Interpersonal Forgiveness from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective.  by ELIZABETH A. GASSIN In the last 15 years, Christian and secular psychologists in the western tradition have written much about interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation. The eastern Christian tradition (i.e., the Orthodox Church) has not had much of a voice in this discussion. In order to promote dialogue and assist clinicians in their ministry to Orthodox Christians, this article proposes some basic elements of an Orthodox view of interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation, links those elements with eastern theology and anthropology, and compares them with concepts from western Christian and secular psychology. In the last 15 years, the study of interpersonal forgiveness has blossomed in psychology. Secular (e.g., Casarjian, 1992; Simon & Simon, 1990), Christian (e.g., McCullough, Sandage, & Worthington, 1997; Smedes, 1996), and Jewish (e.g., Dorff, 1992, 1998) scholars have been involved in this development. Some scholars have argued that forgiveness is unhealthy and resentment is a better choice of action in the face of interpersonal hurt (e.g., Forward, 1989; Haber, 1991), but most Christian psychologists have extolled the benefits of forgiveness. Recent research demonstrates that forgiveness is physically and psychologically beneficial for both forgiver and offender (e.g., Al-Mabuk, Enright, & Cardis, 1995; Freedman & Enright, 1996; Gassin, 1994, 1997, 1998; Huang, 1990; Sarinopolous, 2000). Both Roman Catholic (e.g., Linn & Linn, 1978; Tobin, 1993) and Protestant (e.g., McCullough, Sandage, & Worthington, 1997; Pingleton, 1989, 1997; Rosenak & Harnden, 1992) scholars have contributed to this work, but one voice has not been heard in the forgiveness scholarship: that of Eastern Orthodoxy. [1] Given that the Orthodox Church was not as influenced as the west by philosophical movements such as scholasticism, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment (all of which affected our understanding of persons, and their relationships with God and with one another, which are the foundations of forgiveness), it behooves scholars of forgiveness to peruse and incorporate into the study of forgiveness unique ideas from eastern Christianity. The purpose of the current project is to propose an Orthodox view of forgiveness, assessing similarities and differences between the Orthodox view and the view held by western Christianity and to a lesser extent secular psychology. This article is intended to be an initial offering on this topic to the field of psychology [2] and is designed to promote discussion and clarification. Hopefully, it will also aid clinicians in addressing the needs and world view of their Orthodox clients. BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS A common psychological definition of forgiveness is foreswearing negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, while fostering positive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward an individual who has personally, deeply, and unfairly hurt another (Enright & the Human Development Study Group, 1991). Many scholars of interpersonal mercy have proposed models describing the process of forgiveness (e.g., Enright & the Human Development Study Group, 1996; Rosenak & Harden, 1992; Smedes, 1996). This is not the place to review these models in detail; the uninformed reader may consult the references above. Eastern and western Christianity diverge in their understanding of some basic concepts; therefore, a few theological definitions are needed before discussing forgiveness from an Orthodox perspective. At the outset, it must be said that because these comments are brief, they necessarily simplify the diversity that exists in each tradition (especially in the western traditions). Perhaps the most critical difference between west and east concerns the concept of salvation. Western Christianity tends to see salvation in black-and-white terms: either one is saved (i.e., destined for eternal dwelling in heaven) or not. Legal or forensic models of Christ’s redeeming work, focusing on the Crucifixion, predominate. For example, Anselm believed that redemption consisted of Christ paying our debt for violating God’s honor through sin, a debt for which God (because He is just) must require adequate repayment (Fairweather, 1970). Anselm’s approach, which was ultimately integrated with general principles of human law, was highly influential in Roman Catholic and Protestant theologies (McGrath, 1994). This is evident in reviewing the theologies of other western Christian thinkers, such as followers of Luther, who focus on how God declares us righteous “in a divine court” (McGrath, 1994, p. 387) based on our faith in Christ’s work on the Cross. In the Orthodox Christian tradition, salvation is more process-oriented and can be defined as progressive theosis (partaking of the divine nature; 2 Peter 1:4), which is accomplished by joining ourselves more and more fully to God and restoring His likeness within us. This is achieved by working with the Holy Spirit to transform the influence of the passions in our souls and to develop virtue. The passions are “impulses that violently dominate the soul” (Palmer, Sherrard, & Ware, 1979, p. 363) and mar right understanding of and relationship with God. Classic Orthodox theology includes eight basic passions: pleasing the stomach, unchastity, avarice, anger, sadness, despondency, self-glorification, and pride (John Cassian, trans. 1979). These passions are not considered part of man’s original state (i.e., at the time of creation) but are part of human nature distorted by the fall of Adam, which continues to be aggravated by the influence of Satan. Fulfilling the image and likeness of God ultimately refers to t ransforming these passions and “incarnating” virtue, especially the virtue of perfect love (Guroian, 1987; Hopko, 1989; Maximus the Confessor, trans. 