By Ron Kraybill

"I know I should forgive him," she says. "I can't carry this around for the rest of my life. I ought to forgive. But I just can't." Her eyes darken as she emphasizes the last word.

In another setting, a church group is struggling to bring closure to a bitter conflict: "If I have offended anyone here, I ask for forgiveness. I want to be reconciled with all my brothers and sisters."  The words seem appropriate enough. But they carry no freedom. The speaker looks more angry than contrite. Others keep their eyes on the floor.

Elsewhere, two team members with a long history of difficulties insist to a mediator that they have forgiven each other. Yes, they want to be at peace. No, there isn't really anything they need to talk about. Their words say one thing, but their stiff bodies, tight gestures, and narrow eye movements say something else. "We are angry … We want to fight," is the message she hears.

Head vs. Heart
People in conflict frequently carry an internal battle between head and heart. By "head" I mean their values and conscience. By "heart" I mean their emotions. People think they ought to be reconciled with others, but their hearts are not ready.

Bystanders often ignore this internal split or do things that make it worse. Religious settings are especially hazardous here. Well-meaning friends, pastors, even mediators often say or do things that strengthen the "head" message, but ignore or seek to silence the voice of the heart.

I spend a great deal of time, especially in religious settings, trying to deal with the results of poor handling of this internal battle. Often people say they have already forgiven each other, but their voices and bodies say otherwise. These people have engaged in "head" reconciliation, but their hearts were left behind.

The consequence is often further damage. From “force field theory” we know that if we amplify a restraining force (in this case the "head" message) without reducing a driving force (in this case the "heart" message), eventually the driving force gets even stronger and overwhelms the restraining force.  Through guilt, you can drive principled people to what seems to be a useful goal, an apology for their own unhelpful behaviors. But if their hearts are not yet ready, resentment will remain and grow stronger over time.

The key to heart reconciliation is the knowledge that it is a process with a rhythm and dynamic of its own. To the brain's concern with what ought to be, the heart responds with what is. The head functions like light in space - touch a switch and it's there. The heart functions like a radiator heating a room. It takes time to get the job done. The head can set direction for the heart, but the heart must travel at its own pace.

One of the most important contributions we can make to people who are both angry and troubled by their anger is to give them space to "be where they are".   Understanding reconcilation as a cyclical journey provides us with a perspective from which we can more easily give this space, and help others to give themselves this space.

Cycle of Reconciliation

Heart reconciliation is a journey with stages along the way. Every time we experience alienation and restoration we go through this journey, whether the offense is large or small.   It is not  necessarily a straight journey, for in reality we may return for moments to emotions we thought we had left behind.   But  if we have allowed ourself to truly be in each stage earlier, the journey is an upward spiral.  The grip of old emotions  diminishes.   With experience and maturity we can move through the cycle more quickly with old hurts. and new ones.   But there are no shortcuts. Effort to bypass any stage simply halts us at that point.

The cycle of reconciliation begins with relationship:

1. Open relationship
The key to healthy relationships is risk. Information about self is shared and received with little anxiety. Promises are made and accepted with little second thought. No guarantees are demanded that information or promises be handled responsibly; parties assume this. Risk is continually present. If expectations are met, each risk results in higher trust.

2. Injury
At some point in all relationships, expectations are not met. A risk is taken and instead of a good outcome and higher trust, injury results.

3. Withdrawal
Withdrawal follows injury. Sometimes people withdraw physically. They turn their backs, leave the room, avoid each other. Even when withdrawal is not physical, emotional withdrawal always takes place. People pull back into themselves to assess the situation. The withdrawal may be a second or a decade. But it is a necessary and healthy response to injury. Survival mechanisms assist any healthy person to get away from a situation that causes injury in order to determine next steps.

What happens at this stage is pivotal for the outcome. After a time of withdrawal, people frequently attempt "head" reconciliation. They want to return to open relationship; they think they ought not be withdrawn and alienated. With their heads and sometimes pushed by well-meaning individuals, they "will" themselves into reconciliation. They speak words from their heads to each other. This satisfies the demand of the head to do what is "right."

But attempted to soon, the relationship they return to is not open. Willingness to risk is gone. Caution, distance and coldness creep in. If there is laughter, it is from the head and the throat, never from the belly, which is close to the heart.

Worst of all, heart reconciliation becomes difficult. We already forgave each other," people say. "Forgiveness means it's over and done. Yet the other side still treats us coldly. They have serious problems! Don't look to us for further involvement!"

