Forgiveness Was Tested on 4,598 People. The Fine Print Is What Matters.

Christians are told to forgive so often that the word has gone smooth. It’s also one of the teachings most likely to be used against people who’ve been hurt.

“You need to forgive him” can mean many things. Sometimes it means: stop talking about it, go back, and act as though it didn’t happen.

So it’s worth looking at what forgiveness turns out to be when someone tests it properly.

A few years ago the psychologist Everett Worthington led what’s been described as the largest forgiveness trial yet run. It involved 4,598 people in five places: Hong Kong, Ukraine, South Africa, Colombia and Indonesia. Participants worked on their own through a workbook that takes under three hours, based on a method Worthington calls REACH. Recall the hurt. Empathise with the offender. Offer forgiveness as an altruistic gift. Commit to it. Hold on to it.

Compared with the control group, the people who did the workbook reported less unforgiveness, and fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression.

That’s the headline, and it supports what the church has always said, that forgiving is good for the one who forgives.

But look at how the researchers defined the thing they were testing.

They were careful to say what forgiveness is not. It doesn’t mean excusing what was done, and it doesn’t mean forgetting. It doesn’t require reconciling with the person. They state that forgiveness can happen while you’re still pursuing a just outcome, and without restoring the relationship.

Those caveats are usually missing when forgiveness is preached at someone. In the trial, a person could forgive and still press charges, or forgive and never see the other person again, or keep the locks changed.

The method also separates two things we tend to run together. There’s the decision not to seek revenge, which you can make in a moment, and the slow change in how you feel, which can take years and can’t be ordered. A lot of guilt comes from having done the first and being told you’ve failed because the second hasn’t arrived.

I think the church has often asked for the wrong thing. It asks the injured person to act as though the relationship is mended, calls that forgiveness, and treats their reluctance as hardness of heart. What actually helped people in this study was smaller: you let go of the wish to see the other person pay, and you keep hold of the truth about what happened.

Diane Cooper draws the same line in Faith for the Middle of Life. One of her chapters is titled “Forgiveness Without Denial or Harm,” and that title covers most of what I’ve said here.

So here’s the difficult case. Can you truly have forgiven someone you’ve decided never to speak to again? Or does that just mean you’ve got good at avoiding them?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GN2954Y6

#Faith, #Forgiveness, #ChristianLiving, #Boundaries, #EmotionalHealth, #SpiritualGrowth, #Healing, #Grace, #Relationships, #MentalHealth, #DianeCooper