WHAT IT MEANS TO FORGIVE (and why we might want to do it)

A step toward defining forgiveness from a developmental-science perspective. First, we should do it for our selves.

“To forgive is to set a prisoner free, and discover that the prisoner was you.” -Lewis B. Smedes

In my previous post, “WHY WE SHOULDN’T FORGIVE (and why we might be wrong)”, I described three confusions surrounding forgiveness: Forgiveness is not forgetting, is not reconciling, and is not excusing, condoning, pardoning, or justifying the harm or offense.

Taking such a negation approach seems to have value: Consider the ancient tradition of “apophasis,” or negative theology, where God is described only by what it isn’t—because the reality, the truth, is indescribable, beyond our ordinary comprehension. As Hamlet rightly noted, “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”¹

Negation as such may serve to humble us and to prevent us from conflating our assumptions or misconceptions with reality—lest we get lost in a "jingle-jangle jungle” (per my previous post).

Nonetheless, in order to advance understanding (and, perhaps, application) of forgiveness, it is still necessary to have a sense what it does mean to forgive. Let’s try to work that out.

Human Flourishing and the Good Life

My academic research is broadly focused on character development and character education—how people become good people, and promote thriving, flourishing, and the good life. With my specific interests in forgiveness, I seek to understand whether and how forgiveness might serve as a character strength or virtue. Does forgiving help individuals to thrive, and communities to flourish? Or is it maladaptive, promoting injustice (cue the skeptics like Nietzsche)?

The goals of developmental science are to describe, explain, and optimize human development, or more specifically, within-person (intraindividual) change and between-person (interindividual) differences in within-person change.² For character development, then, we aim to describe the positive changes that occur within a person, explain how those positive changes occur (what contexts and conditions foster such change for a specific person), and then seek to optimize the contexts and conditions that are likely to result in those positive changes. Thriving is therefore adaptive, involving changes that benefit both the individual person and the settings in which he or she grows and develops.

Simply, in order to promote (or optimize) human flourishing, we first need to be able to explain how it happens; and to be able to explain how it happens, we first need to be able to describe what it involves.

It always starts with description.

Describing Forgiveness

Although no real consensus has been reached across social scientists, philosophers, practitioners, theologians, or laypeople regarding the definition of forgiveness, there are silver threads that seem to consistently weave through.

The “forgiveness giants” whose shoulders we’ll stand on (at least for this specific post) include the moral and clinical psychologists and professors Ev Worthington, Bob Enright, and Mike McCullough. They have put forth definitions of forgiveness, described the benefits of forgiving across various contexts, and proposed models for how to forgive (each of these areas deserves its own series of articles).

Enright and colleagues described forgiveness as relinquishing one’s right to (often deserved) anger, bitterness, and resentment toward an offender while, instead, fostering compassion, generosity, and even love.³

McCullough and colleagues, in their handbook about forgiveness theory, research, and practice, noted that this shift is a core feature that persists across descriptions of forgiveness—a shift toward more positive, and less negative, responses (thoughts, feelings, and actions) following a transgression.⁴

They therefore proposed a “meta-definition” of forgiveness as a within-person, prosocial change situated in a specific interpersonal context.

That is to say, although the situations that may call for forgiveness are usually interpersonal—involving a conflict, harm, injury, or injustice between two or more people or groups—the process of forgiveness itself is intrapersonal—it occurs within the specific person who is choosing to forgive.

This description follows a stress-and-coping approach, understanding forgiveness as a means to cope with the stressors (negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors) caused by transgression.⁵

And why is this important?

As Worthington described when leading the Campaign for Forgiveness Research, such information on forgiveness “could reduce human misery and increase the quality of life worldwide.”

Negative responses like anger, bitterness, and resentment are harmful to us—to our health, to our well-being, to our relationships. To harbor those negative thoughts, to hold those feelings hostage in our bodies, is like swallowing poison and expecting the other person to die.⁶

Considering forgiveness as a within-the-self process—one that enables us to cope and deal with those harmful negative responses—might also make it more approachable to some skeptics. Forgiveness is not something done for the person you are forgiving (“they don’t deserve it” anyway!).

You do it for your self.

How It’s Done (a Teaser)

Forgiveness, then, seems to involve a process of transforming anger in empathy, and hate into love.

To do so, first, light the fire under your large black cauldron. It is best if the moon is full. If not, light extra candles. As the fire grows, gather your potions and herbs…

Yes, this transformational process does sound like some kind of extraordinary magic (I confessed to being a scholar and a mystic, after all). For instance, see my description at 1:03:10 in this webinar—better yet, watch the whole thing, for Freddy’s and Laura’s powerful stories!

And yes, you cannot just choose to change your heart. Feelings—especially strong ones, invoked by injury and injustice—seem beyond our control.

That is why Worthington defined two types of forgiveness:⁷

1. Decisional forgiveness, where one decides that forgiving is worthwhile; and

2. Emotional forgiveness, where one actually experiences the emotional release of forgiveness.

The space between decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness is filled with work. It is an ongoing process. Both Worthington and Enright have proposed specific process models for how to forgive—I’ll summarize those models in a future post.

Still a Skeptic?

This is just a start. Forgiveness is a large and difficult idea to grapple with. We still need to explore perspectives of philosophers, theologians, different cultures. There is much more to learn.

As Rabbi

Dan Ehrenkrantz

reflected in his post, “Is There a Difference Between Forgiveness and Letting Go?”, maybe the word forgiveness is too loaded, complicated with its perhaps religious undertones and behavioral, moral, and philosophical implications. My colleague at Tufts University, Lionel McPherson, once told me he preferred the phrase, “moving forward without malice”—another helpful description.

But is something missing with just “letting go” or “moving forward without malice”? Is something lost when the positive, prosocial aspect of forgiveness is avoided?

Is the developmental-science perspective I shared here helpful?

Let me know what you think. And thanks for following along.

1. From William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Act I, Scene V.

2. Baltes, P. B., Reese, H. W., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1977). Life-span developmental psychology: Introduction to research methods. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

3. Enright, R. D., Freedman, S. R., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46-62). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

4. McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds.) (2000). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Guilford Press.

5. Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York: Routledge.

6. As the quote goes, “Resentment is like swallowing poison and expecting the other person to die.” Elaborating on this point—the health implications of forgiving (or not)—deserves a post of its own.

7. Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2003). Forgiving and reconciling: Bridges to wholeness and hope. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2005a). Initial questions about the art and science of forgiveness. In E. L Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 1-13). New York: Routledge.

Worthington, E. L. Jr. (2005b). More questions about forgiveness: Research agenda for 2005–2015. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 557–574). New York: Routledge.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York: Routledge.