Forgiveness and Reconciliation: The

Importance of Understanding How They Differ

SUZANNE FREEDMAN

The concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation are clarified and discussed. The differences between
forgiveness and reconciliation are illustrated, guidelines for how counselors can avoid confusing
them aregiven, and a case study is used to illustrate the differences between forgiveness and recon-
ciliation and when each is appropriate. Implications for the helping profession and the well-being of
clients are discussed.

Forgiveness is gaining popularity within therapeutic circles as judged by

the myriad publications. Self-help books on forgiving are more easily found
today than 10 years ago (Arnold, 1997; Casarjian, 1992; Enright & North,
1998; Hargrave, 1994; Klein, 1995; McCullough, Sandage, & Worthington,
1997; Simon & Simon, 1990; Smedes, 1996). Psychiatrists and therapists who
use forgiveness in their clinical practice have described benefits their cli-
ents have experienced by forgiving (Cunningham, 1985; Hope, 1987;
Kaufman, 1984). Fitzgibbons (1986), for example, has observed that forgive-
ness is a useful tool for anger reduction.
In addition to case studies and self-help books on forgiveness, empirical
research on the topic has also grown. DiBlasio (1998) has discussed the use
of decision-based forgiveness intervention in family therapy. Enright and
the Human Development Study Group (1991) developed a process model
of forgiveness by synthesizing all of the processes involved in interpersonal
forgiveness appearing in the published literature.
Using the process model as the focus, several psychological studies have
been conducted. AI-Mabuk, Enright, and Cardis (1995) used forgiveness as
the focus of an intervention with college students who were parentally love-
deprived. Freedman and Enright (1996) conducted an educational inter-
vention using forgiveness as the goal with incest survivors. Coyle and Enright
(1997) conducted a forgiveness intervention with men whose partners had
abortions without their knowledge.
The above-mentioned empirical studies underscore the psychological health
benefits of interpersonal forgiveness. This complex concept is viewed dif-
ferently by different people. One particular area of difference is the equat-
ing of forgiveness with reconciliation, which is the focus of this article. When

Suzanne Freedman is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at

the University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls. Correspondence regarding this article should
be sent to Suzanne Freedman, 603 Schindler Education Center, University of Northern Iowa,
Cedar Falls, IA 50614.

200 Counseling and Values / April 1998/ Vol. 42

forgiveness and reconciliation are equated, one may assume that when one
forgives, he or she resumes the relationship with the offender (Holmgren,
1993). This is potentially unbeneficial for the forgiver if the offender has not
changed his or her injurious behavior.
Another possibility is that one can forgive and not reconcile. For example,
a woman who is being abused by her spouse may leave the relationship
and work on forgiving her husband whether or not he is ready to change
his abusive behavior. It would seem wise for this woman to reconcile only
if her husband changed his behavior. The distinction between forgiveness
and reconciliation in this example is that the woman could forgive without
reconciling herself to enduring her husband's outward behavior. As a re-
sult of the existing conflation of forgiveness with reconciliation, individu-
als may dismiss forgiveness inappropriately.
The purpose of this article is to clarify the differing views of forgiveness
and reconciliation and examine how these two concepts are related. The
differences between forgiveness and reconciliation are illustrated, and four
common scenarios of the way forgiveness and reconciliation have been
equated in the literature are described. Various definitions of forgiveness
have been integrated in one of these four scenarios to highlight the poten-
tial misinterpretations associated with forgiveness and reconciliation. Fi-
nally, guidelines gleaned from the literature regarding how counselors can
avoid conflating forgiveness and reconciliation are given along with situa-
tions in which both are appropriate. A case study illustrates the differences
between forgiveness and reconciliation. By examining and critiquing the
plethora of ideas on forgiveness and reconciliation, the field of forgiveness
can be advanced and the clinical applications of forgiveness can be refined
(Enright, Eastin, Golden, Sarinopoulos, & Freedman, 1992).

DEFINITIONS OF FORGIVENESS

After reviewing the existing literature on the topic of forgiveness, Enright

et a1. (1991) developed the following definition: Forgiveness involves an
unjustly hurt person deliberately giving up resentment toward an offender
in the context of a deep, personal, and unfair hurt. Smedes (1984) also stated
that forgiveness occurs in the context of deep, personal, and unfair hurt.
More specifically, North (1987) stated that, "If we are to forgive, our resent-
ment is to be overcome not by denying ourselves the right to that resent-
ment, but by endeavoring to view the wrongdoers with compassion,
benevolence, and love while recognizing that he has willfully abandoned
his right to them" (p. 50). Holmgren (1993) emphasized overcoming one's
negative feelings toward the injurer and accepting the injurer as a person.
The process of forgiveness includes changes in the affective, cognitive, and
behavioral systems (Enright et al., 1991). When one forgives, certain nega-
tive elements are subtracted from each system and positive elements are
added to each system.

