1. Forgiveness 1
Forgiveness:
Philosophy, Psychology, and Application
Devi Boudicca Fitelly
Submitted to the Honors Council
in fulfillment of Graduation with Honors in Religion
Dr. Brendon Benz, Advisor
March 30th, 2015

2. Forgiveness 2
Preface
It has become apparent to me, after reading a rich profusion of philosophical and
theological works, that there is far too much literature addressing the nature of human experience
to respond fully to each divergent school of thought. I am not first in this line of thinkers to
consider relationship to be central to a healthy human life, nor do I expect to be the last. Instead
of challenging the definitions of experience, I have chosen to consider the possibilities created by
the revision of relationship via the process of forgiveness. While I draw directly from the works
of Martin Buber, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Robert D. Enright, my own religious background has
deeply influenced this study. In writing this treatise, I hope to expound upon the possibilities for
healthy living and personal progress through the reconciliation of relationship between
individuals divided by wrongs.
Sartre’s two plays, No Exit and The Flies, offer parallel examples of the ramifications of
an isolated life that does not allow for forgiveness. The characters portrayed within his pages are
constantly faced with the struggle of their own limited capacity to engage with others, preventing
them from fully realizing their own potential for future change. Though his accounts are entirely
fictional and meant to depict the tyranny of objectification through the gaze of others and one’s
own critical gaze, the characters themselves contain meaningful lessons about isolation,
relationship, and forgiveness that exemplify the shortcomings of resentment and the necessity of
forgiveness.
This work is put forward under the assumption that human beings have inherent value,
that meaningful interpersonal relationships are a benefit, and that these conditions make
forgiveness a worthy venture. While I assume these things to be both valid and evident, I also

3. Forgiveness 3
wish to convey that the value systems of the reader may differ from my own. If this is the case—
if a reader does not find value in relationship or other individuals in general—the conditions for
forgiveness may not be fulfilled. Forgiveness requires a willingness to engage with others; both
members must be interested in the process and reengaging in relationship. The choice to engage
in forgiveness is an incredibly personal one, and its autonomy must be respected in order for real
change to take place. Without this conscious desire, forgiveness as I understand it is not possible.
The alternatives, however, will be discussed at a later point in the paper.
This work has sprung from a combination of my own experiences and beliefs
compounded and often challenged by the research that I have confronted. Forgiveness is more
complicated than contrition and justice. What is offered below is an interpretation of forgiveness
that uses philosophy to create a program for enabling possibility and change for those who want
to move forward from wrongs and develop a personal narrative that reengages them with friends
and loved ones. Though forgiveness is anything but formulaic, the process I illustrate here aims
to provide a premise from which forgiveness can become reality.
What I aim to do here is to lay out the foundation of forgiveness by giving it a
philosophical context; because relationship is crucial to human functioning, as is alluded to by
the thinkers I draw upon, I first ascertain what it is to be a relational being, and what it means to
lack relationship in certain contexts. From there, I move into the action of forgiveness—what it
means to forgive, what forgiveness cannot be, and how these ideas are disputed to some extent.
With this understanding of forgiveness in mind, I describe the application of forgiveness in the
realm of psychology and an allopathic understanding of wellness in addition to the ramifications
of the refusal to forgive. With these concepts, attitudes, and applications in mind, I have created
a tool that offers those who wish to seek forgiveness a plethora of options—places to begin,

4. Forgiveness 4
questions to ask oneself, and steps to undertake—in addition to a glossary that may help seekers
problem-solve, allay personal fears, and guide potential practitioners either through forgiveness
or to a different, similarly beneficial concept. This is not meant to be a comprehensive field
guide, but a reference point for those who would like to reap the benefits of relationship but must
first work through the tumult that anger, resentment, and loss can produce.

5. Forgiveness 5
Isolation
Thomas Dumm, in his book Loneliness as a Way of Life, depicts isolation as an
inexorable barricade between oneself and others, claiming that it is “the deepest and most ancient
truth of modern life, that the divisions we are to enact between head and heart, heart and mouth,
mother and heart, set us on a path that leads each one of us to isolation.”1 Though Dumm’s
words resulted from his analysis of Shakespeare’s King Lear, he hit upon the heart of isolation;
the illusory lines that divide one’s actions from one’s intentions materialize as barriers in real life
that separate one individual from another. The philosophy surrounding the lonely state of human
life is more expansive than can be encompassed or responded to within this writing, but the
theme of isolation is one that has been elucidated by a variety of writers. Though this notion is
noticeably more distinct in some communities than others, the theme of isolation in human
experience runs through scholarly and casual literature alike.
Existentialism and Jean-Paul Sartre
Jean-Paul Sartre was a leader in the existentialism movement perhaps best known for his
existentialist writings and political activity spanning from his early years to his death in 1980.
His plays, particularly No Exit, expand upon this belief and reiterate that the essence of human
nature is founded upon both our vulnerability to harm and our incredible selfishness.
In his play No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre portrays Hell as a twisted set of interactions between
three individuals who are revealed to be one another’s torturers. No Exit excludes the traditional
fire-and brimstone qualities of Hell and instead relies upon a perverted vision of human
interaction in order to reduce each character to fragmentary, objectified shadows of their full
1 Thomas Dumm, Loneliness as a Way of Life. (Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2008.) 15.

6. Forgiveness 6
selves. This is a portrayal of isolation at its most intimate, and the havoc isolation itself can
wreak. By introducing dissonant characters and derisive dialogue, Sartre paints the story of
Garcin, Inez, and Estelle as a trio whose post-mortem interactions serve only to unearth old
wounds and prevent trust. Their inability to engage one another is compounded by their
perpetual undermining of one another’s security and self-understanding, which ultimately depict
the kind of isolation that poisons individuals and the relationships between them. In this way, the
characters bring truth to Sartre’s famous statement that concludes No Exit, that “Hell is other
people.”2
The toxicity of these relationships illustrates the devastation that haunts isolation and
loneliness. The bitterness that consumed Inez in life infected Estelle and Garcin in death—but
she is not the only perpetrator of misery. None of the three characters could ever engage
themselves in a healthy manner, being caught up in self-condemnation of their own messy pasts,
and so seem predestined to thwart any possibility for authentic relationship.
Relationship
Martin Buber is one scholar whose work is a direct response to the human search for
meaning in what may otherwise seem to be a world characterized by loneliness and difficulty.
His philosophical work, I and Thou, is a thoughtful and poetic approach to the distinction of
antithetical relationships and the ways in which these relationships shape those who engage in
them. For Buber, engaging with others was a process that could be profound or mundane—to
think of someone else as an “It” is to objectify and limit the experience shared with that person,
while to think of someone as “Thou” is to deeply engage with that person and understand her as
2 Jean-Paul Sartre, No Exit and Three Other Plays (New York: Vintage International,1989),41.

7. Forgiveness 7
being more than the sum of her parts. The polemic approach that he creates distinguishes the
shallow relationships, characterized as the I-It relationship, from the meaningful ones,
characterized as the I-Thou relationship. Though these two poles alone cannot encompass the
entirety of human relational capability, the distinctions between them indicate the benefits of the
relationship characterized by possibility and the limitations of the objectified relationship.
The I-It Relationship
Most relationships fall in the I-It category, in which the other “has only a past and no
present”3 and is an object from which the I is detached.4 Within this relationship, the other is
effectively reduced to an action in his past, a fraction of his being, or the operative means to an
end, among other things. I-It relationships, in this sense, are merely functional interactions that
do not seek to deepen the context of interaction. In the words of David Kelsey, an I-It
relationship posits that “[o]ne’s future is defined by, and so is in bondage to, the event in the
past.”5 Because the other is defined only in the context of past actions, he is enslaved to whatever
prison his past actions have crafted for him, and is reduced to the sum of his past mistakes.
Whether or not his past is an accurate reflection of his future is not important; the other is bound
by his history when caught in the snares of the I-It relationship.
This kind of relationship does not further the growth of either party. As a relationship that
promotes stagnancy, an I-It relationship appears to be more closely related to passive study of
another individual rather than reciprocated interest. It should be noted that Buber claims that
“whoever lives with [I-It relationships] is not human.”6 To maintain only empty, futureless
3 Buber, 63.
4 Buber, 73.
5
David Kelsey, Imagining Redemption (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 59.
6 Buber, 85.

8. Forgiveness 8
relationships is to forego active participation in the lives of others and ultimately lead an unlived
life.7 Not only is the observed individual reduced to his most basic components, but the observer
also isolates herself and thus prevents herself from encountering other individuals. Because she
has elected to detach herself from involvement in the lives of others, she has made herself static
and, furthermore, has effectively reduced herself to an object. Her self-imposed isolation has
made even the I in the I-It relationship unrealized. This I-It relationship is ultimately a self-
defeating attempt to disassociate and control which ultimately cannot lead to authentic
encounter, and so instead yields Dumm’s isolation.
The I-Thou Relationship
The state of authentic relationship that the Buberian model describes is the I-Thou
relationship. In it, both parties encounter one another as members of humanity who are equally
deserving of respect and care. This kind of encounter is set apart from its antithesis by virtue of
being inherently reciprocative,8 unmediated by guilt or a preoccupation with the past,9 and open
to possibility for change.10 When encountering another being in this way, both the actor and the
other become limitless; she “has no borders”11 and “encounters [the other] by grace.”12 This kind
of encounter opens the world to both parties in a way that the I-It relationship never could; while
the “world as experience belongs” to the I-It relationship and is inherently limited,13 the I-Thou
“establishes the world of relation,”14 which comprises the essence of what it means for Buber to
7 Jürgen Moltmann, The Spiritof Life (Minneapolis:Fortress Press,1992),123.
8
Martin Buber, I and Thou, trans. Walter Kauffman (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1970), 67.
9
Buber, 62-63.
10
Buber, 59.
11
Buber, 55.
12
Buber, 62.
13 Buber 56
14 Buber 56.

