People who are not used to leading may give words like 'manipulate' a negative value.   Yet controlling and manipulating are neutral values in themselves.   The significant difference for us here is between leaders who change the subject in order to manipulate a meeting or other people to their own needs and ends, and leaders who manipulate or 'work' a conversation away from grudges and entrenched issues, and towards fresh issues where everyone can create and invent.

When we change the subject,  we need turn our speech and attitude towards concerns which allow the people we are with, as well as ourselves, to feel equal.  Concerns which affirm our common humanity and interests, allow each person freedom to contribute their perspectives, and if possible encourage good humour and kindness.

One of the many strengths of Aaron Sorkin's writing for The West Wing is that he seeks to show leaders acting on that kind of distinction.  For example, in the episode In this White House (Series 2:3) we follow Ainsley Hayes (Emily Procter), a glamorous and extremely intelligent Republican analyst.  Having come to the attention of the (Democratic) West Wing staff, she is offered a job with them, despite being in the opposition party.  President Bartlet's view, after watching her outsmart one of his main advisors, is "Why don't we have her working for us?"

It seems she won't take it.  She then goes to meet her cynical friends, who are eager to hear her dish the dirt about being inside the White House. A friend says to her, "I hate these people. Did you see anyone there who isn't worthless?"

Ainsley replies very firmly:

"Don't say that. Say they're smug and superior. Say their approach to public policy makes you want to tear your hair out. Say they'd like high taxes and spending your money. Say they want to take your guns and open your borders.

"But don't call them worthless. The people that I have met have been extraordinarily qualified. Their intent is good. Their commitment is true. They are righteous and they are patriots. [Silent pause.]  And I'm their lawyer."

However, we can take this further.  Forgiving is an even more profound action than the statesmanship and/or realism which allows us to redefine our enmity and co-operate with those we used to condemn.  What we term 'passive forgiving'  involves letting animosity go as part of inner healing.  But active forgiving, of the kind we see illustrated from Jesus to Nelson Mandela, has a stronger sense. 

In the stronger or fuller sense of forgiving, what we do has to involve some kind of actual giving; not only an inner change but even more an outward action with a degree of risk or vulnerability … in the hope of deepening a relationship.

The Nato-Russia council is being formed out of common necessity.  Leaders are acting with some freedom and grace, yet also on behalf of basic survival needs.  When we act in forgiveness, we are also able to retain the freedom to go back to the old issues later on, and re-examine and heal them.

I was one of many who were greatly saddened by the death of South African cricketer Hansie Cronje in a plane crash recently.  Cronje has been banned from first-class cricket for life for taking  money to 'influence' a match.  He was vilified by spokespersons for 'Christian' morality throughout the country and in the cricketing world, who lacked the knowledge or imagination to see how fundamental to Christianity a dynamic form of forgiving is.

The BBC received a lot of tributes to him.  For example, Cameron Pitchford of Zimbabwe wrote:

"What Hansie did is no worse than what a lot of other players who are still playing have done. The only reason he has been crucified is because people perceived him as such a sportsman, and basically the last person in the sport who would do such a thing. The cricket world got a shock and had to make an example of him. I think all should be forgiven and he should be allowed back into the game. If he is kept out youngsters will not learn from his mistakes, as he will be forgotten."

This last point is particularly valuable.  If we genuinely have the inner freedom and strength to change the subject in order to be forgiving and approach a new reconciliation, then we should also have the freedom to later "change the subject" again, to review what went wrong and learn from our mistakes - on both sides.

(ForgivenessNet includes a profound example of this from one US church, summarised in Discipline without destruction.)

Many people who have been hurt or wronged by others become anxious at the prospect - real or imagined - of meeting them again.  Even after a sudden row, where hurtful things are said, it seems impossible to shift the emotional landscape.

We should note again that in many situations, emotional healing from bitterness, hatred and anger is necessary, but reconciliation is impossible or inadvisable. A person who was abused by a now deceased parent, for instance, cannot hope for a new kind of relationship.  And many abused persons will not have the personal power to "change the subject" with the person who used power to damage them them.  One marriage partner may find themselves unable to develop new common ground with the partner who restricted them for so long.

But if and when we have developed in power and confidence, one of the most fruitful things to aim for in such a meeting is the freedom to change the subject - to look amidst the words and emotions coloured by past hurts for issues and hopes which all parties seem likely to find creative and energising.  This is a good way to move forward after a family row, or with former work colleagues.

We need to take care that we are pursuing creative issues for everyone, not merely bringing other people under our own influence.  We can't be fully forgiving if we are not ourselves willing to be forgiven and 'improved' in the process.