Counseling and Values / April 1998 / Vol. 42 201

 Various models of forgiveness have been developed (Casarjian, 1992;DiBlasio,
1998; Flanigan,1992; Simon & Simon, 1990). Enright et aI. (1991) developed a
process model of forgiveness that included seven components and 17 units.
Since then, the model has been revised and now includes 20 units. After a thor-
ough review of the literature in the areas of psychology, psychiatry, philoso-
phy, and theology, those authors developed the model as their best estimate of
how people forgive. Nonetheless, because there is great individual variation in
how people forgive, "the model should not be viewed as a rigid, step-like se-
quence, but a flexible set of processes in which some people may skip units and
others may go back and re-work through units previously experienced"(Enright,
Freedman, & Rique, 1998, p. 12). Difficulty in forgiving depends on factors
such as the seriousness of the injury and the relationship between the injured
person and the injurer. The point here is not to give an exhaustive description
of how people forgive but to show that forgiveness is a complex journey with
considerable individual differences depending on one's circumstances.
Although forgiving does reduce negative emotions, Richards (1988)pointed
out that the motivation behind forgiving another is not solely to feel better
and rid oneself of strong negative emotions. That may be the primary mo-
tive, but during the process the injured person begins to take the well-being
of the offender and the potential restoration of an important relationship
more into consideration. As Holmgren (1993) pointed out, "In reaching a
state of genuine forgiveness the victim extends an attitude of real goodwill
towards the offender as a person" (p. 34), which is different than extending
this attitude toward the hurtful action.
This is a distinguishing feature between forgiveness and self-help strate-
gies. Davidoff (1995) discussed forgiveness as a moral response, because
when we forgive we are doing something good for the other (offender) and
the community.
According to Enright, much of the current writing on forgiveness is de-
void of a moral code that separates forgiveness from other self-help strate-
gies (Davidoff, 1995). During the process of forgiveness, the injured person
may wait in hope that positive change will occur in the offender, thus mak-
ing restoration of the relationship possible. Ney and Peters (1995) stated
that "knowing that they have been forgiven enables perpetrators to make
major changes in their lives, not only in their attitudes toward themselves,
but toward the world in general as well" (p. 132). In their work with incest
survivors, Kirschner, Kirschner, and Rappaport (1993) found that the act of
forgiveness is a gift to all family members, including the survivor. These
authors, however, emphasize that the therapist must follow the survivor's
lead regarding forgiving.

Apology

According to Lazare (1997), an apology is one of the most effective methods

for healing humiliation and generating forgiveness. An apology is a valida-

202 Counseling and Values / Aprl/1998 / Vol. 42

tion of another person's feelings, intuition, and perception (Lazare, 1997).
When one claims that forgiving is dependent on the offender taking re-
sponsibility for the injury or apologizing, then he or she is making the in-
jured person suffer twice: once when the injury occurred and a second time
when the victim is held captive waiting for a change in the other before
engaging in the freeing act of forgiveness.
An apology may be necessary for reconciliation to occur but should not
be necessary for forgiving to occur (Holmgren, 1993). If it is, opportunities
for complete healing through forgiveness are limited. According to Smedes
(1996), forgiving happens inside the person doing the forgiving, and it does
not obligate him or her to go back to any relationship with the injurer.
As North (1987) stated, "the repentance of the wrongdoer, his recogni-
tion of and regret for his action, and his willingness to make amends, al-
though not an essential precondition of forgiveness, no doubt facilitates its
progress" (p. 503). Thus, an apology may make forgiving easier but it does
not need to be a requirement of forgiving. Forgiving, as the overcoming of
resentment, does not necessarily restore relationships, although that may
be the first step. A primary characteristic of the forgiveness definition em-
phasized here is that forgiving is something the injured person can do on
his or her own without the offender's involvement or knowledge.

DEFINITIONS OF RECONCILIAnON

In contrast to forgiveness, reconciliation involves two people entering into

a relationship and is an ideal state following forgiveness (Smedes, 1996).
Reconciliation is dependent on whether the offender's destructive behavior
and intentions change. An important distinction between forgiveness and
reconciliation is that forgiving is under one's control, whereas reconcilia-
tion involves another's cooperation (Stoop & Masteller, 1991).
Trust is key for reconciliation to occur. Swink and Leveille (1986), in an
article about feminist therapy for incest survivors, argued that forgiveness
may not involve reconciliation and reconciliation is dependent on a behav-
ioral change in the injurer and trust on the injured person's part. They pointed
out that even in cases in which the perpetrator admits the abuse and asks
for forgiveness, it is the survivor's decision whether to forgive and recon-
cile, or forgive and not reconcile, or not forgive at all. "The survivor must
determine if she is ready, willing or able to accept an apology" (Swink &
Leveille, 1986, p. 139).
The Human Development Study Group (1996) pointed out that victims of
random violence can forgive the one who injured them, but because there
was no previous relationship, any continuing relationship would be recon-
ciliation in a derivative sense. In certain situations, however, some type of
interaction can occur regardless of whether or not the offender has changed
his or her behavior. For example, a person may forgive a stranger who
murdered a family member even if this offender does not admit to their