9. Forgiveness 9
live fully and authentically. This limitless possibility embodies the empathy that Brené Brown
describes as stemming from vulnerability15 and the grace that Dietrich Bonhoeffer envisions in
the context of vulnerability.16 This is empathic grace that allows for the Thou to flourish. While
most functional relationships would be considered to be I-It relationships, the select few that
transcend the commonplace and inspire both individuals in growth and wonder become I-You
relationships.
Why This Matters
Isolation ushers in a plethora of melancholic attributes in philosophy and psychology
alike. Just as Dumm reminds his readers that isolation erects barriers between individuals, Jürgen
Moltmann argues that isolation brings devastation on anyone who rejects the life or value of
others. To abstain from relationship is not only inhuman,17 as Buber would argue, and derisive,18
as Dumm has claimed, but informs Moltmann’s belief that the “denied and rejected life is
death.”19 If taken seriously, this statement maintains that a life that does not vicariously engage
the world is hardly a life at all. Those who reject an authentic encounter and maintain only I-It
relationships sentence themselves to isolation and, according to Moltmann, suffer through life as
if already dead. In this way, both the wronged and the wrongdoer are denied their rights and, in a
deeply philosophical sense, their lives.20
Dietrich Bonhoeffer argues that the grace and revelation that can stem from vulnerability
dismantles the living death by evoking a willingness to pursue change that instills life into the
15 Brené Brown, “The Power of Vulnerability”(lecture, Royal Society for encouragement of the Arts, Manufactures,
and Commerce, July 4, 2013).
16 Bonhoeffer, 124
17 Buber, 85.
18 Dumm, 15.
19 Jürgen Moltmann, The Spiritof Life, 123.
20 Moltmann 123.

10. Forgiveness 10
relation-less dead.21 Finding a balance, and so renewing the possibility of relationship, can turn
the tables on isolation and bring new light to a painful situation. By engaging with others,
especially those with whom we have negative experiences, we can find new self-understanding.
As seen in Sartre’s work, the effects of isolation are deeply penetrating for individuals and those
in relationship. Inez, in her stalwart deflection of vulnerability and all possible avenues of
kindness with which she is presented, epitomizes a life led by the emotionally dead. Even in life,
her approach to human relationships always rendered her static and bitter, a pattern that haunted
her through the afterlife and left her incapable of relating with her comrades in any authentic
manner. The manipulation that had distanced her from the world led to her untimely, unhappy
demise at the hands of the very woman who had meant to love her. Her isolation, closely
associated with her disingenuity and ardent refusal to display anything akin to vulnerability,
paved the way for her lifelessness and left her stolidly, emotionlessly, alone.
To Answer Isolation with Forgiveness
In Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration, Charles Griswold defines forgiveness as an
active engagement that “accepts … the past [as] unchangeable, but asserts that our responses are
not.”22 His interpretation of forgiveness subverts the more public definitions that are offered in
that forgiveness is an ongoing process rather than a momentary achievement. The process of
forgiveness is defined by Griswold as the pursuit of reconciliation via interdependence,
vulnerability, and relationship that initiates change informed by the possibility of a better future.
This is done by reengaging with the other party as a whole being composed of a unique and
compelling personal narrative, an active present, and who has the capacity to create a better
21 Bonhoeffer, 124.
22
Charles Griswold, Forgiveness, A Philosophical Exploration (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 29.

11. Forgiveness 11
future. By offering up one’s story in an effort to actualize Buber’s I-Thou vision, rather than to
cater to pardon or excuse and so objectify the other and his story, both the wrongdoer and the
wronged can more deeply understand the experience of the other. Learning to encounter another
person as a Thou reestablishes possibility for both the wronged and the wrongdoer, and helps
both experience the change that reengaging with a lost connection can provide. Beyond this,
forgiveness reaffirms the wronged and wrongdoer’s concept of self. It helps to create a healthy
self-image—one that is not tainted by victimization or self-blame, but rather gives rise to a
deeper understanding of one’s self and one’s surroundings. In this way, forgiveness creates a
space for reconciliation and hope by encouraging individuals to disengage from a cycle of
oppression and guilt in order to seek renewed relationship.
The Foundation of Forgiveness
Griswold defines forgiveness by describing what it entails and what it refuses. According
to Griswold, forgiveness requires interdependence and vulnerability, which together engender
relationship. In this way, it is set in contrast to pardon and excuse.
Interdependence
One of the unique traits of forgiveness is that it requires both parties to enter into a
process that places the wronged and wrongdoer on an equal playing field. Griswold avers that it
is a “striking [consequence] of forgiveness … that each party holds the other in its power.”23
Forgiveness’ requirement of partial surrender on the part of both the wrongdoer and the wronged
comes into view because both parties are in need of healing and reprieve. Jürgen Moltmann
argues that “an act of violence destroys life on both sides” in that the wrongdoer “becomes
23
Griswold, 49.

12. Forgiveness 12
inhumane and unjust, [while] the victim is dehumanized and deprived of his or her rights.”24
When put in Griswold’s context, the wronged needs to encounter the wrongdoer with forgiveness
in order to find healing just as much as the wrongdoer needs the wronged party in order to earn
forgiveness.25 Beyond this, the interdependence between the wrongdoer and the wronged aims to
rectify the imbalance imposed in the original act of wrongdoing. This balance is struck when the
wrongdoer offers himself in supplication and recognizes the gravity of the wrong committed, and
the wronged recognizes the wrongdoer’s narrative as sincere, accepts the supplication, and
thereby releases both parties from the power of the offense. The wrongdoer relies upon the
wronged to journey toward reform, and the wronged relies upon the reform of the wrongdoer to
complete her healing process.
Vulnerability
Beyond interdependence, forgiveness requires that both parties practice vulnerability.
Brené Brown argues that it is the “uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure” 26 embodied in
vulnerability that allows individuals to experience true connection. This willingness to expose
oneself is the caveat of encounter—the vulnerability that is required for one to reach out when in
pain is only adequately answered with the vulnerability that allows someone else to reach out
with a nonjudgmental response of solidarity and understanding. Because of the tenderness that
surrounds vulnerability and the empathy that can emerge from it, Brown argues that vulnerability
is the root of empathy, without which there is no possibility for legitimate change or
24
Jürgen Moltmann, 133.
25
Griswold, 49.
26
Brené Brown. Daring greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent,
and Lead. (New York: Gotham Books, 2012). 13.

13. Forgiveness 13
reciprocative interaction.27
The vulnerability that Brown describes can be equated to biblical nakedness. To be
vulnerable—to be naked to one another—is to lay bare one’s flaws because “nakedness is
revelation; nakedness believes in grace.”28 Dietrich Bonhoeffer argues that the nakedness spoken
of in the Genesis passages is what makes Eden a place of trust, possibility, and relationship.
Without barriers, the inhabitants of Eden are open to one another and so are able to engage with
the kind of authenticity that belies an intimate, faithful encounter. Like Brown’s vulnerability,
the unguarded authenticity that Bonhoeffer describes kindles the change and possibility that
comes with deep respect for the self and the other.
The Antithesis of Forgiveness
In Griswold’s understanding, forgiveness can only be a process that regards relationship
as a goal and requires vulnerability and interdependence in order to share narrative. Though
pardon and excuse are often equated with forgiveness, Griswold maintains that both denigrate
both the wronged and wrongdoer and ultimately prevent authentic relationship. Neither pardon
nor excuse respond to wrongdoing in that neither regard the wrongdoer nor wronged as being
entirely human or deserving of renewed possibility. These concepts are rooted in the Greek
categories of perfection, as illustrated by Griswold’s description of the Aristotelian
Magnanimous Man.
The Magnanimous Man
As an exemplar of the antithesis of the one who forgives, Griswold introduces the
27 Brené Brown, “The Power of Vulnerability” (lecture, Royal Society for encouragement of the Arts,
Manufactures,and Commerce, July 4, 2013).
28 Bonhoeffer, 124.

14. Forgiveness 14
Aristotelian Magnanimous Man, who, as “a virtuous person,” is invulnerable to others.29 His
rational, unmoving nature makes him wholly independent and impervious to injury.
Unfortunately, the Magnanimous Man cannot partake in forgiveness because it would require
him to have wronged, to have been wronged, or to engage with those who have exhibited
imperfection. Ultimately, the downfall of the Magnanimous Man is his unrelatability, which
renders him capable only of pardoning or excusing wrongdoing.
Pardon & Excuse
Unlike forgiveness, pardon is not motivated by the desire to restore relationship between
the pardoner, wrongdoer, and wronged, because it is concerned only with punishment. Pardon is
the decision made by the pardoner to forego punishment of the wrongdoer for his actions.30
Though the wrongdoer is found guilty, the pardoner does not see fit to punish him for his crimes.
Because he must maintain objectivity, the pardoner cannot be moved by the wrongdoer’s
narrative. Neither can he admit to being effected by the so-called harm. Contrary to Griswold’s
claim “that each party holds the other in its power,” only the pardoner has power in this context,
and so reinforces a power dynamic that reduces the status of the pardoned and maintains the
pardoner’s moral superiority. The pardoner devalues the wrongdoer by stripping him of his
responsibility – and his capacity to change. Thus, the wrongdoer must carry the history of his
crime because he is denied the opportunity to engage in the process of reconciliation.
As opposed to pardon, excuse implies that the wrongdoer cannot be held responsible for
her actions because the wrong was beyond her control. Whereas pardon exonerates the
inherently bad, excuse implies that the wrongdoer lacks the basic faculties to discern right from
29
Ibid, 11
30
Ibid, 4.

15. Forgiveness 15
wrong and is not worthy of punishment. Ultimately, excuse fails to recognize the autonomy and
responsibility of the individual being excused.31
31
Ibid, 7.

