Insights on Fostering Forgiveness in Faith Communities

Back in 2004, an administrator from John Brown University, a Christian institution located in Arkansas, reached out to me with an intriguing proposal. He extended an invitation for me to visit the campus and collaborate on developing an event aimed at motivating students to embrace forgiveness as a

Back in 2004, an administrator from John Brown University, a Christian institution located in Arkansas, reached out to me with an intriguing proposal. He extended an invitation for me to visit the campus and collaborate on developing an event aimed at motivating students to embrace forgiveness as a regular practice. Furthermore, he expressed enthusiasm for transforming this initiative into a formal research study to evaluate its impact.

Within Christian teachings, forgiveness and love stand out as the foundational virtues that guide believers' lives. Even at that early stage, this forward-thinking administrator possessed a keen awareness of the trajectory the nation was on: a rise in political divisions and a surge in mental health challenges. His vision was to harness the principles of Christian practical theology to mend fractured minds and restore broken relationships. To achieve this, he sought to integrate his faith's understanding of forgiveness—which encompasses prayer, self-restraint, drawing inspiration from mature exemplars, and invoking divine assistance—with the emerging scientific research on the subject. He specifically contacted me because of my dual role as a researcher and a fellow Christian, having shared my insights on forgiveness through publications and presentations in both academic and religious settings.

Together, we crafted a comprehensive two-week forgiveness promotion campaign. We partnered closely with university staff and students to brainstorm and implement a wide array of activities designed to heighten awareness about forgiveness. These included feature articles and advertisements in the campus newspaper, organized debates on the topic, guest speakers during chapel services, eye-catching banners along a heavily trafficked pedestrian path, a public endorsement from the university president, and numerous additional engaging elements.

Throughout the duration of this campaign, I also provided training to approximately 50 group facilitators. These leaders were equipped to lead both secular and faith-infused REACH Forgiveness groups, which are structured psycho-educational programs. Extensive research, encompassing more than 30 studies conducted globally, has demonstrated their efficacy in enabling participants to forgive, thrive personally, boost their overall well-being, and alleviate symptoms of depression and anxiety. The REACH acronym represents a sequence of five essential steps:

• R = Recall the hurt in a structured manner;
• E = Empathize deeply with the person who caused the harm;
• A = Offer forgiveness as an altruistic, unearned gift;
• C = Commit firmly to the forgiveness that has been granted; and
• H = Hold onto that forgiveness steadfastly, even amid emerging doubts.

The primary objective of these steps is to empower participants to consciously choose against retaliation and instead approach the offender with greater humanity. Surrounding these core elements are supplementary exercises, such as reflecting on the most challenging past event that a participant has managed to forgive, distinguishing between emotional and decisional forms of forgiveness, exploring the personal advantages forgiveness brings to the one granting it, and addressing additional grievances to broaden the positive outcomes.

In our experimental design, we randomly assigned some students to participate in a six-hour REACH Forgiveness group session, while others formed the control group, experiencing only the broader campus campaign without the intensive group work. As anticipated, the results clearly showed that the REACH Forgiveness groups— which were my main emphasis during that period—proved significantly more impactful than the campaign in isolation.

Following the publication of these findings, leaders from Asbury University, another Christian university situated in Kentucky, got in touch with me. They were eager to replicate our approach with a campus-wide forgiveness campaign and additionally wanted to compare the REACH groups against a writing-based forgiveness exercise. Once more, our analysis revealed that the group interventions outperformed both the essay-writing task and the general campaign that permeated the entire campus.

That said, it was noteworthy that mere exposure to the university-wide forgiveness campaign still yielded measurable increases in forgiving tendencies across both communities. Building on this, I pursued funding from the Fetzer Institute to expand the model, evaluating forgiveness campaigns at nine different Christian universities. I assembled a curated list of potential activities proven to promote forgiveness, advising each institution to adopt at least half from this standard roster while innovating the remainder with their own creative ideas.

Concurrently, I collaborated with faith leaders in various churches to develop tailored forgiveness campaigns. This included consulting for a substantial church in the Philadelphia region and a mid-sized congregation in Adelaide, Australia. Additionally, I spearheaded a campaign at my own church in Richmond, Virginia, which provided me with invaluable firsthand experience in executing these in-depth programs. These church initiatives were undertaken purely as a service to interested congregations, without the intent of formal publication.

By 2018, I conducted a thorough after-action review of all these campaigns across both faith-based universities and church settings. Our evaluations measured key outcomes, including forgiveness toward a specific offense, overall forgivingness as a personality trait, enhancements in well-being, heightened hope, and reductions in depression and anxiety levels.

From this extensive body of work emerged several key insights into effectively nurturing forgiveness within faith-based communities—principles that hold equal relevance for secular environments as well.