1996). Although the Orthodox tradition confirms that Christ’s redeeming work on the Cross was for the forgiveness of sins, the emphasis on other aspects of Christ’s life as also being redemptive gives the eastern view a different feel. Unlike many western theologies, the Orthodox tradition does not make sharp distinctions between salvation, sanctification, justification, etc. Western theologians have understandably focused on the Crucifixion as the key to redemption given their more forensic approach to the atonement. In contrast, Orthodox theologians consider the Resurrection, Pentecost, and other aspects of God’s work in history to play a large role in the process of salvation. The Crucifixion remains central, but its salvific significance is explicitly linked with the other events of Christ’s life (Fr. V. Wendling, personal communication, August 2000). With its relatively strong emphasis on the Resurrection (and other aspects of Christ’s life) as part of a redemption that begins in this life, its process-oriente d and relational concept of salvation, and its relatively strong emphasis on the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox tradition has a different theological ethos than most western Christian traditions. Since these differences relate in part to our understanding of God’s forgiveness, it is reasonable to expect that they will lead to differences in understanding of interpersonal forgiveness. The interested reader may learn more about Orthodox theology in Pomazansky (trans. 1997), Staniloae (trans. 1999), and Ware (1993, 1995). PRIDE, ANGER, AND THE STRUGGLE TO FORGIVE An important prerequisite to forgiveness is coming to terms with one’s reaction to the offense. Orthodox thinking emphasizes how the passions, especially pride and anger, impede our struggle to forgive, and how the virtues can facilitate offering forgiveness. Several Orthodox writers claim that a lack of forgiveness is due to pride (Alekseev, 1996; Aleksiev, trans. 1994; Archimandrite Sophrony, 1974; Staniloae, trans. 1982). Pride involves several elements, such as ascribing goodness to self rather than God (John Cassian, trans. 1979), assuming one “knows better” than others (most profoundly illustrated in Eve and Adam’s disobedience to God’s command), and refusing to see one’s own sin. If pride hinders one from offering forgiveness, humility facilitates it. Humility can be defined as the opposite of those elements that constitute pride, as defined above. In addition, an etymological analysis of the word in various languages sheds light on the meaning of this virtue. The Latin root of the English word for humility, humus, calls to mind soft soil. Perhaps this refers to the fact that humble people think of themselves as lowly (Mother Alexandra, 1983) or may also be connected to the parable of the good soil (Matthew 13:1-9). According to this parable, a humble person eagerly receives and nourishes the “seeds” that God has planted. The Russian word for humility, smirenie, is lexically connected to reconciling oneself to something, such as to God’s will in the case of a Christian, and/or to acting with peace (Fr. K. Podlosinsky, personal communication, October 1998). Although some western models have noted the role that humility can play in forgiveness (e.g., Enright et al., 1991, 1996; Sandage , 1999; Worthington, 1998), an Orthodox perspective would emphasize this virtue much more strongly than has been done in most scholarly writings to date. [3] The passion of anger, which is often rooted in pride (Mark the Ascetic, 1979), also plays a role in the struggle to forgive. Because anger is seen as a vice, a goal of spiritual growth in the Orthodox tradition is to develop the ability to react to offenses with sympathy and prayer for the offender and to evaluate sin in oneself (Archimandrite Sophrony, 1974; Benigsen, 1997; Ilias the Presbyter, trans. 1984; Peter of Damascus, trans. 1984; Ustiuzhanin, 2000). (Interestingly, the importance of empathy for an offender in forgiveness has received some empirical support in the work of McCullough, Worthington, and colleagues [Worthington, 1998; McCullough et al., 1998; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997].) Anger at another in defense of oneself basically has no support in Orthodox writings. Early and modern Orthodox Church fathers (Evagrios the Solitary, trans. 1979; Isaiah the Solitary, trans. 1979; John Cassian, trans. 1979; Theophan the Recluse, trans. 1995) maintain that anger is permissible when it is d irected against the passions in oneself and/or the demons that provoke the passions in self and others. Paul’s admonish to “be angry and do not sin” (Ephesians 4:26) relates to this permissible use of anger: if you direct your anger at the passions in yourself, you will root them out and sin less. Referring to Paul’s prohibition against “the sun going down on your anger” (Ephesians 4:26), John Chrysostom (”Nastol’ naia”, 1988) writes that the Apostle realized that we are often distracted from our anger during the day and when we find ourselves alone in the evening, we must be prepared to give up the anger that we finally recognize in ourselves. On the other hand, the eastern Church father Diodochos of Photiki (trans. 1979) suggests that anger against the sin in others can be useful if it is expressed with “inward calm” (p. 272) and with the goal of helping others see their own sin and repent. It is also possible that the Orthodox worldview permits anger directed at injustices committed against others (Diodochos of Photiki, trans. 1979), including injustices against the Church (Dmitry of Rostov, 1987; note, however, he clearly states that anger should play no role in personal relationships [1997]). However, a variety of ancient and modern Orthodox writings suggest that “righteous” anger is simply another way the devil gains a foothold in the life of a believer (e.g., John Cassian, trans. 1979; “Neprestanno”, 1992). On the whole, “permissible” anger in Orthodox writings is the anger directed at self with the twin goals of rooting out the passions and destroying the effect of demons. In fact, even Diodochos of Photiki permits anger in some cases as no ted previously, suggests that once a Christian experiences the perfect love of God, anger will not be directed at anyone in defense of self. Diodochos of Photiki states: Once a man has experienced this [divine] love, he does not become angry however much he is insulted and harmed… but he remains united in love to the soul of the man who has insulted or harmed him (trans. 