16. Forgiveness 16
The Components of Forgiveness
The Six Steps
The process of forgiveness that Griswold envisions includes six steps undertaken by the
wronged and wrongdoer that, if attempted with sincerity and genuine attachment, would guide
the process of forgiveness for both.
For the Wrongdoer
The process that the wrongdoer must complete is listed briefly by Griswold, who wanted
to provide a skeletal guidance system that would engender contemplation and recognition of
alternate behavioral choices. Each of these steps is meant to convey to the wronged a different
reason for her to grant forgiveness to the wrongdoer and how he might earn her forgiveness in
the pursuit of required change by adhering to the following commitments: responsibility,
repudiation, expression of regret, commitment to change, express an understanding of damage,
and offering one’s narrative.
In order to begin, the wrongdoer must recognize and take responsibility for his actions.32
Without this recognition of responsibility, the wronged cannot engage wrongdoer in forgiveness,
but must instead consider pardon and excuse, which remove the wrongdoer’s autonomy. Taking
responsibility for one’s actions prevents one from requesting excuse and so helps to validate the
earnest attempt to own one’s past.
32Griswold,49.

17. Forgiveness 17
Once the wrongdoer has owned his wrongdoing, he must then disavow future harm.
Repudiation conveys to the wronged that the wrongdoer really seeks change and is not simply
seeking the easier, relation-less paths of pardon or excuse.33
After having defined and disavowed his wrongdoing, there must be some element of
regret included.34 In lieu of regret, there seems to be no reason for the wrongdoer to seek to move
forward with any degree of sincerity. In this step, the wrongdoer is expected to express contrition
for having caused harm to his fellow—not for having been caught in the wrong. It is pivotal that
the wrongdoer express regret for the hurt his actions have inflicted upon the wronged because, as
one might imagine, the experience of the wronged deserves validation. In this way, it is clear that
the expression of sincere regret for having injured the wronged is pivotal for authentic
relationship to take root.
The wrongdoer has defined, disavowed, and repented the wrong, which serve accept the
past as unchangeable fact, the action as an owned misdeed, and the wrongdoer himself as
someone separate from but inherently connected to his past mistakes. It follows, then, that a
wrongdoer who has undergone this process with grave sincerity is invested in freeing himself
from the misdeeds of his past. Because he understands the gravity of his actions, the wrongdoer
is motivated to remain faithful to the hopes of the process of forgiveness and continue his pursuit
in honesty rather than in the interest of abusing the system. Additionally, because authentic
forgiveness does not bind individuals to the past, the wrongdoer can take ownership of his
33 Ibid,49-50.
34 Ibid,50.

18. Forgiveness 18
wrongdoing while proposing changes that will prevent similar wrongs, which is what the latter
half of his process is centered upon.35
While the preceding 4 steps act to ensure that the wrongdoer experiences and expresses
contrition—preventing the wronged from enabling a cycle of abuse using this system—the
wrongdoer may use this fifth step to recognize the magnitude of the damage done and see the
wronged party as an equally-vulnerable human being.36 Griswold appeals to the empathetic
dimension of forgiveness here, which requires the wrongdoer to imagine himself in the position
of suffering that he has created and thoroughly comprehend the extent to which his actions have
caused irreparable damage in the life of those who have been affected by his misdeed. By trying
to clothe himself in the experience of the other, the wrongdoer evokes Brown’s depiction of
empathy; he is learning to “feel with”37 someone else and so understand the extent of her
suffering.
This final step also appeals to empathy in that it contains the choice for the wrongdoer to
share his story with provision to avoid excuse-making. Offering his narrative requires one
member sharing his experience—his history, suffering, his goals, and misgivings—and reaching
a point of vulnerability that allows the wronged to take into account the context of the other.
Empathy has the power to propel both the wronged and the wrongdoer in the forgiveness process
by causing both to “[enter] into [the other’s] narrative, understanding why [he] did wrong, why
the promised steps are worthy of trust, [and] why the offender should be worthy of
forgiveness.”38 In Brown’s words, “empathy is feeling with people.”39 This step gives the
35 Ibid,50.
36 Ibid,51.
37 Brené Brown, “The Power of Vulnerability”(lecture, Royal Society for encouragement of the Arts, Manufactures,
and Commerce, July 4, 2013).
38 Griswold,90.

19. Forgiveness 19
wrongdoer the context of the wronged, which furthers the ability that the two have to encounter
one another as peers. This moment also allows the injurious party to transcend the label of
“wrongdoer” by offering up the context in which he committed a wrong and engage the wronged
in his narrative process.40 By empathetically reaching out and sharing his narrative, the
wrongdoer has revealed something personal, most likely something that does not put him in the
most flattering light, but that is unabashedly and authentically sincere.
For the Wronged
Forgiveness is a commitment, and the wronged must take steps to ensure that she is
engaging with the wrongdoer in a manner that recognizes and respects his effort and proven
change. There is no formulaic understanding of forgiveness, and Griswold expresses the
importance of recognizing that granting forgiveness must be an act of sincerity rather than a
forced return; forgiveness without sincerity is no better than pardon or excuse, and may lead the
wronged to engage in a cycle of abuse under the guise of forgiveness.41 In order to avoid blind
forgiveness, Griswold illustrates and expands upon the role of the wronged in interaction and
release of identification from the role of “victim,” while requiring that the wronged individual
move forward with “wisdom and good discernment.”42 I take this as a warning against blind
forgiveness, which may lay bare fresh wounds, trivialize the pain that the wronged has
experienced, or return the wronged to a dangerous situation. If one’s safety can be reasonably
assured, and the wronged party can see potential for success and therefore change in the
wrongdoer, forgiveness may benefit the wronged. The following steps are prescribed for the
39 Brené Brown, “The Power of Vulnerability”(lecture, Royal Society for encouragement of the Arts, Manufactures,
and Commerce, July 4, 2013).
40 Ibid,51.
41 Ibid,56-57.
42 Ibid,59.

20. Forgiveness 20
wronged: seeing the wrongdoer in a new light, revising past judgments, trusting in future change,
understanding the other’s context, seeing oneself in a new light, and addressing the other with
forgiveness granted.
Because the wrongdoer has returned to the wronged with the intention of earning
forgiveness and pursuing reconciliation, the wronged is confronted with the realization that the
wrongdoer is more than the wrong that he has committed, but is a “whole person” who has the
depth and character imbued to any other individual.43 This choice to alter her perception of the
other runs parallel to the choice to transcend the simplification of the I-It relationship and so to
understand the other individual, therefore engaging in an I-Thou relationship instead. This does
not mean that the wronged forgets or dismisses the wrongdoing that has been committed; she
instead has the opportunity to see that there is more to the actor than the act alone.
Seeing the wrongdoer in a new light may prompt the wronged to recognize that previous
judgments regarding the character and worth of the wrongdoer were drawn in haste and with
incomplete information. In offering herself a moment to revisit and possibly revise these
judgments, she is able to recognize the wrongdoer with more clarity.44
The wronged, in order to accept the proposed change that the wrongdoer has committed
to, must trust that this change can and will be sustained in the future.45 Until she can experience
and express a willingness to change her sentiments based upon the change that the wrongdoer
has committed to, the process cannot continue. This marks the wronged’s response to the
wrongdoer’s narrative; having been confronted by the story of the individual who had trespassed
against her, the wronged chooses to recognize the wrongdoer as a whole person, complete with
43 Ibid,57.
44 Ibid,57.
45 Ibid,57.

21. Forgiveness 21
flaws and possibility for change. This moment of encounter gives the wronged the opportunity to
recognize the change proposed by the wrongdoer as legitimate.46
See Oneself in a New light
Just as the wrongdoer was prompted to overcome the self- and other-imposed label of
“wrongdoer,” the wronged party is given the opportunity to transcend the belief that she is a
“victim” and has been defined by the transgression committed against her.47 By transcending this
self-victimization, the wronged appeals to the notion that Kelsey posits and regains the power to
free herself from the chains of her past, just as the wrongdoer does. To overcome this belief is to
recognize one’s potential for life again, especially in instances where this victimization has
hindered emotional and social progress.
Offender Addressed and Forgiveness Granted
Assuming that the process has been engaged actively, compassionately, and sincerely, the
final step on the part of the wronged individual is to address the individual who has committed
injury with forgiveness. This formality renders both individuals as equals and dissolves any
remaining sense of guilt or inequity so as to promote further growth and healing. Having
answered the resentment of the wronged individual and alleviated the guilt of the wrongdoer, the
two can return to their respective communities after having shared in a formative experience.48
46 Ibid,57.
47 Ibid,58.
48 Ibid,58-59.

22. Forgiveness 22
Forgiveness in Psychology
When bitterness and anger have eroded the foundation of encounter between two people,
the damage may seem irreparable. Ph.D., professor, and renowned forgiveness researcher Robert
D. Enright likens forgiveness to a key that allows one to free oneself from the emotional prison
that anger and resentment create, claiming that “the knowledge that [one has] the option to
decide to turn the key sets [one] free.”49 According to Enright, turning the key is itself an
emotional process that has the power to reverse self-deprecation, empower healing in the
wronged, and bring commitment to change for the wrongdoer. Freeing ourselves from the power
of our own demons is a trial in and of itself, but there is a wide range of thought in philosophy,
theology, and psychology that promotes its use for psychological, spiritual, and emotional
healing.
Why We Forgive
Rather than claiming that the purpose of forgiveness is to pursue reconciliation, Enright
emphasizes that forgiveness is a response to anger and the dysfunctions that stem from it.50 Much
of his research and the research of others that he presents focuses on the power of forgiveness as
self- and other-transformative process in terms of releasing anger and freeing oneself from the
cage of resentment.
Enright claims that most people forgive for the following reasons:
 To “quiet angry feelings.”51
49 Robert D. Enright, Forgiveness is a choice : a step-by-step process for resolving anger and restoring hope,
(Washington,DC : American Psychological Association, 2001),19.
50 Enright, 30-31.
51 Enright, 45.