Counseling and Values / April 1998 / Vol. 42 203

injurious behavior. The person may also try to communicate to the offender
that he or she is forgiven, hoping to alter the offender's destructive path.
The forgiver then is pursuing a change of heart in the offender. He or she
has the offender's best interests in mind as the offender's injury is bad for
him- or herself, not only for those he or she has mistreated (Berm, 1996).
This example illustrates the "radical" souls who have been injured by an unre-
pentant offender and want to offer forgiveness to the offender nonetheless.
In certain situations, interaction between the offender and offended occurs
without forgiveness (Stoop & Masteller, 1991). In these cases, reconciliation
may be a matter of obligation or necessity, as in relationships between par-
ents and children or employer and employee. The injured person may con-
sciously decide to interact with the offender on a superficial level even though
he or she has not forgiven. This form of interaction must not be confused
with reconciliation that results from true forgiveness. Stoop and Masteller
(1991)argued that when individuals "reconcile" without first forgiving, they
may be overlooking the pain caused by someone else's actions, denying the
hurt, excusing the offender, or remaining passive and quiet to keep the peace.
This fact is illustrated in the example below.
David is the next to youngest of 13 children. He grew up on a farm with
an alcoholic father and a codependent mother and was physically and ver-
bally abused. David's mother recently died and he is still grieving her death.
When asked if he has forgiven his father, David responds that he is not as
angry with his father as he has been in the past. Although he has limited
contact with his father, he does not think that he has truly forgiven him.
When asked why David maintains contact with his father, he responds,
"Mostly because of family interaction, because he is my biological father,
and out of obligation" (personal communication, 1995).
David's relationship with his father is not one built on trust and true for-
giveness. It exists because David prefers not to alienate himself from the
rest of the family, who are in contact with his father. This type of interac-
tion, without forgiveness, is dependent on the circumstances and degree to
which the superficial reconciliation negatively affects the injured party's
psychological well-being.
There is also a possibility that personal interaction between David and
his father could influence David to work on the process of true forgiveness
and influence his father to alter his behavior (Engel, 1989). This "reunion"
without forgiveness, however, may not lead to the complete release of negative
emotions and positive well-being that reconciliation resulting from forgive-
ness, or even forgiveness without reconciliation, can. As illustrated, interaction
and reconciliation are not necessarily the same thing. Two people may come
together again in some way after an injury, but if their reunion does not in-
clude the major components of moral equality and received equality then it is
not a true reconciliation that results from forgiving (Holmgren, 1993).
It seems that more research that examines the various relationships be-
tween forgiving, reconciliation, and psychological well-being is needed before

204 Counseling and Values / April 1998 / Vol. 42

such conclusions can be made. Thus far, research has illustrated the ben-
efits associated with forgiving (AI-Mabuk et al., 1995; Coyle & Enright, 1997;
DiBlasio, 1998;Freedman & Enright, 1996;McCullough & Worthington, 1995)
but has not yet fully investigated differences in benefits between forgive-
ness and reconciliation. Thus, it is not yet known if people who experience
both forgiveness and reconciliation are at more peace when compared with
people who forgive without reconciling.

WHY DISTINGUISH FORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION?

For forgiveness to occur, it is essential that the injured person be able to

recognize the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation and un-
derstand his or her behavior and the motivation behind it (Berm, 1996).This
idea is similar to situations in which an incest survivor wants to confront
his or her abuser. In this situation it is important for the survivor to know
the advantages and disadvantages of confrontation and his or her own rea-
son for confronting. If this information is not thought about or discussed,
the survivor may confront the abuser and not be adequately prepared for
the consequences of confrontation.
The same is true for individuals who want to forgive. They need to un-
derstand what forgiveness is, how it differs from reconciliation, and what
their goal is, with the understanding that forgiving may lead to reconcilia-
tion, but that reconciliation is not a requirement. This knowledge may be
gained by the client more easily when helping professionals share, either
verbally or in writing, information regarding forgiveness and reconcilia-
tion. The following section describes how some authors seem to have equated
forgiveness with reconciliation, leading to potential perplexity for both cli-
ents and the general population. The following are four possible permuta-
tions of the two concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation:

1. Forgive and reconcile

2. Forgive and not reconcile
3. Not forgive and interact
4. Not forgive and not reconcile

After reviewing the literature, it seems as if the majority of people focus

only on the first permutation, forgive and reconcile, and overlook the other
three. Thus, most people automatically assume that reconciliation will oc-
cur when one forgives. They may believe that reconciliation must follow
after forgiveness, and because of that, they may view forgiveness as having
negative consequences. According to Smedes (1996), the surest way to con-
vince some people not to forgive is to tell them that if they forgive, they
must go back to the person who wounded them. As highlighted above, there
are clear differences between forgiveness and reconciliation, and several

Counseling and Values / Aprl/1998 / Vol. 42 205

possible pathways exist concerning the two concepts. These permutations
are discussed more thoroughly below.

PATHWAYS BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS

In his book Families and Forgiveness, Hargrave (1994) discussed the achieve-
ment of forgiveness among family members. He described the conditions nec-
essary for reconciliation to occur, but he was actually referring to forgiveness:
Forgiveness is accomplished when the victimized person no longer has to hold the
wrongdoer responsible for the injustice; the wrongdoer holds himself or herself respon-
sible. The relationship between the two can then be reestablished because trust has
been restored. Forgiveness can be accomplished by allowing the wrongdoer to com-
pensate for past injustices by being trustworthy in significant and important ways in
the future. (Hargrave, 1994, p. 15)

This statement more aptly addresses the process of reconciliation than

forgiveness. Hargrave (1994) primarily discussed injuries that occur in the
contexts of families, where people have previously had good relationships
up until the injury; this context may be why he discussed forgiveness and
reconciliation as occurring together. It may also be true that the clients
Hargrave (1994) worked with may tell him that they have reconciliation as
a goal. It is not forgiveness, but reconciliation, that "involves the victimized
person being given legitimate reason to believe that the wrongdoer accepts
responsibility for the injustice and hurt caused, while promising to refrain
from further injustices" (Hargrave, 1994, p. 14). This equation of the two
concepts may deter some people from forgiving.