1979, p.289). In contrast, western secular models often view anger directed at the self in a negative light. Freud, for example, believed that anger turned inward is a main cause of depression. Western Christian psychologists claim that anger is a neutral emotion and can be healthy, if expressed in a God-pleasing way (e.g., in a reflective and constructive manner) (Brandsma, 1982; Bassett & Hill, 1998; Bassett, Hill, Hart, Mathewson, & Perry, 1993; Cerling, 1974; Collins, 1988; Tobin, 1993). At least one western Christian scholar (Pedersen, 1974) has even gone so far as to claim that anger is “basically good” and can be directed at people rather than just at “sin.” Psychological models in both rhe academic and western Christian community generally permit or even encourage anger as a part of the forgiveness process (e.g., Enright et al., 1991; Pingleton, 1989; Rosenak & Harnden, 1992; Vitz & Mango, 1997). The theological foundations of this perspective are the scriptural examples of God’s anger: western Christian psycholog ists claim that because God can be angry and we are made in God’s image, then it is acceptable for us to express righteous anger as well (Collins, 1988; Pedersen, 1974). From this perspective, the Pauline writings connected to anger may be interpreted in a manner that is more consistent with an emphasis on preserving justice, defending individual rights, and attempting to alter the behavior of others: “be angry and do not sin” and “do not let the sun go down on your anger” refer to short-lived anger at offenders expressed in a self-controlled way. The Orthodox view is that God is impassible (a tenant expressed in virtually all patristic writings; see Richard, 1997) and does not literally get angry; passages that suggest God is angry are anthropomorphisms designed to express the human experience of a broken relationship with God. On the contrary, God is love (1 John 4:16) and a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29); thus, when we reject this pure love by transgressing His commands and rejecting Him, we experience His love as fiery wrath (Kalomiros, 1995). Therefore, there is no theological foundation for claiming anger directed at others is appropriate. This is not to say that people do not get angry with other people, or that when they do their anger should be denied. It is simply a claim that interpersonal anger is a result of our fallen nature; therefore, we should use the occasion of being offended to confess this passion and rid ourselves of it. By the work of the Holy Spirit, the help of Christ’s Church, and our own struggle, it is possible to root ange r out of our experience. A REVERSAL OF JUSTICE? An Orthodox perspective on forgiveness also emphasizes that the offended parties must take a very active part in the forgiveness and reconciliation process. Christ’s words in Matthew 5:23-24 seem to be directed at one who has offended another, but John Chrysosrom offers an unusual interpretation (echoed by John Cassian, trans. 1979) of this passage that “turns the tables”: “[A]lthough what is said here is apparently directed at the offender, everything also relates to the offended…. if anger still flames in you, then know that I Myself willingly agree to allow you to leave your sacrifice for a time, if only this will make you friends” (”Nastol’naia”, 1988, p. 339). The last words of the above quote suggest that responsibility nor only for forgiveness, but also for reconciliation, to a large extent is in the hands of the offended person. Some Orthodox writings suggest that the offended party must admit that he or she may have caused an offense, even one that from a human view may be clearly blamed on the offender. For example, Maximus the Confessor (trans. 1981a) writes that if no apology from the offender is forthcoming, forgivers should conciliate an offender by apologizing and considering themselves responsible for the trial. To the western mind, this sounds like a denial of empirical and moral reality. Because the above material may strike the reader as extreme, some explanation is in order regarding why such a “reversal” of justice makes sense from the eastern Christian view. (Theological foundations of the general Orthodox perspective on forgiveness will be considered in more detail below.) Because God is all-loving, everything He permits in our lives has a good purpose, including suffering permitted for the express purpose of helping us realize our sin and cleanse it from our lives (i.e., to further our salvation). In this regard, the elder Barsanuphius of Russia’s Optina Pustyn monastery even referred to those who bring us sorrow as our “greatest benefactors, showing us our weaknesses that we, perhaps, didn’t even suspect existed” (”Zhiznopisanie”, 1994, p. 83). Expanding on this understanding, Archbishop Chrysostomos (personal communication, March 2000) writes that the Orthodox Christian should see an offense: …in the overall picture of our transformation and restoration in Christ, in the light of the positive Oikonomia [or work] of God. Our detractors become our benefactors, not simply because we see things in a new light and subject our anger to goodness toward others and healing self-reproach, but because the focus of our understanding rises above the moment and event and we see things from a new perspective. Given this perspective on suffering, offended parties may consider themselves at least partly responsible for an interpersonal conflict, because God has allowed these conflicts to take place so that their passions may be revealed and uprooted. Anger is transformed into thankfulness for the opportunity for further eschatological restoration in Christ. The Orthodox emphasis on humility is also important in conceptualizing why a seemingly innocent victim would ultimately ask forgiveness from an offender. Eastern Christian spirituality stresses the importance of humility as our fundamental contribution to the process of salvation. This is often expressed in terms that will make most individuals from western cultures quite uncomfortable. Following Paul’s appellation of himself as the worst of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15) and his mandate to consider others as better than ourselves (Philippians 2:3), Orthodox spirituality stresses that