23. Forgiveness 23
 To “[change] destructive thoughts into quiet, more healthy thoughts.”52
 To “act more civilly toward the one who hurt [the wrongdoer].”53
 To “interact better with others” because anger has “spilled over” into other
relationships.54
 To “improve [one’s] relationship with [the wrongdoer].55”
 To “help [the wrongdoer] to see his or her unfairness and to take steps to stop it.”56
 To harken to religious belief in God or another divine being who considers forgiveness to
number among religiously-informed virtues.57
 To engage in an “act of kindness and love” toward the wrongdoer.58
As Enright explains, forgiveness serves a variety of purposes. The first three motivations, which
act upon the wronged’s emotions and self-concept, target the forgiving party’s “psychological
and physical health.”59 The following two reasons are answers that seek to salvage relationships
that have been damaged by anger and the wrongdoing itself, which complements the
philosophies proposed by Buber, Moltmann, and Dumm. One reason listed aims to relieve the
suffering of the wrongdoer and so free him from the turmoil of the oppressor while also
preventing future wrongdoing. Both of these reasons align closely with Griswold’s vision and
Moltmann’s philosophy of forgiveness. Finally, the last two answers cater to the idea that
forgiveness is itself a virtue worth pursuing for its own sake.60
52 Enright, 45.
53 Enright, 45.
54 Enright, 45.
55 Enright, 46.
56 Enright, 46.
57 Enright, 46.
58 Enright, 46.
59 Enright, 46.
60 Enright, 46.

24. Forgiveness 24
Forgiveness in Response to Anger
Enright claims that “harbored anger”—or what Griswold and his predecessor, Bishop
Joseph Butler, would call resentment—has the power to compromise one’s personality.61 While
he makes quite clear that entering into the process of forgiveness does not disallow anger,
Enright argues that forgiveness frees the forgiver from being beholden to anger that is
misdirected and ultimately injurious to the forgiver and those around him. Beyond the theoretical
hindrances, several researchers have unearthed information that alludes to the toll that anger can
take on one’s body and mind. Though Enright reiterates that anger is to some extent a healthy
initial response to experiencing pain, maintained resentment and anger can have a negative
impact on physical and psychological health. To this effect, Enright cites a variety of studies and
sources that provide evidence that anger has a detrimental effect on an individual’s physical
health, as measured by an increase in blood pressure62 and an increased likelihood to die of heart
disease,63 and on her psychological wellbeing, as exemplified in the long-term effects of divorce-
related anger and pain on familial relationships.64 Similarly, Judith Wallerstein argues that a
divorce rendered with unrepentant and ineffable anger can maintain a rift in preexisting familial
relationships as well as prevent meaningful engagement in future familial and social
relationships.65 Both Enright and Wallerstein agree that, though severing these hurtful
61 Enright, 46.
62 FranzAlexander, “Emotional Factors in Essential HNT: Presentation of a Tentative Hypothesis,” Psychosomatic
Medicine 1 (1939), 173-179.
63 J.C. Barefoot and Colleagues,“Hostility,CHD, Incidence,and Total Mortality:a 25 Year Follow-up Study of 225
Physicians,”Psychosomatic Medicine 45 (1983), 59-63.
64 J.S. Wallerstein,J.Lewis, and S. Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000).
65 J.S. Wallerstein and S.Blakeslee, Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children 10 Years After Divorce (New York:
Tichnor and Fields,1996).

25. Forgiveness 25
relationships may lead to an end to emotional and psychological suffering, “most take the anger
with them and find that years later they are still seething.”66
Beyond these two areas of life affected, Enright also portrays a third level at which anger
and resentment affect individuals negatively: community function and, arguably, dysfunction.
Enright relays to his readers a tale disturbingly similar to the wrongdoing and communal
response witnessed in August of 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing of Michael Brown and
the similarly-fatal assault in New York that led to the death of Eric Garner. In the case that
Enright cites from 1991, Rodney King—a black male who led several LAPD officers on an 8-
mile high speed chase—was apprehended, forced to lie on the ground, and beaten mercilessly
with the officers’ metal batons beyond what was considered an acceptable show of force.
Though this interaction was videotaped by bystanders and King’s injuries documented with
photographic evidence, the 5 white LAPD officers involved were acquitted of wrongdoing.67
These insults incited a community’s outcry, and the fallout was disastrous. Protests devolved into
continuous waves of angry mobs that looted businesses and burned buildings. “People were
shot,” Enright recalls.68 These 1991 incidents somberly reflect the nature of anger when
maintained by communities who are subject to violent oppression at the hands of those who
retain privilege. When entire communities of people finally respond to an anger that is widely
held but not adequately addressed, an uprising may ensue. The police officers responded to
King’s apprehension with anger, and the community responded to a perceived and experienced
lack of justice with anger. In this way, Enright’s claim that “anger begets anger” is realized.69
Communities that experience this kind of anger—the kind that stems from forced invisibility and
66 Enright, 56.
67 Enright, 57.
68 Enright, 57.
69 Enright, 57.

26. Forgiveness 26
the experience of voicelessness—are likely to erupt if their needs are not addressed. Clearly,
anger affects individuals on a large scale just as much as it does on a small scale.
Regardless of the source of anger, however, Enright claims that forgiveness used
therapeutically can offer a greater range of effectiveness and benefit than other human responses
such as catharsis, relaxation, distraction, changing thoughts/feeling/behavior, correcting the
irrational with the rational, and character transformation. These approaches, Enright argues,
answer dysfunctional anger as a symptom, but do not respond to injustice as the cause.70 If
counted among possible approaches to managing issues of chronic anger and maintained
resentment, forgiveness is the only addition that might respond to anger as a symptom of a
deeper emotional need for justice. This, alongside several other inadequacies of each approach,
supports the use of forgiveness as a therapeutic tool.
Forgiveness as a Therapeutic Process
Enright proposes a system of forgiveness in which initiators work through phases of
forgiveness that are marked by guideposts rather than steps. Embedded within this roadmap,
Enright has included checkpoints for readers that act as prompts for journal entries, thus
engaging forgiveness as a reflective process that resembles a choose-your-own-adventure
narrative rather than a streamlined procedure. This allows initiators to engage the process and its
components at the pace and in the order that suits them, and offers each prospective forgiver the
opportunity to craft a system that caters to her own unique needs and concerns.
Pre-Forgiveness
70 Enright 62.

27. Forgiveness 27
An additional caveat that Enright includes is a series of pre-forgiveness considerations.
Enright focuses on the need for potential forgivers to understand where they stand in relation to
the offender and to forgiveness in general. These pre-forgiveness considerations include the
following:
 Do you recognize that forgiveness is a difficult and sometimes painful process?
 What motivates you to forgive?
 What is your guiding worldview, and how does that view relate to the worldview of
others?71
These considerations involve personal reflection and asking oneself insightful questions, a theme
that is repeatedly reiterated as Enright’s process of forgiveness unfolds. Beyond the reflection
required, these questions may also allow the potential forgiver to reconsider whether or not
forgiveness is the most appropriate avenue to consider. If one does not believe oneself to be
capable of managing the pain that forgiveness might bring up, or if one does not wish to engage
in a process that brings to light old wounds, the directness that forgiveness requires may not
provide the most beneficial results.
Guideposts for Forgiveness
Within the main body of the forgiveness process, Enright outlines four phases that begin
and end with reflective self-discussion. Though there are myriad methods that make moving
through Enright’s process possible, the method that he suggests is contemplative journaling.
According to Enright, what sets journaling apart from other methods of reflection is its narrative
properties. “A journal,” Enright remarks, “is a telling of your story—who you are, who the
71 Enright, 74-76.

28. Forgiveness 28
people are that accompany you, the context in which the story unfolded…” Enright here
advocates for the power of the personal narrative, a key theme that both he and Griswold
capitalize upon in order to enhance the meaning of the experience and the awareness of the
individual. For reference, the guideposts that Enright has provided are listed verbatim in Figure
1.
GUIDEPOSTS FOR FORGIVING
PHASE 1—UNCOVERING YOUR ANGER
 How have you avoided dealing with your anger?
 Have you faced your anger?
 Are you afraid to expose your shame or guilt?
 Has your anger affected your health?
 Have you been obsessed about the injury or the offender?
 Do you compare your situation with that of the offender?
 Has the injury caused a permanent change in your life?
 Has the injury changed your worldview?
PHASE 2—DECIDING TO FORGIVE
 Decide that what you have been doing hasn’t worked.
 Be willing to begin the forgiveness process.
 Decide to forgive.
PHASE 3—WORKING ON FORGIVENESS
 Work toward understanding.
 Work toward compassion.
 Accept the pain.
 Give the offender a gift.
PHASE 4—DISCOVERY AND RELEASE FROM EMOTIONAL PRISON
 Discover the meaning of suffering.
 Discover your need for forgiveness.
 Discover that you are not alone.
 Discover the purpose of your life.
 Discover the freedom of forgiveness.
Figure 1: Guideposts for Forgiveness,Enright 78.

29. Forgiveness 29
The first phase focuses on the revelation of anger—where it is found within one’s day,
one’s body, and one’s mind, and how that anger may be affecting other areas of one’s life. By
proposing these kinds of questions, Enright explicitly avoids shaming the person for
experiencing anger by focusing instead upon her lived experience. How does she respond to
anger? Has she recognized her own struggle? Has she demeaned or shamed herself for
experiencing anger that is not necessarily misplaced? Has this anger prevented her from
engaging in deep, meaningful relationships with those who have not caused her harm? Is she able
to trust others, or is her pain causing her to experience undue fear? The questions that Enright
proposes follow this same vein of thought, and culminate in requesting that the forgiver reflect
on how the past injury has changed the forgiver’s worldview and her life.72
Secondly, Phase 2 is the section in which the forgiver decides to forgive. This may seem
like a curious place to insert such a decision, but Enright defends its position by reminding his
readers that forgiveness is a commitment that should be consciously assessed and continuously
reconsidered. In order to do this fully, Enright breaks the decision down into 3 parts, namely:
1.) Turning your back on the past
2.) Looking toward the future, and
3.) Choosing the path of forgiveness73
Enright here both addresses the revelations that David Kesley deals with in the prison of past
actions, but his wording and later explanation imply a different attitude and response. He does
not explicitly address these three questions, however, and so a detailed analysis of this particular
explanation is problematic. To some extent, turning one’s back on one’s past is empowering—it
72 Enright, 78-79.
73 Enright, 79.