Forgive and Not Reconcile

One of the strongest criticisms leveled at forgiveness is that it perpetuates

social injustice, particularly in abusive relationships. This belief probably
stems from the equation of forgiveness and reconciliation. One possible
scenario in situations between an injured person and an injurer is to forgive
and not reconcile. Benn (1996) asserted his belief that forgiveness need not
entail the restoration of particular relationships, such as friendship. He
explained how resentment can be overcome even if there is little chance of
the original relationship being restored. In cases in which reconciliation is
desired by the injured person, forgiveness can be thought of as a matter of
being willing to restore the relationship, if the other party shows willing-
ness to do so as well.
Hargrave (1994) indicated that forgiveness is not appropriate for every
relationship, although it can be beneficial. Hargrave's caution against for-
giveness may be misguided in that it refers to the process of reconciliation,
not forgiveness. Specifically, he stated, "If I have a parent who was physi-
cally abusive when I was small and still threatens me, I would put myself in
unwise danger to pursue a forgiving relationship" (p. 16). In this instance,

206 Counseling and Values / April 1998/ Vol. 42

the language, "forgiving relationship" may be unclear or misleading to some.
If the word forgiving was omitted, this statement would appear more accu-
rate. Thus, the person in this example may want to work on forgiving but
would not reconcile if he or she was still being threatened. In this way,
there is an opportunity for the injured party to decrease feelings of resent-
ment and hatred by forgiving.
Snow (1993), in her article on self-forgiveness, asserted that forgiveness
of an injurer leads to a lack of self-respect in the victim, although self-for-
giveness is encouraged. She used the example of spousal abuse and stated
that, although it is possible for a battered spouse to forgive an unrepentant
abuser, she does not think that it would be right to do so. She contended
that forgiving in this circumstance would reflect a lack of self-respect and
dignity on the victim's part. It can be argued that Snow may be using an
incomplete definition of forgiveness. The fact that a forgiver acknowledges
the injurer's injustice does not mean that forgiveness is the same as condon-
ing or excusing the other's actions (Holmgren, 1993). When a person con-
dones hurtful behavior, he or she puts up with offenses because of extenuating
circumstances, perhaps with masked anger and resentment. When one ex-
cuses that behavior, he or she judges the hurtful event or injury as not worthy
of a quarrel (Kolnai, 1973-1974).
As Benn (1996) stated, "Forgiveness depends both on recognizing that the
forgiven individual committed the wrong in question, and that it was indeed
wrong" (p. 37). Forgiveness can be considered a courageous act because when
one forgives he or she realizes the right to negative feelings, but eventually
abandons them instead. It is reconciliation in the above example that could "be
an affront to the victim's own dignity and self-worth" (Snow, 1993,p. 77), es-
pecially if the injured person places him- or herself in a position to be reinjured.
Also, Holmgren (1993) explained that with forgiveness one can accept
the wrongdoer as a person, but not necessarily as a spouse (who batters).
Snow (1993) conflated the two constructs of forgiveness and reconciliation,
apparently without recognizing or considering the other three possibilities
that exist between forgiveness and reconciliation. Specifically, she did not
write that forgiveness need not include reconciliation and that forgiveness
is something the victim can do on his or her own regardless of the offender's
behavior. Thus, Snow's description of forgiveness aligns more closely with
the forgive and not reconcile permutation.
Courtois (1988) discussed the topic of forgiveness for incest survivors and
illustrated that some survivors choose not to forgive because of misconcep-
tions regarding what forgiveness involves and what it means. She specifically
stated, "Full forgiveness is the decision arrived at by some survivors while
others feel that they cannot forgive because they have been hurt so deeply, an
apology has not been tendered, and to forgive suggests that those who caused
the injury remain unaccountable for their misdeeds" (Courtois, 1988, p. 349).
The only reason for withholding forgiveness in the above quote is the
survivor's deep hurt. As Courtois (1988) aptly pointed out, forgiveness is

Counseling and Values / April 1998 / Vol. 42 207

the choice of the individual survivor and not something everyone should
do. Whereas some people believe that certain actions are unforgivable, oth-
ers believe that forgiveness is unconditional. It is important to point out
that one does not need to receive an apology to forgive, and forgiving does
not excuse the injurer (Berm, 1996; Holmgren, 1993).
In the book How to Forgive When You Can't Forget: Healing Our Personal
Relationships, Klein (1995) also linked forgiveness and reconciliation. The
following statement shows how Klein used the words interchangeably: "From
my discussion with people who have been able to forgive, it is apparent
that one of the important steps on the way to reconciliation is a process
therapists call reframing" (p. 61).
It is true that reframing is an important step in the forgiveness process,
but that is different from the reconciliation process. Although Klein's (1995)
book is titled How to Forgive When You Can't Forget, it emphasizes reconcili-
ation. In the last chapter, called "Reconciliation Day," Klein discussed the
benefits of reconciliation. This author does not seem to acknowledge any
difference between forgiveness and reconciliation and does not point out
that forgiveness may be healing in situations in which reconciliation is not
possible. A reader of this book may conclude that forgiveness and recon-
ciliation are the same thing and automatically occur together.
It must be pointed out, however, that, like Hargrave (1994), Klein's context is
reasonable family relations in which depth and duration of anger have gotten
inappropriately out of control. Thus, reconciliation may be the ultimate goal,
and forgiveness is the vehicle used to achieve that goal.
In their book Ending the Cycle of Abuse, which details the specifics of a
group treatment for incest survivors, Ney and Peters (1995) also seem to
link the processes of forgiveness and reconciliation together. They explained
that forgiveness does not mean that the injured person will have a friendly
relationship with the abuser; however, they stated that during the group
therapy session the members will work through forgiveness and reconcili-
ation. They do not consider that reconciliation may not be possible for some
members. Forgiveness is also conflated with reconciliation when it is stated
that part of granting forgiveness involves a commitment on the part of the
injurer not to commit the wrong again. This is not the case; forgiveness is
something one can do without any behavioral change by the offender. Recon-
ciliation, in contrast, would involve such a commitment (Enright et aI., 1992).
Wahking (1992) described forgiveness without reconciliation as "loving"
(we acknowledge that loving may be a strong word) from a detached and
safe distance because the offender may still be dangerous. This may be the
case, or it could be that the injured party is just not ready to reconcile yet.
According to Smedes (1984), "Forgiving can be real even though the person
we forgive is out of our reach" (p. 49).
In the example used earlier, David may benefit from forgiving his alco-
holic father for the abuse suffered during his childhood but may choose not
to reconcile unless his father has stopped his abusive behavior and drink-