each person is to consider himself or herself to be the lowest of all. These concepts are stressed in the prayer rule. While reading Orthodox prayers, people refer to themselves in the following fashion: as one who has “never done anything good before Thee,” who is “miserable,” and who is even “worse than cattle” [4] (”Polnyi’ 1998). Orthodox spirituality does not permit despondency in the face of what seems to be “low self-esteem”, but instead encourages joy and gratitude based on the following emphases: God as all-merciful and desiring the salvation of all; the joy of Christ’s resurrection and its implications for our ultimate fate; and the work of the Holy Spirit. If one considers himself or herself to be the lowest creature on earth, asking forgiveness of an offender makes more sense; logically, that person in some way is “better” than the offended party. The contrast here with secular psychology is immediately evident. A western emphasis on justice and protecting individual rights does not permit an offended person to ask forgiveness of the one who committed the offense. Also, western psychologists generally consider high self-esteem to be a virtue. As Clark (1985) and personal experience testify, even Christian psychologists are prone to interpret Christ’s words about “loving others as yourself” (Matthew 22:39) as a command for us to love ourselves. This type of thinking surfaces relatively infrequently in Orthodox tradition. [5] From the eastern perspective, one should consider oneself to be the lowest of creatures but not despair in light of the love of God, His desire to save each person, and the possibility of restoring His image within us through communion with Him. RECONCILIATION AND REPENTANCE As implicated in the previous paragraphs, reconciliation (i.e., re-establishing a relationship) and renewed trust in the offender may be more closely tied to forgiveness in the Orthodox view than in western perspectives. Even western Christian psychologists stress the importance of protecting oneself with strong interpersonal boundaries, especially when the offender is unrepentant (e.g., Cloud & Townsend, 1992; McCullough et al., 1997; Stoop & Masteller, 1996). [6] Orthodox theology is relational and experiential, as illustrated in the Orthodox axiom: “a theologian is one who prays”; it also emphasizes God’s presence in and work through the physical world. Because of these emphases, the distinction between internal experience (i.e., forgiveness) and concrete relational status (i.e., reconciliation) is not as clear as in most psychological models. Eastern Christianity views a re-establishment of trust in the offender as one s personal sacrifice (Fr. A. Frolov, personal communication, July 1997), our way of re vealing Christ to the world (Rose, 1982), and as an act of dispassion (Maximus the Confessor, trans. 1981b). Dispassion paradoxically incorporates both a spiritual freedom from the effects of concrete events, including interpersonal offenses, and an active love for others, which in turn blurs the distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation. When forgiveness and reconciliation are separated in Orthodox literature, reconciliation (with or without the repentance of the offender) is held up as a higher good, as demonstrated by Simeon the New Theologian: It’s one thing to pray to God for those who cause this [abuse], another thing to forgive, and yet a third to print in your mind the face of each of them [offenders] and kiss them dispassionately, like your true friends, with tears of pure love, in such a way that in your soul no sign of offence or passion exists…the highest and most perfect without compare is, it seems to me, when a person totally forgets the experience that he endured and never reminisces about those who hurt him[,] but relates to them as he relates to friends, without any distinction. (”Nastol’naia,” 1988, p. 296) Some will understandably object that reconciliation and renewal of trust in an unrepentant offender is simply dangerous (McCullough et al. even imply this may be a “sinister aspect” of forgiveness [1998, p. 1600]). Eastern Christianity might respond to this by equating forgiveness of and reconciliation with even an unrepentant offender with the notion of martyrdom, a concept pathologized by secular psychology [Tam, 1997]. [7] This connection between reconciliation and martyrdom is evident in the following interpretation of Ephesians 4 and 5 by John Chrysostom (trans. 1885): And if thou shalt have it in they power to save another, wilt thou not use the same remedy, and give the advice to all, “Forgive, that ye may be forgiven”? … Even as Christ also,” he adds, “loved you.”… For how in our case is the “even as” preserved? Surely it is clear that it will be by our doing good to our enemies. “And gave Himself up for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell.” Seest thou that to suffer for one’s enemies is “a sweet-smelling savor”, and an “acceptable sacrifice”? And if thou shalt die, then wilt thou be indeed a sacrifice. This is to “imitate God.” (pp. 129-130) The Orthodox Church maintains a keen consciousness of and deep veneration for those who have died for the faith; this is not surprising, as Orthodox Christians in various parts of the world have been subjected to martyrdom for much of their history, including the recent past. This consciousness has developed into a profound respect for the role of martyrdom in the process of salvation. Through some form of reconciliation with and trust in offenders, Orthodox Christians places themselves at risk of being “martyred” for the sake of faith and love. This does not mean that Orthodox spirituality forces people to reconcile with a dangerous offenders; but should they desire some form of reconciliation out of a sense of responsibility for the salvation of self and other, then there is an existential foundation in place to support that decision. From an eastern Christian perspective, various forms of martyrdom are not something to be sought; however, if they come as a result of fulfilling the commands of Christ, they should be regarded as an honor sent from God so that He might be glorified and that people might be saved. FORGIVENESS IN CHURCH RITUAL Stressing the importance of interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation, the Orthodox Church also offers unique “institutionalized” opportunities for progressing toward and achieving these goals. Perhaps the most obvious of these is Forgiveness Vespers conducted the evening that Great Lent begins. During this service, individuals in the local church, beginning with clergy, ask for forgiveness from and offer forgiveness to one another. This is usually accompanied by prostrations, demonstrating submission to and veneration for one another. Although it is unlikely that each individual in a parish has overtly offended every other individual, this ritual is designed to point to a theological truth: because of sin, interpersonal relationships in general are distorted (Men’, 1991; Schmemann, 1997). In addition, Orthodox Christians understand personal sinfulness from a “cosmic” perspective: the sin of one person reverberates throughout their community and ultimately the universe; therefore, each person is in some way guilty before all others (Fr. V. Wendling, personal communication, August 2000). Furthermore, because we can see the image and likeness of God in each person, in asking others’ forgiveness we also ask for God’s forgiveness (Fr. J. Hoffman, personal communication, November 1999). The expression of love, which is the antithesis of personal antagonism, and the act of forgiving and being forgiven is the door through which the Orthodox Christian passes into a time of intensified repentance (Uspensky, 1998). A personal account of this service can be found in Gassin (2000a). Forgiveness also plays a role in other Orthodox services besides Forgiveness Vespers. During the Divine Liturgy, which includes serving communion, a celebrant exclaims as preparation for the Eucharist begins, “Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess,” and the laity respond, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in essence and undivided.” During this time, a kiss of peace is exchanged. Cyril of Jerusalem (trans. 1977) explains: [T]his kiss blends souls one with another, and solicits for them entire forgiveness. Therefore this kiss is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and have banished all remembrance of wrongs. (p. 72) Schmemann (1988) notes that the celebrant’s exclamation and subsequent kiss of peace is understood not only as a common informal exchange among Orthodox Christians, but reflects Christ’s new command to love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34). As Schmemann notes, the newness of this command is that we must also love those who treat us wrongfully. Forgiveness rituals permeate Orthodox services in other ways as well. Before every Orthodox service, celebrants read a prayer rule before the icon stand that ends with a prostration before the people and a request for their forgiveness. During the Divine Liturgy, celebrants prostrate before each other and the worshipers as a request for forgiveness before they present the unconsecrated elements to them and again before they serve the Eucharist. In all of these contexts, worshipers bow in response, signifying both their forgiveness offered and desire to be forgiven with the words, “God forgives; forgive me” (or some variation thereof; see Gassin [2000a] for an extended explanation of this response). At the end of Compline (an evening service), a rite of forgiveness is performed in which the priest makes a prostration before the parish and says, “Bless me, holy fathers and brethren [i.e., other priests and parishioners], and forgive me a sinner, for I have sinned in word, deed, and thought, and in all my sense s” (Simon, Jurewicz, & Ciuba, 1986, p. 376). Parishioners then do likewise. It is particularly interesting that the worshipers request forgiveness for all sins, not just those committed against the parish or the priest, which highlights how our sinful nature affects others even if we do not directly offend them. SEEKING FORGIVENESS FROM OTHERS Although much of the above information is related to offering forgiveness, a few words about the experience of seeking forgiveness are also in order. It has already been noted that the eastern Christian perspective holds the offended party responsible for making overtures of forgiveness, even if such overtures are not forthcoming from the offender. These overtures may well include the paradox of having the “victim” ask forgiveness from the offender for any role the offended party might have played in the offense. But Orthodox understanding of seeking forgiveness can be developed further. Seeking forgiveness is not simply an affair of words, but involves striving toward full reconciliation: When spiritual knowledge is active within us … it makes us feel acute remorse if, because of a sudden irritation, we insult someone and make an enemy of him. It never stops prodding our consciousness until, with a full apology, we have restored in the person we have insulted the feelings he had toward us before. (Diadochos of Photiki, trans. 1979, p. 290) Several Church fathers (e.g., Philophilakt and John Chrysostom [”Nastol’naia”, 1988] and Diadochos [trans. 1979]) emphasize that, according to Matthew 5:23-24, if someone has something against us, we should seek forgiveness and reconciliation even if it is only a small conflict, or if the offender is unfairly angry at us. Diadochos in particular writes about the spiritual riches that can come from seeking forgiveness from one who is angry at us for no reason: ...