30. Forgiveness 30
can also imply, however, that one’s past is no longer relevant to one’s being, which runs contrary
to many of the claims that Kelsey, Buber, and Griswold would make. In the most nuanced sense
that a reader might derive, this could be understood as the recognition that one’s past comprises
one’s context but not one’s essence. One’s future, too, is accounted for here, as is one’s present
in that the forgiver actively decides to take the initiative to reclaim her future and so exist fully in
the present. If nuanced in this fashion, these concepts tie into the very Buberian insight into
humanity and relationship, and so can make the way for an I-Thou relationship to occur. The
text as it stands, however, makes no explicit claim to this point.
Phase 3 is concerned mainly with the labor of forgiveness, and marks one of the few
appearances of the wrongdoer in Enright’s question. In a reflective manner, the forgiver here
toils to understand the wrongdoing and what may have brought about the pain from another
perspective. She is meant to take into consideration the lived experience of the wrongdoer and so
understand why he may have committed actions that caused her harm. She can engage his
worldview and so develop a deeper understanding of what may be his suffering; this compassion,
what might be related to the empathy process that both Brown and Bonhoeffer illustrate, allows
the forgiver to consider that the wrongdoer is imprisoned by similar past grievances. Enright
argues that this process does not necessarily include the wrongdoer in an active sense, but can
include the forgiver’s understanding of the wrongdoer’s experience as the forgiver might
imagine it to be.74 Though this does not perfectly correspond with the vision that Griswold
maintains for forgiveness, there is a striking parallel between his appreciation for the sharing of
narrative and Enright’s equivalent reference to the “embellishment” of the narrative.75 Though
Griswold would argue that the sharing of narrative is best performed actively, the pragmatic
74 Enright 141, 142.
75 Enright 139-141.

31. Forgiveness 31
function of Enright’s 3rd phase is focused upon the compassion that the forgiver discovers within
herself rather than the reality of engaging with the wrongdoer. From the process of sharing
narratives and gaining new perspective, Enright moves on to the acceptance of the past and its
pain—here, he expounds upon the power that acceptance can have and the therapeutic virtue of
moving on from past hurt.76 After having gained some perspective with regard to the lived
experience of the wrongdoer, the forgiver is enabled to accept her own pain as having occurred,
but that it does not have to be in control of her life. By accepting her suffering, the forgiver can
once again recognize that she is the narrator of her own story.77 Once she has freed herself from
the emotional prison that her anger had forged for her, Enright concludes this phase by
suggesting that the forgiver reach out to the wrongdoer with the offer of a gift. The culmination
of this process is surprising by many regards, but is represents the fleeting and crucial integration
of the engagement of the wrongdoer within the process of forgiveness. Enright may consider any
act of kindness or meaningful gesture to be such a gift, but ultimately deems this guidepost to be
at the forgiver’s discretion.78
Finally, Phase 4 of Enright’s forgiveness model is the recognition of personal growth and
change. This is, again, based upon intentional reflection. How has my process helped me move
on from my suffering? How have I made a difference in my life, in the lives of others? What
meaning can I derive from this experience, if any? By reflecting upon these and other similar
questions, Enright believes that a successful process will endow forgivers with a healthier, more-
informed self-concept and a gratitude for their experience of suffering.79 By realizing emotional
freedom, those who have successfully navigated the forgiveness process can choose to seek
76 Enright, 162.
77 Enright, 165.
78 Enright, 166.
79 Enright, 79.

32. Forgiveness 32
relationship with the wrongdoer, renew other relationships that had been damaged by resentment,
or discover new relationship possibilities without the burden of past experiences preventing such
engagement.80
What is not shown here is the culmination in forgiveness, namely the point at which the
forgiver formally forgives the wrongdoer. This is not an omission, per say, but alludes to many
of the nuances of forgiveness. Because the moment of forgiveness is often more complicated
than any simple model may imply, Enright offers a plethora of suggestions about how one might
best approach this endpoint, or if one is best served by such a declaration. In short, Enright
suggests that the appropriateness of an actual declaration of forgiveness must be determined on
an individual basis. This decision is based upon the safety of the forgiver and the awareness of
the forgiven, and is ultimately an instance in which the forgiver’s discretion hinges upon the
purpose and practicality of such a declaration.81
Critique
Though these guideposts are explained with more depth in the remaining chapters of
Enright’s work, the overwhelming majority of these stipulations are essentially reflective
practices. With the exception of Phase 3, these suggestions explore the wronged’s experience of
pain, anger, and lost relationship, and seek to answer the personal experience with
contemplation, reframing, and critical consideration of the long-term effects of wrongdoing. The
absence of the wrongdoer in this process is indicative of Enright’s complicated treatment of the
wrongdoer as an optional actor in forgiveness. The lack of concern that Enright displays is a
problematic reminder that, while Enright may allow for relationship to stem from forgiveness, he
80 Enright, 176.
81 Enright, 188-194.

33. Forgiveness 33
ultimately conveys neither concern for or interest in the wellbeing of the wrongdoer. By
excluding the wrongdoer from actively participating in the forgiveness process, Enright
insinuates that the experience of the wrongdoer is beyond the scope of his research for this
particular book, and is therefore unintentionally excluded from many of the benefits and
necessary revelations that take place within the realm of forgiveness.
The other end of this quarrel, however, is also evident in the reading. One aspect of
Enright’s forgiveness model, specifically in Phase 4, is its awareness that forgiveness may offer
renewed relationship to those who seek it. It is worth noting that, by discovering these new
relational possibilities, Enright proclaims that the forgiver discovers that she “is not alone.”82 In
fact, Enright here directly answers the problems that Dumm and Buber grapple with, that
experiencing isolation is a part of the human experience, and that this can be answered by
recognizing other people, particularly those with whom we struggle to relate, as being both
comprised and transcendent of past experiences and full of future possibility. However, this is
again centered upon the experience of the forgiver, and does not relate directly to the forgiven.
After careful consideration of Enright’s proposed approach to forgiveness, it becomes
clear that his is primarily a reflective paradigm and is so markedly dissimilar to Griswold’s
reciprocative approach. Enright’s process does provide valuable insight into the internal scope of
forgiveness, and his nuanced treatment of the process itself is an insightful and pragmatic
method. Additionally, Enright’s adept understanding of pain as a lived experience hits at the
heart of isolation as Sartre and Dumm would consider it; Enright takes seriously the barriers that
anger and hatred produce, and caters his therapeutic method to the dissolution of anger in a
manner that is practical and relevant to common experience. His tempered consideration of the
82 Enright, 176.

34. Forgiveness 34
reality of anger and its caustic nature illustrates Dumm’s major concerns when it comes to the
prevalence of emotional barriers becoming lived barriers and evokes discussion about Sartre’s
depiction of the forlorn, angry Inez. Inez is clearly a character who has been negatively affected
by the corrosive anger that she relives, and is an example of the extreme emotional and physical
isolation that Enright explains in the first half of his book.
I would argue, however, that Enright’s process and method is adequate but not
comprehensive. Enright’s paradigm—while valid in its construction, use of reflection,
therapeutic communication, and profound impact on individual wellbeing—is incomplete.
Though his treatment of forgiveness allows for a unique journey to be determined by the
forgiver, he considers relationship to be unnecessary in the journey. His approach focuses on the
lived experience in a way that I find fascinating, and his tools are simple to understand and easily
applied, but this is where his usefulness ends. The wrongdoer finds no reprieve in this treatment
of forgiveness because his lived experience is, to an extent, inconsequential. There is personal
wellness seen here, but this paradigm does not encourage the wrongdoer to change his ways, or
even require the forgiver to engage his unique, lived experience in a manner other than through
the forgiver’s own, limited perspective. This results in an approach that greatly respects the anger
and pain of the wronged, which is admirable, but does not go far enough to respect the
experience of the wrongdoer of the community which they both inhabit.
The Combined Approach
When analyzing both systems of forgiveness, I was repeatedly struck by the radically
different approaches to forgiveness and relationship. Each system plays to a different strength;
where Griswold focuses his effort on the actions of the offender and the importance of shared

35. Forgiveness 35
experience, Enright illustrates the merit of reflection and largely ignored the experience of the
offender. Enright lays out his forgiveness process as a generalized map that leads potential
forgivers from uncovering anger through the decision to forgive, while Griswold’s paradigm is a
rather rigid formulation of what forgiveness must entail. Both thinkers posit ideas about
forgiveness that are relevant, though each had a different vision for the use of their work. My
postulation is that a combination of the interactive approach and the reflective approach
addresses the dual needs for renewed relationship with oneself and one’s wrongdoer.
The Value
In his treatment of forgiveness, Griswold emphasizes that vulnerability belies a reversal
of the power dynamic—where the wrongdoer has caused the wronged some form of injury, and
so maintained some degree of power over her, his choice to share his narrative and so strip away
the façade of an unequal power relationship reverses the hierarchy. He has offered his narrative
and so placed his hopes and future at the foot of the wronged, indicating a precious and
intentional reversal of empowerment. I find this appropriate for two reasons. The first is that the
reversal of a power structure is the first step to dismantling a hierarchy, a notion that forgiveness
endears itself to. The second reason is that this empowers the wronged to decide the reliability of
the relationship and provides point at which the wronged can more effectively decide whether or
not the situation is safe. If the wrongdoer does not seem appropriately contrite, or if his narrative
goes beyond what the wronged considers plausible, she may at that point disengage from the
process with minimal risk and conscious reasoning. The effort has been made on both sides to
determine the appropriateness of the situation, and restitution has been offered if not accepted.
This element of reciprocity, even in forgiveness that is incomplete, is a profound movement
toward relationship that Enright does not quite reach.