208 Counseling and Values / April 1998 / Vol. 42

ing. Using this example, David may hope that his father will stop drinking,
and he will do things to encourage this but knows that as long as his father
is drinking he is not safe to be around.

Not Forgive and Interact

The third pathway describes people who may not forgive their injurers but
still interact with them. Many people who have been deeply hurt are able to
interact with the person who hurt them. Just because one does not forgive
does not mean that he or she cannot be cordial. Being cordial is not the
same as trusting. For example, one woman in my forgiveness intervention
with incest survivors maintained contact with her abuser (father) because
he owns the property she lives on and she helps him with his business. This
woman sees her father and interacts with him, but would not say that she
has forgiven him. The combination of not forgiving and interacting can be
confounded with two other scenarios. The first is that the injured party has
forgiven and the two have reconciled. The second is that the injured person's
forgiveness is masking anger, or it is fake forgiveness.
In her book The Right to Innocence: Healing the Trauma of Childhood Sexual
Abuse, Engel (1989) made a distinction between forgiveness and reconcilia-
tion but still linked the two together in her discussion. She described situ-
ations in which survivors have forgiven but have not reconciled because
they do not want a relationship with the offender. According to Engel, it is
also possible to reconcile before forgiving. In fact, she suggested that for-
giveness might come about during the reconciliation process; she believed
that true forgiveness is a byproduct of reconciliation.
What she really seems to be describing is "not forgiving and interacting."
Engel (1989) stated, "You can recover and resolve your relationships with-
out forgiving others. Forgiveness is not a voluntary act, but it is something
that mayor may not spontaneously occur as part of the recovery process"
(p. 43). Thus, according to Engel, an injured person may enter into a rela-
tionship with the offender and forgiveness may spontaneously occur due
to interaction. What Engel did not discuss is how the injured person recon-
ciles with the offender without first forgiving. One can wonder about the
type of interaction that would occur if anger and feelings of resentment are
still present.
"Pseudoforgiveness" rather than true forgiveness may be the result. In
fact, one can wonder whether the word interaction may be more appropri-
ate than reconciliation. What may lead to the forgiveness Engel referred to
as a "byproduct of reconciliation" is if the injured person sees a positive
change in the injurer's behavior and begins to trust him or her again.
According to Enright et al. (1991), recovery is a byproduct of true forgive-
ness, and forgiveness is not something that spontaneously or naturally oc-
curs. North (1987) described forgiveness as requiring "active mental and
emotional endeavor" (p. 506). She went on to state, "forgiveness involves a

Counseling and Values! April 1998! Vol. 42 209

'willed' change of heart-the successful result of an active endeavor to re-
place bad thoughts with good, bitterness and anger with compassion and
affection" (p. 506). Research to this date has shown that forgiveness requires
both a commitment to forgive by the injured person and hard work (Al-
Mabuk et al., 1995; Coyle & Enright, 1997; Freedman & Enright, 1996).

Not Forgive and Not Reconcile

Individuals who fit into the category of not forgiving and not reconcil-
ing may be those who are still holding onto their anger, and the decision
not to forgive and reconcile may actually mask hatred. It is understood,
however, that forgiveness may not be one's immediate response to an
injury and usually takes some time (Enright et al., 1991). Bass and Davis
(1988), in a book written to assist the healing process of incest survivors,
advised against forgiving. As Hargrave (994) did, they link the condi-
tions required for reconciling with the individual process of forgiving.
In the following quotation, if the word forgive is replaced with reconcile,
the paragraph may be more compatible to the four possible permuta-
tions of forgiveness and reconciliation.

