Different Moderators for Objective and Subjective Severity,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 24, no. 6 (September 2005): 872-873. 24 Pumla Gobodo-Madikezela, “Remorse, Forgiveness and Rehumanization: Stories from South Africa,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 42, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 15-16. 25 Grabil, 108. 26 Daniel Bar-Tal, “Collective Memory, Intractable Conflict, Education and Reconciliation,” (speech delivered to The Stockholm International Forum: Truth, Justice and Reconciliation, 24 April 2002, Stockholm, Sweden). 27 Michael E. McCullough, “Forgiveness as Human Strength: Theory, Measurement, and Links to Well-Being,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 48. 28 Nicholas Tavuchis, Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 2223. 29 Ibid., 33. 30 David W. Augsburger, Conflict Mediation Across Cultures: Pathways and Patterns (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox, 1992), 107. 31 Jessica Katz Jameson, “Negotiating Autonomy and Connection Through Politeness: A Dialectical Approach to Organizational Conflict Management,” Western Journal of Communications 68, no. 3 (Summer 2004): 274. 32 Gobodo-Madikezela, “Remorse, Forgiveness and Rehumanization,” 21. 33 F. LeRon Shults, and Steven J. Sandage. The Faces of Forgiveness: Searching for Wholeness and Salvation. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 66. 34 Gregory L. Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 245. 35 Lewis B. Smedes, Mere Morality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 56. 36 The Amplified Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000). 37 MIroslav Volf, Exclusion & Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996., 255. 9