36. Forgiveness 36
The value I find in Enright is the simplicity and practicality that he emphasizes. His
forgiveness paradigm is flexible, easily navigated, and asks its participants to consider carefully
the reality of their situations. Not only does he reflect upon the impact that anger and resentment
have upon individual’s lives, but he recognizes that each experience is different. Additionally,
Enright offers participants realistic goals and nuanced expectations; because he recognizes each
experience with forgiveness as a unique opportunity for self-discovery, he offers several chapters
on different responses to difficulties in the process—if a participant stumbles upon a barrier,
Enright offers insight into how she might circumnavigate that barrier. In this way, he sincerely
seeks to set the forgiver up for success and healing.
The outline for forgiveness that Griswold proposes is, by my account, a thorough one.
Because it serves to answer the past and create change for a better future, it allows both the
forgiver and forgiven to experience a much-needed change. With the realistic directions and
additional alterations supplied by Enright, and the reminder offered by Joseph L. Allen that “one
must make a moral assessment over and over again,83 we can give the philosophical structure
supplied by Griswold the practicality that it requires to make provisions for those who endeavor
upon forgiveness. What follows is a system that, if applied with sincerity and authentic interest
in pursuing forgiveness, can provide guidance for those who seek the emotional healing of
forgiveness.
83 Joseph L. Allen, Love and Conflict:A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics (Nashville,TN: Abington Press,1984),
212.

37. Forgiveness 37
The Field Guide to Forgiveness
Part 1: What is Forgiveness?
When beginning the process of forgiveness, it is important to understand what
forgiveness can look like, what it cannot entail, and what you see as a possible outcome. What
follows are questions and communication tools that provide you the space to reflect upon and
share the meaning of forgiveness as a process and as a possibility. Though the questions here
have been listed in what seems like a particular order, the forgiveness process itself is a unique
experience that everyone will move through differently—this means that each person will
process emotional information at a different rate and in a different order. There is nothing wrong
with going at your own pace in your own time. These sections are posited in an order that makes
sense, but can be completed in whatever order feels natural and consistent with your process.
You are the expert on your life and your history, and so the way that you choose to process
forgiveness is ultimately up to you.
To begin, we have to decide what forgiveness is. When we talk about and move toward
forgiveness here, we think about forgiveness as a process of healing for you and the other person.
Whether you are the wrongdoer or the wronged, forgiveness asks you to empathize with the
other by sharing your stories and so discover the other person’s humanity. Forgiveness is the
process in which we empower ourselves to take charge of our narratives and discover the
powerful ways that people, those who have helped and those who have hurt us alike, may be
shaped by their pasts but are not necessarily chained to their pasts. On the most basic level,
forgiveness as we talk about it here is about rediscovering ourselves by rediscovering others,
both of which lead to a resurgence of future possibility. Though forgiveness can take on many

38. Forgiveness 38
faces and be applied in a plethora of ways, forgiveness is the emotional journey of both the
wronged and the wrongdoer that requires vulnerability, empathy, and reflection to enable the
possibility for relationship, which further supports each party’s continued personal growth.
The shape of the forgiveness process that I outline here is separated into several phases.
At the outset, forgiveness is a very introspective process that involves deep reflection upon
personal truths and past experiences. After a period, the participants enter into a phase of
forgiveness that focuses on sharing experiences; this phase is almost exclusively based upon
interactive experiences and relies heavily on each participant sharing their experiences with
vulnerability and sensitivity. Finally, the last phase of forgiveness centers upon enacting change
in each individual life and culminates in the recognition of a renewed future. This may or may
not resolve relationship tensions; just because forgiveness makes renewed relationship possible
does not, however, mean that there is an obligation to resume all aspects of previous
relationships. Forgiveness does not ask participants to force relationships to work; rather, it
reminds both sides that change and renewed relationship are possible.
Some people manage the introspective, reflective phase of forgiveness by meditating,
while others put a pen to paper and journal about their experiences. Some might record stream-
of-consciousness conversations and compile the sound bites as an auditory reflective process,
and still others express themselves through an artistic journey. Robert D. Enright recommends
reflective journaling as a part of this therapeutic process, but there is no end to the possibilities
that individuals might come up with as helpful ways to process the emotional adventure that
forgiveness engenders.

39. Forgiveness 39
The interactive phase relies more heavily on sharing the sum of these reflections—
participants here share their stories, sometimes aided by their reflective process, but it really can
be as simple as engaging in conversation about what the other experienced in the past and how
each future has been affected by the wrongdoing. There will be instances when this process is
facilitated by letter-writing or emails, but the most productive method is most likely going to be
face-to-face conversations.
The final phase can take any number of shapes. Sometimes, this will mean making a
conscious effort to give of oneself to the other. Other times, this will mean supporting new
legislation or providing financial support. There will be situations in which the participants
realize that they are not best served by continuing to relate to one another, but are able to
recognize the other’s value and capacity for growth.
Word Choice
When we talk about forgiveness, people use different words to describe its different
aspects. Thinking about how we define these aspects of forgiveness is a helpful way to begin
thinking about its process. I have listed here some of the terminology that I use, how I use it, and
why I use it so that you can make an informed decision about how forgiveness and its related
concepts fit in your life and your worldview.
The Wrongdoer and the Wronged
Though there are other ways to address the individuals or parties who engage in the
process of forgiveness, the verbiage that I use here relates the wrongdoer and the wronged.84 The
84 The words I choose here arewrongdoer and wronged—though there are other systems that talk about the
relationship between the offender and the offended or the abuser and the victim,these words carry connotations

40. Forgiveness 40
wrongdoer is someone who has harmed someone, regardless of whether she purposefully
committed an offense. The wronged is someone who might be called a victim—he has
experienced some kind of pain because of the wrongdoer’s actions. These actions may have been
large or small, perpetrated over a lifetime or in a span of minutes. The harm itself may have
taken any form, be it physical, emotional, or spiritual. It could have been vehemently repressed
for years or it may be a fresh, weeping wound. Regardless of the circumstances, the wronged is
generally the person who is experiencing pain because of the damage perpetrated by the
wrongdoer. This is the kind of situation in which forgiveness may be an appropriate response.
Pain, Anger, and Resentment
When talking about forgiveness, it is prudent to explain the difference between anger,
resentment, and pain. When we talk about pain here, we are explicitly discussing the experience
of suffering. As far as forgiveness is concerned, pain is the internal response to having been hurt;
it is how we feel when we are hurting.
An observable response to pain is anger, when pain is externalized and redirected rather
than internalized. When I talk about anger here, I talk about it as the initial response to having
been hurt. There is an extent to which these responses are healthy and normal. According to most
philosophical and theological disciplines, pain is an unavoidable facet of living. Anger, too, has
that I do not appreciate. When we talk about “the offender,” we often revert to thinkingabout forgiveness in
terms of justiceand punishment—the offender is often someone who is being judged. This is not where I choose
to take forgiveness,and so I try to avoid this verbiage.Similarly,and perhaps more flagrantly,when we label
people as “abusers”and “victims,”we reinforcean implied power structure and create another barrier that
prevents a relationship of equals.Becausethere is such a visceral reaction to such verbiage,I explicitly avoid s uch
terminology. Discussingtherelationship between the wrongdoer and the wronged, however, is an attempt to relay
as neutrally as possiblethe context with which each individual comes to the process.The “wrongdoer” is someone
who has literally “donewrong” by causingharm,and the “wronged” is the person who has received that harm.
Whileone could argue that the offender/ed terminology makes this same attempt, itis still inextricably tied up in
the languageof justiceand therefore the languageof pardon, and therefore carries problematic undertones.
Though my terminology is notwithout flaw,it my sincereattempt to describeindividualswithoutreducingthem to
their pastactions.

41. Forgiveness 41
therapeutic properties. A lack of anger can sometimes indicate a lack of self respect—if someone
does not feel as though her feelings or experiences are valid, she may internalize all pain as her
responsibility and never feel what may be rightfully-placed anger. In this way, temporary anger
sometimes reflects a healthy level of self-interest and self-love.
Resentment is the unhealthy maintenance of this anger; it’s what happens when we hold
onto that anger and pin it upon someone else. When we resent, we maintain angry thoughts and
behaviors toward someone or something. Resentment usually insinuates an inability to
successfully cope with pain and anger, which results in the dissolution of unrelated relationships
or caustic self-loathing, also known as shame. Forgiveness can act as a way to cope with feelings
of resentment and shame by allowing its participants to recognize their own worth, the worth of
the other, and the renewed possibility for change that both participants can capitalize upon.
Reciprocity
When I talk about reciprocity, what I am referencing is the idea that each encounter is
interactive. This implies that both sides actively participate rather than either the wrongdoer or
the wronged doing most of the work of forgiveness. This does not mean that they do the same
work, but simply requires that both the wronged and the wrongdoer engage in the process and
with one another in sincerity.
Pardon
To most people, pardon and forgiveness are nearly synonymous. Within this discussion,
however, pardon and forgiveness mean markedly different things. Forgiveness is based upon a
system of reciprocity. Without the inclusion of both parties, “forgiveness” winds up being the
work of one part to move past the anger, hurt, and difficulty that wrongdoing has inflicted. This

42. Forgiveness 42
other path looks more like pardon, where someone decides that the wrongdoer does not need to
be punished. In and of itself, pardon requires a third party to step in and absolve the wrongdoer
of punishment. This almost always implies that the wrong that the wrongdoer committed is not
punishable or not worth punishing, which further implies that the pain that the wronged
experiences is less valid. Unlike forgiveness, pardon is not motivated by the desire to restore
relationship between wrongdoer and the wronged, because it is primarily concerned with what is
just rather than what is kind. Pardon is problematic because it is not and cannot be forgiveness—
pardon implies and reaffirms a power structure, involves a neutral third party in the
determination of the ethical punishment of the wrongdoer, and largely disassociates itself from
the experience of the wronged. Ultimately, the choice to pardon 1.) condones the wrongdoing,
2.) reduces the validity of the experience and pain of the wronged, and 3.) does not hold the
wrongdoer accountable for his actions. This is not to say that pardon itself is inherently wrong,
but rather maintains that pardon is different from forgiveness and cannot accomplish the same
things that forgiveness can.
Excuse
Much like pardon, excuse is often likened to forgiveness. These concepts are distinct
from one another in that excuse reduces the humanity of the wrongdoer. When we excuse
someone, we assume that he should not be held responsible for his wrongdoing. This kind of
treatment reduces fully autonomous human beings to children and implies that they are somehow
incapable of performing according to the ethical standards that we hold others to. Again, we
condone the actions of the wrongdoer by dismissing his autonomy, and implicitly claim that the
wrongdoer cannot be expected to perform according to basic moral and ethical standards. Both

43. Forgiveness 43
of these approaches seem to condone the wrongdoing and the resulting reduction of someone’s
humanity, a notion which most individuals consciously object to.
Empathy
According to nursing scholar Theresa Wiseman, empathy is made up of four components.
Empathy is founded in the ability to take the perspective of another person and avoiding passing
judgment on or through that perspective. Additionally, empathy is the recognition of someone
else’s emotional state and communicating as much.85 Psychologist Brené Brown takes this one
step further by claiming that, unlike those who appeal to sympathy, empathetic individuals can
actively listen to someone else’s story without trying to “fix” their perspective.86 In this way, an
empathetic response is one that allows the suffering individual to express his experience without
feeling reduced, judged, or belittled because the empathetic responder chooses to express
understanding and compassion rather than trying to remind the sufferer of the “silver lining.”87
Apology
Just as with forgiveness, there are plenty of conflicting ideas about what an apology looks
like. While most people think of an apology as the act of saying “I’m sorry,” a meaningful
apology contains more than a simple statement. According to Dina Haddad, a law mediator
specializing in family mediation, a successful apology is composed of the following:
 The apology acknowledges the offense.
 The apology communicates remorse and the related attitudes of forbearance, sincerity and
honesty.
85 Brown, RSA Short Video “Brené Brown on Empathy.”
86 Brown, RSA Short Video “Brené Brown on Empathy.”
87 Brown, RSA Short Video “Brené Brown on Empathy.”