I'll never forgive my father. It would be a lot different if he had come to me at any point
in time and said, "I'm sorry for what I've done. I've hurt you terribly. I'm going to get
myself in therapy. I'm going to work this out." But he's never done anything like that.
He'd have to work awfully hard to get me to forgive him. He'd have to work as hard as
I've worked from the time I was seventeen until now and he doesn't have enough time
left in his life. He's going to die soon so the chances of me forgiving my father are real
slim. (Bass & Davis, 1988, p. 149)

This quote seems to have a subtle angry tone to it. This woman does not
sound like she wants to forgive. If she desires, however, this woman can
forgive her father even if he never admits to his injurious behavior. If the
daughter had to wait for her father to come to her before forgiving, not only
would she be trapped in an unforgiving state, but she would keep herself
powerless waiting for a response from the offender before engaging in the
healing process (Holmgren, 1993; North, 1987).
Herman, a psychiatrist who works with incest survivors and an author
who has written extensively on the subject, views forgiveness as a block to
healing (Herman, 1994). She equates forgiveness with the denial of anger. It
is possible that Herman may not be aware of the role anger plays in forgiv-
ing. According to Enright, "It's a myth that forgiveness short-circuits the
anger process" (Davidoff, 1995, p. 37). The forgiveness programs devel-
oped thus far all start with first recognizing the anger one has and then
working through it in a healthy way (Davidoff, 1995).
Like Bass and Davis (1988), Herman (1994) also believed that true for-
giveness is not possible until the perpetrator has sought and earned it through
confession, repentance, and restitution. Because abusers rarely admit to the
abuse or apologize, Herman recommended that survivors work on restor-

210 Counseling and Values / April 1998 / Vol. 42

ing love in their own life. She stated that love does not need to be extended
to the offender. Herman may be limiting the opportunities available to the
incest survivor, as one way of restoring love to the self is by extending love
to others. By stating that love need not be extended to the offender, Herman
may be keeping survivors in an unnecessary angry state. Forgiveness en-
ables the forgiver to work through the anger and move beyond it.
Forward (1989), the author of Toxic Parents, stated that forgiveness is appro-
priate only when parents do something to earn it. As Enright et al. (1992) have
noted, Forward also coupled the definition of forgiveness with reconciliation.
She states, "When we forgive, we'll hug a lot, and we'll finally be happy" (p.
189).In her writing, Forward also assumed that forgiveness excuses or absolves
the offender of responsibility for the injury. In the forgiveness process, the in-
dividual recognizes that he or she has been deeply and unfairly hurt. Forward
also recommended forgiveness of self, although she does not state for what
reason the injured person should forgive him- or herself. The irony in suggest-
ing forgiveness for self and not for others cannot go unrecognized, especially
in cases of sexual abuse, in which there is often a generational transmission of
child abuse and neglect (Bergin, 1988).
Forgiveness recognizes that all humans have intrinsic worth as a person and
we can punish them and hold them accountable without hating them (Holmgren,
1993). As described by Enright and the Human Development Study Group
(1994),social unconditionality is the understanding that a person, as a human
being, is not altered when surface features change. Thus, we are all human
regardless of family characteristics, values, abilities, social economic status, or
personality (Enright et al., 1994; Holmgren, 1993). In other words, when we
forgive we recognize that the offender is not totally rotten and that there is a
core of decency in this person who deeply hurt us which we need to take into
consideration (Murphy & Hampton, 1988).
An injured person who holds onto his or her anger may believe that he or
she is more worthy than the injurer and that the injurer is not his or her
moral equal. Forgiveness fosters the belief that offenders have worth and
are a part of the human community (Berm, 1996; Enright et al., 1994).

GUIDELINES FOR COUNSELORS

McCullough and Worthington (1994) aptly made the distinction between

forgiveness and reconciliation when they stated that research is needed to
determine whether forgiveness leads to reconciliation between offenders
and those injured. Their statement highlights the fact that forgiveness and
reconciliation are two different constructs. It also points out that forgive-
ness mayor may not lead to reconciliation. Campbell (1993) made the fol-
lowing remark when discussing forgiveness and reconciliation:

It is important to note that including the offender is not necessary for the survivor to
forgive. Neither is it necessary for the offender to ask for forgiveness for it to be effec-
tive for the survivor. Nor is reconciliation necessary in order for the survivor to benefit

Counseling and Values / April 1998 / Vol. 42 211

 from forgiving. Choosing to exclude the offender from the process is appropriate
when the survivor believes that there is likelihood of violations of boundaries or
further abuse. (p. 39)

As counselors discern the difference between forgiveness and reconcilia-

tion, they will be more able to assist their clients with forgiveness issues. It
is first up to the therapist, counselor, or forgiveness educator to identify the
client's goal with the client, whether it be forgiveness, reconciliation, or both.
For example, is the client experiencing pain, hurt, and anger from an injury
that was caused by another? If so, forgiveness may be appropriate. If the
injured party wants to resume a relationship with the injurer, then recon-
ciliation may also be desirable. The counselor may want to discuss with the
injured person the degree to which the injurer has changed his or her be-
havior and what expectations for reconciliation the client has. This may
include assessing whether the injurer admits to the injury, is apologetic for
the injury, and is willing to engage in a relationship.
Sometimes, the person who is forgiven may not be at all interested in
developing a relationship again (Smedes, 1996). This may occur in roman-
tic relationships that have ended. Other times it may not be possible to develop
a relationship as the offender is dead or has moved away. Reconciliation
that considers the injured person's well-being takes all of the above factors
into consideration. As Smedes (1996) noted, "Reunion can happen only if
we trust the person who wronged us not to wrong us again" (p. 27). That is,
healthy reunion only occurs this way.
As illustrated previously, it is also true that a person can interact with
their offender and not forgive. In some situations it is necessary to have
contact with one's offender even though forgiveness has not occurred. This
would not be considered true reconciliation because the existing relation-
ship is not built on trust. For example, an employee may have been inap-
propriately passed up for promotion by his or her employer. Unless he or
she quit, it would be necessary to interact with the employer on a regular
basis. Thus, interaction between the employer and employee will occur before
forgiveness, because of the employment relationship.
The last combination possible between forgiveness and reconciliation is
not doing either. After an injury one has the choice not to forgive and not to
reconcile. As stated previously, individuals who adopt this position may be
so consumed with negative emotions that they cannot move beyond them.
If one cannot let go of feelings such as anger, resentment, and hatred, it will
be very difficult to forgive or reconcile.
Forgiveness is an individual choice and should not be forced on anyone.
For some people, holding onto anger has become a way of life. They would
not be able to function without their anger or negative emotions. Forgive-
ness education may be useful with people who have a misunderstanding
regarding forgiveness and the role of reconciliation when one forgives. The
following case study illustrates the differences between forgiveness and
reconciliation and when each action is appropriate.