[S]piritual knowledge, consisting wholly of love, does not allow the mind to expand and embrace the vision of the divine, unless we first win back to love even one who has become angry with us for no reason. If he refuses to lay aside this anger or avoids the places we ourselves frequent, then spiritual knowledge bids us visualize his person with an overflowing of compassion in our soul and so fulfill the law of love in the depths of our heart. For it is said that if we wish to have knowledge of God we must bring our mind to look without anger even on persons who are angry with us for no reason… (p. 290) It is notable that Diadochos stresses the intimate connection between a Christian’s relationship with God and with others, even when that relationship concerns a “worldly person” (p. 290) who is unjustly angry at us. One final element of seeking forgiveness can be seen in the prayer rule in the Russian Orthodox tradition. Daily prayers in one of the most recently published prayer books (”Polnyi,” 1998) include a petition for those whom one has hurt or led astray. Such prayers might be viewed as a gesture of repentance and reconciliation, but given the Orthodox emphasis on concrete action and reconciliation in the face of interpersonal conflict, such a prayer cannot be seen as a substitute for actual, personal attempts to seek forgiveness and restore the relationship. SELF-FORGIVENESSOne of the newer topics in the study of forgiveness is self-forgiveness (e.g., Enright et al., 1996; Holmgren, 1998; “Self-forgiveness,” 1999; Snow, 1993), a concept that is apparently endorsed by some secular human service professionals (Bass & Davis, 1994) and western Christian scholars (e.g., Pingleton, 1997; Smedes, 1996; Tobin, 1993). Not all Christian scholars have accepted the legitimacy of the concept (see Vitz, 1999; Vitz & Mango, 1997), a concept that this author finds no place for in the Orthodox tradition. When people sin, they do not forgive themselves. Instead, as Hopko (in Kisly, 1995; see also Zaleski, 1999) notes, the peace that comes from a western understanding of “self-forgiveness” is actually the full reception of the forgiveness of God and other people. Self-forgiveness becomes a non-issue. THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF FORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION Why does the Orthodox Church consider issues of forgiveness and reconciliation to be so critical? A major factor explaining the Orthodox emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation is the trinitarian perspective on human relationships. Orthodox literature does not provide distinct boundaries between the members of the “trinity” of self, God, and other. [8] Orthodox theologians stress how our relationship with God is reflected in our relationship with another human being, and vice versa. The confessor Nikon, who died in exile during the Soviet persecution of the Russian Church, echoes ancient eastern fathers when he writes: Never judge anybody. Greet each person, no matter who he might be, with good feelings and a hope to find in him only good, seeing before yourself the image of God…. Your salvation and your demise are in your neighbor. Your salvation depends on how you relate to your neighbor.” (”Zhiznopisanie,” 1994, p. 190-191; emphasis added) Ephraim the Syrian (”Nastol’naia”, 1988) goes so far as to say that if your brother is angry at you, God is “angry” at you. Virtual equation of self and other is seen in the writings of John Chrysosrom (”Nastol’naia”, 1988), who states in several places that whatever we do to or for our enemies, we do to or for ourselves. And, in contrast to the interpretation of Matthew 22:39 that many Christian psychologists give to support loving ourselves, at least one Orthodox scholar (Hopko, in Kisly, 1995) states that “love your neighbor as yourself” reveals that “neighbor” and “self” are basically the same concept. In contrast to a modern Western psychology that stresses boundaries between individuals and relationships, Orthodox theology emphasizes that boundaries between individuals and relationships in the triangle of self-God-other are not rigid. [9] Therefore, forgiveness and reconciliation become a means of being in relationship with God through relationship with neighbor, as well as a catalyst for the salvation of self and neighbor. Conversely, when an Orthodox Christians will not forgive and reconcile with others, they injure themselves and their relationship with God. Western Christian scholars certainly do not ignore the role of relationships in the definition of self, but the emphasis does not seem as interpersonal as among eastern theologians and scholars. An interesting example of this is the recent special edition of the Journal of Psychology and Theology on the self/soul (Duvall, 1998a). Several authors (Boyd, 1998a; Duvall, 1998b; Johnson, 1998) lament the disappearance of the concept of the soul in western scholarly pursuits such as theology and biblical studies, a trend that would be more difficult to find in the eastern tradition. Most contributing authors discuss the Christian self/soul as an intrapersonal concept, defending successfully a dualistic anthropology (i.e., a person consisting of both body and soul) and the substantial nature of the soul. Those authors who do discuss self/soul in an interpersonal context almost exclusively focus on soul in relationship with God (Boyd, 1998b; Johnson, 1998; Willard, 1998). Only two authors (Haynes, 1998; Piehl, 1998) spend significant time on the soul in relationship to others in addition to God; not surprisingly, these two articles include more references to Eastern Church fathers (e.g., Athanasius and the Cappadocians) and modern Orthodox theologians (e.g., Theophan the Recluse and current hierarchs Ware and Zizioulas). Aside from the publication discussed above, Christian psychologist Vitz (1995), demonstrates the fundamental role the eastern Christian tradition plays in the interpersonal understanding of self and the rise of a non-relational understanding of self in the “Latin West” (p. 24); he has also elaborated a model of self that incorporates both God and others. Of course, we cannot say that an Orthodox understanding of relationships has no conception of self as separate from others. As elaborated in footnote, [9] there are boundaries between us and God in His essence; we must sometimes rebuke others and in rare occasions limit our own involvement with them. This is done mainly out of concern for another’s salvation (1 Corinthians 5:1-5; Gassin, 2000b). At the very least, the Orthodox Christian follows a prayer rule that involves praying for offenders and enemies and thus becomes united to the offender via prayer. The main point is that within the eastern tradition, there is a strong emphasis on the fluidity of boundaries and the unity that exists between the souls of two people. In such a case, forgiveness is a means of affirming and supporting the natural interconnection between self, God, and other. In a very real sense, lack of forgiveness and