44. Forgiveness 44
 The apology provides an explanation; and
 The apology grants reparations.88
When we apologize in the terms that this process describes, we go through a process very similar
to the one that Haddad describes—we recognize that we have done wrong, provide explanation
and share our story, accept the consequences of our actions, and ask to be reconsidered in the
eyes of the wronged. In this way, the process of apology is one that requires us to humbly admit
to ourselves that we have made mistakes, express remorse and understanding to others, and
explain what we will do differently in the future to make up for our wrongdoing and prevent
ourselves from perpetrating similar actions in the future.
Part 2: Applying Forgiveness
When beginning the process of forgiveness, everyone involved must reflect upon the
meaning, intentions, and outcomes that forgiveness entails. Example questions can be found in a
companion text by Robert D. Enright,89 but the three that are most evocative and helpful are the
following:
 What does forgiveness mean to me?
 Am I ready to forgive?
 Is it safe for me to engage in forgiveness?
o Is it healthy?
o Is it wise?
 Are there other alternatives that would be more beneficial to me?
88 Dina Haddad,“DealingWith The Pains Of DivorceThrough Meaningful And Complete Apology,” Mediate.com,
November 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.mediate.com/articles/haddadD3.cfm
89 Enright, 78.

45. Forgiveness 45
 What is the purpose of forgiveness?
 What do I expect to gain from forgiveness?
 What are my motivations?
 Do I have a healthy support system that includes someone I can trust to share my
experience with?
These questions can be answered in any number of ways and in almost any manner. Some
psychologists suggest contemplative journaling as a reliable method for deep thought and
reflection,90 while others consider meditation91 and reflective self-talk to be helpful in this
process.92
In this process, we start by discerning our understanding of relationship so that we can
untangle its many meanings and decide what our individual definition is. Is forgiveness what we
think it is? If your vision of forgiveness is more like pardon or excuse, this realization might
warrant a revision of your intended actions or your understanding of forgiveness. If your
intentions are tinged with emotional manipulation or revenge, there might be more work in
forgiveness than I have outlined here. If unearthing previous wounds looks as if it will bring with
it disabling pain, flashbacks, or even if it just looks like a step backwards, this process may
require a more structured, guided approach than that which I provide. Likewise, not all
relationships are safe situations to willingly return to. By asking ourselves these questions, we
can decide how safe, reasonable, and beneficial the forgiveness process is so that we can
determine for ourselves how appropriate it is to continue.
90 Enright, 81.
91 Jack Kornfield, The Art of Forgiveness, Lovingkindness,and Peace,(New York:Bantam Books, 2002).
92 Laura Starecheski,“Why Sayingis Believing—TheScience of Self-Talk,” National Public Radio,Oct.17th, 2014.

46. Forgiveness 46
Beyond this, we can decide upon what motivates us to forgive. For many participants,
this is a continuous process. For others, the motivation to forgive is rooted in religious or ethical
beliefs about what is right in the eyes of the divine. Unearthing these perspectives can help us
discern other sources of emotional, intellectual, and spiritual guidance.
Because we can find support and encouragement in friends and meaningful texts alike, it
is prudent to think about who our personal resources are. Do you have a friend who will support
you in this process? A family member? A loved one? Reaching out to members of our
community for emotional support when we are processing past events often results in a broader,
more positive impact. This is why scholars also suggest that each participant seek out healthy
supporters by reaching out to a friend or professional who can offer empathetic responses and
objective, gentle input, and is not involved in the process or the wrongdoing themselves.93
For the Wrongdoer
Forgiveness, as a process, is divided into two perspectives: the wrongdoer and the
wronged. As a general rule, there are aspects of both perspectives that are applicable to both
participants; rarely are we either entirely responsible for someone else’s pain or utterly
victimized by someone else’s wrongdoing. Regardless of circumstances, it is beneficial for
participants to consider the process from both sides so that they can understand what forgiveness
entails for the other. The process for the wrongdoer involves reflection upon personal values, the
impact of his wrongdoing. Combined with meaningful actions and expressions of contrition and
93 Enright, 76.

47. Forgiveness 47
understanding, the process of forgiveness for the wrongdoer is much like the process of
formulating a complete, meaningful apology.94
Step 1: Responsibility
In order to begin the forgiveness process, the wrongdoer must take responsibility for his
actions and the damage that has resulted from his choices. If you are the wrongdoer, this is a
simple yet critical step that helps others take you and your intentions seriously. In order to do
this, Enright suggests reflective journaling or deep meditation. Reaching out to a friend may help
you gain perspective. Consider these questions:
 Even if I did not mean to, what did I do that caused harm?
 On some level, was it purposeful?
 What was my rationale at the time?
 Am I really blameless?
Now, there is every possibility that you may conclude that the pain that the wronged experiences
is not entirely your fault. In this case, you may want to step back and try to take the perspective
of the other person. How did she respond to your actions? Was there a better way for you both to
have handled the situation and its aftermath? You may not be the only one responsible, but both
of you may realize that there is shared pain and shared responsibility. Taking responsibility in
this way is the beginning of a complete, meaningful apology.95
Step 2: Repudiate and Express Regret
94 Haddad,Apology.
95 Haddad,Apology.

48. Forgiveness 48
In choosing forgiveness, we must separate ourselves from the wrongdoing that we have
committed. This entails the recognition that we are more than the sum of our pasts and
committing to preventing similar trespasses in the future. You might realize that you may have
done wrong, but that you no longer have to be defined by this past mistake. You may then
experience and express this regret. When you take full responsibility, you accept the past as
something that you cannot change. When you repudiate, you recognize that you are capable of
better. When you express regret, you externalize the understanding that you are moving on to
make change and do not wish to be defined by your past mistakes.
This step can be difficult to experience fully because it is such a subtle thing that can be
very difficult to communicate. These questions can help you face and separate yourself from
your past:
 Can I honestly disavow future wrongdoing?
 Have I learned any lessons since then that showed me how I was wrong?
 Have I grown since that time?
 If I were to apologize right now, would it be sincere?
The apology itself is no small matter, but this step really can be as simple as looking the
other participant in the eye and saying, “I’m sorry.” We take this empathetic response one step
farther when we share our experience and moment of personal growth. This may come in the
form of purposeful I statements; “I’m sorry for having hurt you in this way. I know that you have
been dealing with this pain for a long time, and I want you to know that I wish I could take it
back. I wish that I had not hurt you, and I am here to listen to what you have to say.” By
centering your statements upon your perception and your experience instead of putting words in

49. Forgiveness 49
the other person’s mouth, you express that you take responsibility for your actions and do not
perpetuate threatening or manipulative conversation. Additionally, conversations that center
upon I statements facilitate the resolution of misunderstandings.96 The Human Potential Project
offers excellent resources in the development of therapeutic communication and I statements,
and can be found in the resource list below.
Step 3: Committing to Change
This step marks the beginning of the transition from the introspective phase of
forgiveness to the interactive phase. An apology, in order to be complete, must include an
expression of regret and a goal to prevent future harm from occurring.9798 In this step, you extend
your apology by outlining what you can do differently in the future. This is a plan that ought to
be externalized and set both parties up in terms of accountability and hope.
 What will I do differently?
 How can I do better?
 Is this achievable?
 How can I go about making this change real?
Goal-setting is most successful when it is guided by the SMART goal guidelines; a SMART goal
is one that is:
 Specific
 Measureable
96 The Human Potential Project,“I Statements,” (2015).
http://www.humanpotentialcenter.org/Articles/IStatements.html
97 Susan Diacoff,“Apology, Forgiveness,Reconciliation & Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” Pepperdine Dispute
Resolution Law Journal, 1, no. 13 (Feb. 13th,2013): 135-36.
98 Haddad,Apology.

50. Forgiveness 50
 Achievable
 Realistic
 Tangible99
With this in mind, it would behoove you to consider how realistic your goal is, how you can
measure your success, and whether or not this goal adequately prevents future harm and
addresses present needs. If a goal can reasonably and realistically fulfill all three requirements, it
passes the test for this step.
Step 4: Understanding of Damage
Expressing an understanding of the gravity of your actions is another component of a
well-considered, sincere apology. When you processes the impact that your actions have had and
can express that understanding in an apology, you appeal to Brené Brown’s understanding of
empathy. In this formulation, the wrongdoer expresses his understanding of the damage that his
actions have caused and seeks to engage the wronged in her narrative. Ideally, this occurs in at
least one conversation so as to allow both participants to share their personal experiences and
allows the wrongdoer to take the perspective of the other to really understand how the
wrongdoing affected her life and worldview. By actively listening to the experience of the other
person and responding empathetically, you can express an understanding of the impact you have
had on others, which adds to the gravitas of your experience.100
Step 5: Offering of self
99 Duncan Haughey, SMART Goals,(2014).Retrieved from: http://cdn.projectsmart.co.uk/pdf/smart-goals.pdf
100 Hope, Michael H. Active Listening: Improve Your Ability to Listen and Lead. Greensboro, NC, USA: Center for
Creative Leadership, 2006.