212 Counseling and Values / Apr1/1998 / Vol. 42

CASE STUDY

Janice was sexually abused by her father beginning when she was 7 years
old. The abuse lasted for 2 years and consisted of kissing, fondling, and
inappropriate comments. As an adult, Janice experienced many of the long-
term characteristics of incest survivors. She had low self-esteem, was often
depressed, had difficulty with intimate relationships, did not trust men,
and used food as a way to stuff her feelings and make herself less attrac-
tive. Janice wanted to do something to help herself cope with these nega-
tive effects of being sexually abused. She was willing to work on forgiving
her father for the abuse, but she was confused about what forgiveness meant
and was not ready to interact with her father again. Janice also had diffi-
culty with the idea of forgiveness because she thought that forgiveness meant
she would be condoning the abuse. Once Janice understood that forgiving
is not the same as reconciling, condoning, or excusing, she was able to work
on the process of forgiveness.
Janice had not seen her father in over 2 years and did not think that she
would ever want to have a relationship with him again. Her father would
not admit to the abuse, and he had never apologized to Janice or offered
any compensation. Janice did not trust him and did not believe that he was
sorry for the abuse that occurred when she was a child. Thus, for Janice,
forgiveness was possible without reconciliation. She was able to decrease
the negative feelings of resentment, anger, and hatred that she had been
harboring toward her father for so many years.
Janice did not tell her father that she had forgiven him, and she was still
able to come to a feeling of peace that she had not experienced before. When
asked about reconciliation, Janice responded that if her father had apolo-
gized for the abuse she would have been willing to try some type of re-
union. When confronted with the abuse, however, Janice's father denied
not only its occurrence, but also its importance in Janice's life. Considering
her father's response, Janice felt reconciliation was not possible.
In this example, Janice forgave her father and experienced the positive
benefits of forgiving, even though reconciliation did not take place. She was
able to move on with her life, and the negative feelings she felt for her fa-
ther were gradually replaced by more neutral and, eventually, positive feel-
ings. She had some sympathy for her father and realized that he had many
problems of his own. Janice was not interested in reconciling because her
father did not admit to the abuse. She may have felt differently if she had
received an apology from her father.

CONCLUSION

In the above case study, forgiveness and reconciliation are illustrated as

distinctly different concepts. As the Human Development Study Group (1996)
pointed out, however, forgiveness and reconciliation are similar in that they

Counseling and Values / April 1998 / Vol. 42 213

both share the area of human experience in which one person deeply hurts
another. In fact, forgiveness is often necessary for true reconciliation to occur.
The knowledge that forgiveness and reconciliation are different concepts
and how they specifically differ is important for therapists, counselors, clergy,
and educators. With a thorough examination of the concepts involved, help-
ing professionals discussing the issues of forgiveness and reconciliation will
enhance the therapeutic encounter. Forgive and reconcile is just one of the
options available to individuals who have been hurt by another person. They
can also forgive and not reconcile, interact and not forgive, or not forgive
and not reconcile.
More research is needed that explores the benefits of forgiving as sepa-
rate from and combined with reconciliation. Is forgiving and reconciling
the ideal or is forgiving without reconciling a healing process for the in-
jured person? How does the injurer benefit from forgiveness without rec-
onciliation? Is forgiveness sometimes the motivation needed by the injurer
to change behavior and admit to the injury?
Also, what happens when people reconcile and do not forgive? Are their
relationships affected by the lack of forgiveness? Does the reconciliation
ever shortcut the forgiveness process and if so, what are the consequences
for both the injured party and the injurer?
Additional research on forgiveness and reconciliation can provide im-
portant information on the two concepts and the ways in which they are
similar to and different from each other. When therapists are trying to help
their clients heal, an understanding of the four possible permutations of
forgiveness and reconciliation may help them to assist clients in choosing
appropriate responses in situations of deep, personal, and unfair pain.

REFERENCES

Al-Mabuk, R. H.. Enright. R. 0 .. & Cardls, P. (1995). A forgiveness education pro-

gram with parentally love-deprived college students. Journal oj Moral Education.
24. 427-444.
Arnold. J. C. (1997). Seventy times seven: The powerofjorgiveness. Farmington. PA: Plough.
Bass. Eoo & Davis. L. (1988). The courage to heal: A guide for women survivors oj
child sexual abuse. New York: Harper & Row.
Benn, P. (1996). Forgiveness and loyalty. Philosophy. 71.369-383.
Bergin. A. E. (1988). Three contributions of a spiritual perspective to counseling.
psychotherapy. and behavior change. Counseling and Values. 33. 21-31.
Campbell, G. (1993. September). Empowering to choose: Assistance inforgivingjor
adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Paper presented at Forgiveness Con-
ference. Kansas City.
Casarjlan, R (1992). Forgiveness: A bold choicejor a peaceji.J1 heart New York: Bantam.
Courtois. C. (1988). Healing the incest wound: Adult survivors in therapy. New
York: Norton.
Coyle, C. Too & Enright, R. D. (1997). Forgiveness intervention with post-abortion
men. Journal oj Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 65, 1042-1046.
Cunningham. B. B. (1985). The will to forgive: A pastoral theological view offorgiving.
Journal oj Pastoral Care. 39, 141-149.