reconciliation is also a denial of the true self for the Orthodox Christian. God creates each person in His own image and likeness, meaning that we are relational beings because God Himself has an eternal relationship of love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, our fulfillment of self is found ultimately in loving others, including our enemies, with an active, perfect, self-sacrificing love. As Hopko (1989) suggests, we must realize that as the Cross was the principle word about the love of God, it is also the principle word about our love for others. Just as Christ crucified took sin upon Himself for the salvation of the world, we must identify with the offender and take his or her sin on ourselves for the purpose of redemption and healing. This self-sacrificial process is a voluntary act of love, a partial fulfilling of the image and likeness of God within us. Another facet of this same argument is that in forgiving and reconciling with an offender, we participate in the life of Christ. In fact, we might even say that we “incarnate” Christ in the lives of self and offender. This refers back to the notion of theosis discussed above. Archbishop Chrysostomos (personal communication, March, 2000) writes that when we control our fallen passions, such as anger, in the face of offense: God rewards this labor, not just with the control of our passions, but with the transformation of our intention and desires, such that we attain the same passionless passion that was in Christ…once we have been cleansed, we participate in the Divine nature, and the purity of the image of God is restored in us… Orthodox Christians who forgive an offender with a heart undarkened by the passions of pride and anger continues to be purified by the Spirit of Love. They also enter into the life and nature of Christ, who emptied Himself for the sake of those who were at enmity with God and offers new life through His Resurrection and the sending of His Spirit. For Orthodox Christians, this process of entering into Christ’s life is the very definition of salvation. A somewhat similar understanding of forgiveness is discussed by Christian psychologists Gassin and Enright (1995), who imply that interpreting suffering and forgiveness as participation in Christ’s life constitutes an advanced understanding of the forgiveness process. An exploration of the Orthodox concept of unity also sheds light on the distinctives of an eastern approach to forgiveness. Scripture is clear that Christians are to be united in love (e.g., John 17:21; Ephesians 4:1-6) and that Christ is not divided (1 Corinthians 1:11-13). Furthermore, in Orthodox thinking, “the Body of Christ” is not an abstract notion, but a concrete, historical one rooted in Christology, Pneumotology, and Eucharistic theology. Orthodox tradition consistently maintains that unity must be both spiritual and physical (cf. Ignatius of Antioch, trans. 1885); thus, Orthodox Christians take seriously the scriptural commands for unity, believe that the Church retains Christ as head and is animated by the Holy Spirit (Pomazansky, trans. 1997), emphasize the coherent work of God through history and the concrete world, and see the Eucharist as a visible manifestation of full Christian unity. Interpersonal conflict is a threat to this unity and betrays the presence of the Trinity, which is an eternal, unified communion of love in the Church (Zizioulas, 1993). While we have discussed the importance of unity within the Church, we must also note that several eastern Church fathers (e.g., Diadochos, trans. 1979; Maximus the Confessor, trans. 1981c) state that when one attains the most perfect love possible, one will not discriminate between Christians and others, but will liberally shed love and forgiveness upon all. Table 1 summarizes the proposed practical and theological differences between the Eastern and Western traditions. FINAL ISSUES: QUESTIONS, PROBLEMS, AND COMMENTS As is the case with any project, especially an initial foray into new territory, there are unanswered questions and methodological problems that must be overcome. A more thorough understanding by psychologists of the respective theologies and anthropologies of western and eastern Christianity would enrich the comparative study of interpersonal forgiveness in different church traditions. In addition, we might attempt to identify specific strategies that those in the Orthodox tradition can use to assist people in offering and receiving forgiveness and overtures of reconciliation. Mark the Ascetic (trans. 1979, pp. 156-157) recommends meditating on the humility of Christ; other strategies might involve participating in the sacramental life of the Church and counseling with a spiritual father or mother. A detailed elucidation of this issue would be helpful. Methodological weaknesses of the current project must also be acknowledged. I have drawn heavily from English and Russian translations of the writings of the early Church fathers. I have also drawn from English-language and Russian-language publications of contemporary theologians and church historians. Probably the major deficiency in this current work is the inaccessibility to this author of native language materials written in Greek, Serbian, Syriac, Romanian, and other “Orthodox” languages. This highlights the importance of multi-lingual scholars working together on any project based on an eastern Christian worldview. With its focus on humility, relationship, a sacramental life, theosis, and the role of suffering in salvation, Eastern Orthodoxy paints a somewhat different picture of interpersonal forgiveness than does either western Christianity or secular psychology. Psychologists and theologians seeking to integrate their respective fields would do well to consider what the ancient Christian tradition of the east says about both interpersonal mercy as well as other psychological experiences. AUTHOR GASSIN, ELIZABETH A. Address: 945 S. Poplar Ave., Kankakee, IL 60901. Title: Instructor, St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Institute, Moscow, Russia. Degrees: BS, Human Development, University of California-Davis; MS, Educational Psychology, Purdue University; PhD, Educational Psychology & Human Development, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Specializations: