From Head to Heart:
When Reconciliation is Your Goal

"I know I should forgive him," she said. "I want to forgive him. I can't carry this around for the rest of my life. But I just can't." Her eyes darkened as she emphasized the last word. Exasperation with herself? Stubbornness about her anger? I wasn't sure.

"If I have offended anyone here, I ask for forgiveness. I want to be reconciled with all my brothers and sisters." The words seemed appropriate enough. But there was not freedom in them. The speaker looked more angry than contrite. Others kept their eyes on the floor. No one moved till he sat down again.

They insisted they had forgiven each other. Yes, they wanted to be at peace. No, there wasn't really anything they needed to talk about. Their words said one thing, but their stiff bodies, tight gestures, and narrow eye movements said something else. "We are angry … We want to fight," was the message I heard.

People in conflict frequently wage 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. Well-meaning friends, pastors, even mediators respond in ways that strengthen the "head" message, but ignore or disparage the cries of the heart.

I spend a great deal of time in religious settings mediating the conflicts that result between people who say they have already forgiven each other. But their voices and bodies say otherwise. These people have engaged in "head" reconciliation, but their hearts-key actors in most conflicts-were left behind. The consequence is often further damage. From 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. In other words, through guilt you can get people to apologize. But if their hearts are not yet ready, resentment will remain and grow stronger over time.

The key to enabling 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 arrive at its own pace. Heart reconciliation is a cycle with stages along the way. Every time we experience alienation and restoration we go through this cycle, whether the offense is large or small. With experience and maturity we can move through the cycle more quickly. But there are no shortcuts. Efforts to bypass any stage simply halt 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 cause 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 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! But 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."

The second level of self-awareness is that deeper vulnerabilities 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. We think we are fighting a neighbor, spouse, or pastor. Often the real emotion comes 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?

Telling the story that came to mind or writing it out in journal form often elicits further memories and 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 some concerted effort to escape. The field of "Re-evaluation Counseling" has discovered that a powerful technique for release of old hurts is 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.

The third level of self-awareness is acknowledging one's own power in the conflict. Most people in conflict feel that they are the victims and that they have 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. It is important to choose a risk one can afford to have rejected.

Rejection by the other party is a distinct possibility. It helps to cope if one knows 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.

Ron Kraybill,
excerpted from "From Head to Heart: The Cycle of Reconciliation"
© MCS 1988, from Conciliation Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 4
For additional articles on reconciliation, go to www.mcc.org