214 Counseling and Values I April 1998 I Vol. 42

Davidoff, J. (1995). Modern mercy. Isthmus. 20(33), 35-37.
DiBlasio, F. A. (1998). The use of a decision-based forgiveness intervention Within
tntergeneratlonal family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 75-92.
Engel, B. (1989). The right to innocence-Healing the trauma of childhood sexual
abuse. Los Angeles: Tarcher,
Enright, R. Doo Eastin, D. Loo Golden. Soo Sarinopoulos, I.. & Freedman. S. (1992).
Interpersonal forgiveness Within the helping professions: An attempt to resolve
differences of opinion. Counseling and Values, 36, 84-103.
Enright, R. D., Freedman, S. Roo & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of Interpersonal
forgiveness. In R. D Enright & J. North (Eds.J, Exploring forgiveness. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Enright, R. Doo & Human Development Study Group. (1991). The moral develop-
ment offorglveness. In W. Kurtines & J. GeWirtz (Eds.). Moral behavior and devel-
opment (VO!. 1, pp. 123-152). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Enright, R. D.. & Human Development Study Group. (1994). Piaget on the moral devel-
opment of forgiveness: Identity or reciprocity? Human Development, 37. 63-80.
Enright. R. D.. & North. J. (Eds.). (1998). Exploringforgiveness. Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press.
Fitzgibbons. R. P. (1986). The cognitive and emotional uses of forgiveness in the
treatment of anger. Psychotherapy. 23, 629-633.
Flanigan. B. (1992). Forgiving the unforgivable: Overcoming the bitter legacy of inti-
mate wounds. New York: Macmillan.
Forward. S. (1989). Toxic parents. New York: Bantam.
Freedman, S .. & Enright R. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal With incest
survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 983-992.
Hargrave. T. (1994). Families andforgiveness: Healing wounds in the intergenerational
family. New York: Bruner/Maze!.
Herman, J. L. (1994). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic.
Holmgren, M. (1993). Forgiveness and the intrinsic value of persons. American Philo-
sophical Quarterly. 30. 341-352.
Hope. D. (1987). The healing process of forgiveness. Psychotherapy, 24, 240-244.
Human Developmental Study Group. (1996). The psychology and education offor-
giveness. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Independent Study.
Kaufman, M. E. (1984). The courage to forgive. Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and
Related Sciences, 21, 177-187.
Kirschner. S,; Kirschner. D. A.. & Rappaport. R. L. (1993). Working with adult incest
survivors. New York: Bruner/Maze!.
Klein, C. (1995). How toforgive when you can'tforget: Healing our personal relation-
ships. New York: Liebling.
Kolnal, A. (1973-74). Forgiveness. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 74,91-106.
Lazare, A. (1997. September 16). The healing power of apology. Family Circle, p. 12.
McCullough. M. E.. Sandage, S. J .. & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1997). Toforgive is
, human. Downers Grove. IL: Inter Varsity.
McCullough. M. E .. & Worthington, E. L.. Jr. (1994). Encouraging clients to forgive
people who have hurt them: Review, critique. and research prospectus. Journal
of Psychology and Theology. 22. 3-20.
McCullough, M. E.. & Worthington. E. Loo Jr. (1995). Promoting forgiveness: A com-
parison of two brief psychoeducational group interventions With a waiting-list
contro!. Counseling and Values. 40, 55-68.
Murphy, J. G.. & Hampton. J. (1988). Forgiveness and mercy. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ney, P. Goo & Peters, A. (1995). Ending the cycle of abuse: The stories of women
abused as children and the group therapy techniques that helped them heal. New
York: Brunner/Maze!.

Counseling and Values / April 1998 / Vol. 42 215

North. J. (1987). Wrongdoing and forgiveness. Philosophy. 62. 499-508.
Richards. N. (1988). Forgiveness. Ethics. 99. 77-97.
Simon. S. B.. & Simon. S. (1990). Forgiveness: How to make peace with your past
and get on with your life. New York: Warner.
Smedes. L. B. (1984). Forgive & forget: Healing the hurts we don't deserve. New
York: Harper & Row.
Smedes, L. B. (1996). The art offorgiving: When you need toforgive and don't know
how. Nashville. TN: Moorings.
Snow. N. E. (1993). Self-forgiveness. Journal of Value Inquiry. 27. 75-80.
Stoop. D.. & Masteller, J. (1991). Forgiving our parents. forgiving ourselves: Healing
adult children of dysfunctionalfamUies. Ann Arbor. MI: Servant.
Swink. K.. & Leveille. A E. (1986). From victim to survivor: A new look at the Issues and
recovery process for adult Incest survivors. Women and Therapy. 5(2-31. 119-141.
Wah king. H. (1992). Spiritual growth through grace and forgiveness. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity. 11. 198-206.

216 Counseling and Values / AprfI1998/ Vol. 42