Psychology and theology of forgiveness, moral and social development. Part of the research reported in this manuscript was completed while I was teaching in Russia on a Fulbright grant during the 1998-99 school year. I express appreciation to 1) the communities of Theophany Orthodox Cathedral and Archangel Michael Orthodox Church in Irkutsk (Russia) for their assistance and access to their libraries and 2) His Eminence, Archbishop Chrysostomos; Hieromonk Vladimir (Wendling); and several anonymous reviewers for their insightful review. Any remaining mistakes are my responsibility alone. English translations of materials published in Russian and Church Slavonic are mine. (1.) The Orthodox Church is comprised of 15 autocephalous (self-governing) local churches, as well as several autonomous local churches around the world that are dependent on one of the autocephalous churches. While administratively independent, these local churches consider that together they form one Orthodox Church. A common misunderstanding among many in the West is that each of the local Orthodox churches is a separate denomination; such is not the case, as they are united to one another through their common theological and liturgical tradition and maintain full Eucharistic communion with one another. In the USA there are an estimated two to three million Orthodox Christians in approximately 2000 parishes, missions, and communities. Worldwide, it is estimated that there arc 300 million Orthodox Christians (Fr. J. Matusiak, personal communication, July 2000). (2.) Because the focus of this article is a comparison between Eastern Orthodox and psychological (Christian and otherwise) understandings of forgiveness, a detailed comparison of the eastern view and Jones’ (1995) seminal and comprehensive theological work on forgiveness will not be undertaken. From an Orthodox view, there is much to be commended in Jones’ work, and the influence of eastern theology on his work is certainly apparent, although differences do exist (including Jones’ acceptance of “righteous anger”). (3.) Sandage’s (1999) recent work on ego-humility and forgiveness takes the study of these two concepts further than any other. From an Orthodox perspective, this is most welcome. However, Sandage’s claim that humility involves seeing others as equal to oneself may be open for question. In support of his claim, Sandage quotes Paul’s exhortation in Romans 12:3 to think of oneself in a sober manner, but Paul’s instruction here does not necessarily mean we should place ourselves on equal footing with others. Paul’s own example (1 Timothy 1:15), as well as his directive to the Philippians (2:3), clearly demonstrate a tendency to consider others better than oneself. (4.) One possible explanation of this statement was recently offered by an Orthodox psychologist in Russia: in constantly living according to instinct, animals fulfill the nature given to them by God. Humans are created with a free will and in the image and likeness of God, yet they constantly live in contradiction to their created nature by enslaving themselves to sin (G. V. Gusev, personal communication, July 2000). (5.) Exceptions to this include the following. St. Maximus the Confessor (trans. 1981d, 1981e), in the context of consistent condemnation of self-love, does acknowledge there is a purified self-love (which is paradoxically God-centered and seems to involve concern for one’s salvation). Gregory Palamas (trans., 1995) writes about self-love that issues from total devotion to God, which in turn draws God’s glory into the soul, and allows one to love God and others more perfectly. Only in this context can the soul learn “to know and preserve its own dignity and rank [issuing from the glory of God within it], and truly to love itself” (p. 364). Godly self-love is a consequence of the presence of God in the Christian and of love for Him and others; it is not a basic prerequisite of emotional health. Finally, Schmemann (1988) equates acceptable love of self with being conscious of one’s “divine gift and the miracle of [one’s] I” (p. 188). (6.) Interestingly, Cloud & Townsend (1992) make the case that forgiveness builds healthy interpersonal boundaries, because when we forgive, we no longer allow the behavior of others to affect us negatively. (7.) The lives of the martyrs, both in the ancient church and in the recent past, give us incredible examples of forgiveness and reconciliation with offenders. Many martyrs explicitly forgave their executioners, ministered in one way or another to them, and avoided attempts to escape, considering that a worthy death for the sake of Christ would contribute both to their own salvation and the salvation of the executioners and witnesses. Perhaps the first example of this type of death, aside from Christ’s own example, is Stephen beseeching forgiveness on behalf of his executors (Acts 7:60), which may have contributed to the salvation of onlooker Saul, soon to become the Apostle Paul. (8.) Modern work on the lasting impact of parent-infant attachment, as well as classic works by Mead (1934) and Erikson (1968), suggest that the boundaries between self and other really are quite permeable. Recent empirical work on attachment and internal working models (see Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, for a review) demonstrates that children’s basic sense of self is rooted in their relationship with significant others early in life, persists for years, and is related to one’s relationship with God. Other empirical work shows that sense of self developed in a communal culture (which the Church should be) will incorporate other people to a greater degree than one developed in an individualistic culture (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). (9.) Orthodox theology maintains the transcendence of God in that God is seen as utterly separate from His creation in essence bur interacts intimately with that same creation through His energies. An common analogy used to explain this is our relationship with the sun: on earth we cannot experience the sun in its essence as a star (due to distance and the fact that we would be consumed by hear), bur we can enjoy chat “part” of the sun (light, heat) that reaches us here.