4. Self-awareness
Self-awareness is needed to move beyond withdrawal. The first level is being aware of and accepting one's emotions. Admitting to oneself, "I am angry, I am hurt, I am confused," begins the process of moving beyond withdrawal. Being able to name one's emotion to others, without self-deprecation, is better yet. The people most likely to get stuck at this stage are those who insist, "I'm not angry, I'm just concerned."

A second level of self-awareness is about the deeper vulnerabilities that inevitably get tapped in painful conflicts. Below the surface in every bruising encounter are memories of old injuries. Whenever any particular person or incident in the present proves especially capable of arousing deep resentment or feelings of helplessness, introspection is called for. cIn the present we  may be fighting a neighbor, a spouse, our pastor. But the root anger or fear may come from a trauma far removed in time!

An insightful question is: When have I felt this way before? Often the first thought delivered up by the mind seems questionable. What is the connection between my sixth grade teacher and this conflict? But telling the story that came to mind or writing it out in journal form may elicit further memories, so that the connection becomes apparent.

The goal is not to go back and reopen old battles. The goal is self-awareness. Past traumas lose their power to control our responses in the present if we are conscious of them.

Deep hurts are worth concerted effort to escape. A powerful technique for release of old hurts is story-telling and repetition. Find a supportive friend who can listen non-judgmentally. Tell the story, describing in detail the grief, anger, fear, or embarrassment experienced. When finished, start at the beginning and tell the story again. Continue re-telling the story, over and over, until it becomes boring. When you begin yawning at your own account, the trauma has lost its power to rule the present.

A third level of self-awareness is acknowledging one's own power in the conflict. Often people in conflict feel that they are victims with little power to inflict injury of any consequence on others. Self-awareness calls for acknowledging the impact of one's own responses on the other party.

5. Internal Commitment to Reconciliation
This is often an act of the head, a conscious choice that "I will put forth effort to be reconciled." This internal choice is difficult and may take time to reach. It is a decision to enter into risk again and deserves careful thought. What risk am I prepared to take in order to find restoration?

6. Act of Risk
Once the internal choice has been made, opportunities to take a risk are usually not hard to find. Start small. Choose a risk you can afford to have rejected. If your risk is rewarded, you can take a bigger one.
Rejection by the other party is a distinct possibility. It helps to cope if you know that reconciliation is a process and that some people move through the stages much faster than others. An overture rejected today may be reciprocated in three months.

True healing involves a unity of head and heart. The head sets the goal and keeps things "on track." The heart provides the content of the emotions. Given a chance, the two will converge in common purpose. What makes the difference is a process which values and gives space to both.

Example of using the Cycle of Reconciliation in Group Work

I worked with a group that had been bitterly divided for some years. We went through exercises for talking about what had happened and made several important decisions . Many had strong hopes for reconciliation, but I could feel that not all were ready. Those who were ready pressured those who were not with righteous criticism. “See how stubborn and unforgiving they are!” This pressure kept the latter group stuck at the withdrawal stage.

I presented the cycle to the group, stressing that each stage is necessary and healthy and that each person moves through it at her own pace. This gave permission to the feelings of the withdrawn group.  I urged them to trust their feelings, to follow their hearts, and not to move until they felt ready. Just because five percent or fifty-five percent were ready did not mean that everyone would be ready.   Each person must take responsibility to judge where they are, and place no guilt on others for where they are.

Members of the withdrawn group admitted they were stuck. Having admitted it and being accepted in their stuckness, they paradoxically became unstuck.

Those ready to think about making an internal commitment to reconciliation wrestled deeply with mistrust. Over and over I heard, “I just don’t trust that group anymore, especially their leader.” I suggested that the question not be thought of as trust, but willingness to risk. They didn’t need to trust others in order to take another step. They only needed to be willing to take a risk. I suggested that they avoid a large risk at this time. Rather, if they felt they were at the stage of willingness to risk something, they should choose a small or moderate risk.

At varying paces, many people had arrived at an internal commitment to reconciliation and were ready to risk something. But, as is commonly the case, they were unsure about how to proceed. Without naming it as such I offered an opportunity for an Act of Risk, as follows:

In a closing meeting, I wrote on the board a list of seven kinds of statements that would be welcome. I suggested that people reflect on this list in silence for 2-3 minutes, and that anyone moved to make any of these statements to the group then rise and do so. (A menu of options makes it much easier for people to find a response they are comfortable with and speak constructively to others about it, regardless of where they are. in the journey of healing.  However, in group settings, this strategy is helpful, only if the majority of people have made an internal commitment to move on and are ready to take some risk.)