51. Forgiveness 51
This step is the final step in the process of forgiveness, and is the culmination of a sincere
apology. The last step in forgiveness is marked by the choice to share your personal experience
of having committed wrong and in the context of your full story. After having reflected upon his
context, you may here share your narrative not as an attempt to excuse or make light of your
actions, but to offer your perspective with humility and understanding. This allows the wronged
to make a more fully informed choice about how or if she can sincerely forgive you, and caters
to the realization that both participants are fully autonomous, deeply intricate individuals who
have been uniquely shaped by their experiences. By sharing something of yourself, you express
vulnerability and reverse the previous power dynamic.
 What is my story?
 What do I have to offer the wronged?
 What do I have to offer my community?
 What do I see in my future?
A successful venture into the experience of forgiveness relies upon this final moment to
recognize the value of the other and the value of oneself. In this shared experience, the
wrongdoer and the wronged may see one another as full human beings. By successfully
expressing yourself, your intentions, and your context, you can sincerely apologize for having
wronged the other person and revitalize your own concept of self. In this way, fulfilling your
apology frees you to take control of your future again, see yourself in a new light, and possibly
make amends with the other person.
For the Wronged

52. Forgiveness 52
Just as the wrongdoer’s process focuses on the apologetic aspect of forgiveness, the
wronged focuses on overcoming issues of anger and blame, which may lead to a renewed
experience of self-discovery.
Step 1: Engage Personal Narrative
The first step for the wronged is to consider her own context. This kind of reflection
focuses on how you have experienced the injury in question. Much like the process provided for
the wrongdoer, it is prudent for you to ask yourself these questions:
 How did I experience this harm?
 Where am I at in my healing process?
 Do I experience residual anger, frustration, shame, or resentment as a result of my
past experiences with this individual?
 Has my pain prevented me from maintaining healthy, fulfilling relationships?
 Am I able to trust others?
 What have I been doing to soothe this pain that has not worked?
 Have I been doing anything that has worked?
 Have these been healthy habits?
When you reflect on the answers to these questions, you may recognize unhealthy habits that
have negatively affected your wellbeing. Maybe you feel victimized and belittled, maybe you
feel disempowered, or maybe you experience debilitating shame or anger that prevents you from
maintaining old relationships or creating new ones. These are symptoms of anger, and are an
unfortunate consequence of having been hurt. By facing these hard truths, you may see more

53. Forgiveness 53
clearly how your pain has influenced your life and worldview, and so be able to better discern
how you might be able to free yourself of it.
Step 2: Engage the Narrative of the Other
After having recognized personal truths, the next logical step is to consider the story of
the wrongdoer. Everyone has a history and a rationale, and this moment is a point at which you
actively listen101 and engage with the wrongdoer’s story.
 Who is the person who hurt me?
 What is his story?
 How can we relate?
 On what grounds can we meet as equals?
 Is there more to him than his mistakes?
 Does this seem authentic?
It is up to you here to discern how much you can trust the intentions and veracity of the
wrongdoer. If his story is compelling and appears authentic, and if you feel safe continuing to
share the journey with him, you will have hopefully gained insight into his world and his
intentions. This allows you to widen your understanding of his character and informs your
perception of him as a human being. Often, when we consider the background of those who have
hurt us, we come to realize that their pasts are filled with a pain and struggle with which we have
no experience. People begin to make sense and cease to be monster-like when we listen to their
stories.
101 Hope, Michael H. Active Listening: Improve Your Ability to Listen and Lead. Greensboro, NC, USA: Center for
Creative Leadership, 2006.

54. Forgiveness 54
Step 3: Trust in Future Change
The wrongdoer has offered you an apology by accepting responsibility for the harm he
has done, expressing regret for his actions and the outcome, and has now offered his story and
how he intends to move forward differently. Your responsibility here is to discern how
reasonable, realistic, and appropriate these goals are.
 Can he really make change in his own life this way?
 Is this a healthy change for him, or will it facilitate more harm to come to himself or to
others?
 Are his goals achievable, measurable, and appropriate?
 Does this answer my immediate needs?
 Are his intentions legitimate?
 Can I trust him to follow through?
After having carefully considered the above questions, and having concluded that you can
respond affirmatively to each one, it is most likely prudent to move on in the forgiveness
process.
Step 4: Revisionof Judgment
Perhaps the initial reaction you had—anger, frustration, resentment, or fear—were
neither unhealthy nor badly intentioned at the time. Even so, after having encountered the
wrongdoer’s context, your understanding of his character may be more well-informed; the
wrongdoer may seem to make more sense as a full human being now. Having been exposed to
his narrative and having heard his proposed changes, it may be reasonable to revise the previous

55. Forgiveness 55
judgments you’ve made about him. Other layers of his personality may explain—but not
condone—his behavior. This revision of judgment does not require you to risk your safety or
disregard your feelings; instead, it is your moment to acknowledge that there is more to the
wrongdoer than the harm he has caused you.
Step 5: Seeing Oneself Anew
Looking back on your previous understanding of yourself, you may find that the
discovery of someone else’s humanity has renewed your own sense of humanity. This renovation
of your own self-image is part and parcel of the forgiveness process—you are more than the sum
of your past, and are ultimately the only person in charge of the direction of your own personal
narrative. You may find yourself transcending the role you had envisioned of “victim,” and
instead feel empowered to take control of your own life story. This self-empowerment can be
reinforced through any number of ways. Some people utilize therapeutic self-talk, which asks
you to change how you talk to yourself in the mirror. This method can be as simple as speaking
to yourself in the third person, as explained by psychologist Ethan Cross. His 2013 study
discovered “that a subtle linguistic shift — shifting from 'I' to your own name — can have really
powerful self-regulatory effects."102 What he means is that when you speak to yourself in the
third person, or speak to yourself as if you were someone else, your words can have a greater
impact. This technique can help you develop a healthier self-image.
For Both Participants
Step 6: Grant Forgiveness
102 Laura Starecheski,“Why Sayingis Believing—TheScience of Self-Talk,” National Public Radio,Oct.17th,2014.

56. Forgiveness 56
Throughout this journey, you have been asked to think of the person who has hurt you as
someone who has the potential to be a better person. The wrongdoer has shown himself to be
someone who has admitted to and taken responsibility for his mistakes, has shown contrition, set
his pride aside to offer you his own story, and made actual changes in his own life. If his work
has been sincere, thoughtful, and appropriate, you have most likely come to understand that his
past mistakes do not prevent him from being fully human and therefore worthy of your respect.
In order to recognize the work he has put into the process of forgiveness, as long as the situation
is safe and appropriate, this is the step in which you respond to his offer of himself by granting
forgiveness.
The choice to formally forgive someone does not mean that you forget your injury, or
that the other participant is capable of injury. Instead of seeing only those aspects of him and of
yourself, forgiveness is the formal recognition that the wrongdoer is more than just a wrongdoer,
and that you are more than a victim. When you finally do decide to forgive, you relieve the guilt
of the person who has wronged you and allow yourself to move on from past injuries. No one
can erase the past, but both you and the participant can recognize that each person has value that
goes beyond past misdeeds and historical weaknesses.

57. Forgiveness 57
References
Alexander, Franz. “Emotional Factors in Essential HNT: Presentation of a Tentative
Hypothesis,” Psychosomatic Medicine 1 (1939), 173-179.
Barefoot, J.C. and Colleagues, “Hostility, CHD, Incidence, and Total Mortality: a 25 Year
Follow-up Study of 225 Physicians,” Psychosomatic Medicine 45 (1983), 59-63.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall: a Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3, trans. John
W. De Gruchy, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1997.
Brown, Brené. Daring greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live,
Love, Parent, and Lead. New York: Gotham Books, 2012.
Brown, Brené. “The Power of Vulnerability” (lecture, Royal Society for encouragement of the
Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce, July 4, 2013). Retrieved from:
https://www.thersa.org/events/2013/07/the-power-of-vulnerability/
Buber, Martin. I and Thou, trans. Walter Kauffman. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970.
Diacoff, Susan. “Apology, Forgiveness, Reconciliation & Therapeutic Jurisprudence,”
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 1, no. 13 (Feb. 13th, 2013): 131-80.
Retrieved from:
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1240&context=drlj
Dumm, Thomas. Loneliness as a Way of Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
2008.

58. Forgiveness 58
Enright, Robert D. Forgiveness is a choice: a step-by-step process for resolving anger and
restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001.
Griswold, Charles. Forgiveness, A Philosophical Exploration. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
Haddad, Dina. “Dealing With The Pains Of Divorce Through Meaningful And Complete
Apology,” Mediate.com, November 2010. Retrieved from:
http://www.mediate.com/articles/haddadD3.cfm
Haughey, Duncan. SMART Goals, (2014). Retrieved from:
http://cdn.projectsmart.co.uk/pdf/smart-goals.pdf
Hope, Michael H. Active Listening: Improve Your Ability to Listen and Lead. Greensboro, NC,
USA: Center for Creative Leadership, 2006.
The Human Potential Project, “I Statements,” (2015). Retrieved from:
http://www.humanpotentialcenter.org/Articles/IStatements.html
Kelsey, David. Imagining Redemption. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Kornfield, Jack. The Art of Forgiveness, Lovingkindness, and Peace. New York:Bantam Books,
2002.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Spirit of Life. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. No Exit and Three Other Plays. New York: Vintage International, 1989.
Starecheski, Laura. “Why Saying is Believing—The Science of Self-Talk,” National Public
Radio, Oct. 17th, 2014.

59. Forgiveness 59
Wallerstein, J.S., and Blakeslee, S., Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children 10 Years After
Divorce. New York: Tichnor and Fields, 1996.
Wallerstein, J.S., Lewis, J., and Blakeslee, S. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. New York:
Hyperion, 2000.