Key Components of In-Depth Forgiveness Initiatives

I began to describe the integrated approach of a public campaign, REACH groups (and subsequently workbooks), coupled with rigorous scientific evaluation, as “deep dives.” At this juncture, every completed deep dive had occurred in faith-based communities that inherently prized forgiveness. Through these experiences, I gathered lessons specifically suited to such settings, with plans to adapt them for secular contexts moving forward.

Firstly, we determined that securing buy-in from the uppermost leadership—such as university presidents and provosts, or senior pastors alongside their associates—was absolutely vital. This required their active promotion and involvement, far beyond a mere symbolic nod of approval.

Secondly, these deep dives thrived when anchored in straightforward, consistent messaging. We consistently highlighted three core messages:

• Forgiveness delivers tangible benefits to the individual extending it;
• There exist two distinct dimensions of forgiveness—not always aligned—which include a deliberate choice to treat the offender with humanity and a corresponding shift in emotional response; and
• Accessible local resources exist to provide support in this journey.

Thirdly, within faith-based settings, our efforts had predominantly emphasized raising awareness about forgiveness rather than hands-on practice. While awareness is a crucial starting point, we observed that numerous students and churchgoers lacked the practical skills to forgive effectively. This underscored the necessity of a fourth pillar: guiding individuals beyond mere cognition to actively practicing forgiveness across diverse situations.

Moreover, we noted distinct differences between church-based and university-based campaigns, particularly in terms of age demographics and living arrangements. Church activities needed customization for varied lifestyles, unlike the more uniform campus environment. Universities benefit from an inherent educational orientation and communal living, whereas churches serve geographically dispersed members with diverse educational backgrounds. Churchgoers might gather weekly for services and perhaps bi-weekly in small groups, while university life offers frequent, multifaceted interactions through sports, dorms, classes, fraternities, sororities, and extracurriculars.

Extending to Non-Religious Contexts

A subsequent grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation enabled us to broaden this methodology into secular environments in Indonesia, South Africa, and Colombia. To date, we have released findings from our Colombian initiative.

In Colombia, we implemented a four-week comprehensive forgiveness deep dive at Universidad del Sinú in Monteria, a private secular university, engaging students, faculty, and staff alike. We began by surveying 3,000 out of the total 9,000 students at the outset and conclusion, tracking shifts in forgiveness levels, mental health, and personal flourishing. We also gauged participation in and efficacy of 16 distinct activity types, ranging from acing a forgiveness knowledge quiz (nine out of ten correct), completing a REACH workbook, joining webinars, viewing and discussing forgiveness-focused films, tuning into expert podcasts, meditating under a designated “forgiveness tree” while pondering an offender, to documenting personal stories on a communal “forgiveness wall.”

Our analysis centered on three pivotal research questions.

The initial query: “Did this deep dive effectively boost forgiveness, mental health, and flourishing?” The affirmative results were striking. On average across all students, the improvements were about half the magnitude of those from intensive one-on-one forgiveness therapy—a remarkable outcome for a broad public health effort where not all participants fully engaged.

The second question explored: “Did the quantity of activity types influence the degrees of forgiveness, mental health gains, and flourishing?” The evidence confirmed this, emphasizing the role of engagement. Participation in three or fewer activities produced negligible benefits. However, engaging in four to 16 activities correlated with progressive enhancements in forgiveness and flourishing, alongside diminished depression and anxiety with each added activity.

The third inquiry addressed: “Which activities proved most potent in advancing forgiveness, mental health, and flourishing, while also drawing the highest participation?” Our data indicated that activities exceeding four hours deterred most students, though completers reaped substantial rewards. Short engagements under an hour attracted many but yielded minimal impact. Optimal activities, balancing popularity and effectiveness, demanded one to four hours—much like the “just right” porridge in the tale of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Thus, when designing your own deep dive, prioritize compelling options that hit this sweet spot.

Actionable Strategies for Implementation

Synthesizing our accumulated expertise, we have distilled a set of practical guidelines to architect a potent and streamlined forgiveness deep dive tailored to your organization:

1. Target a defined community receptive to growth—preferably one eager to cultivate greater forgiveness.

2. Prioritize leadership involvement. Rally committed lay leaders with strong influence and broad networks. Urge administrators to champion participation vigorously, beyond superficial support. Assemble a sufficient team to share the workload effectively.

3. Define three tiers of objectives: Heighten awareness, deliver education (covering forgiveness definitions, benefits, and free intervention access), and foster skill-building for forgiving while optimizing mental health.

4. Customize activities to fit your audience. Select options that resonate with your group's preferences! Incorporate evidence-based practices demanding active effort on specific hurts. Aim for commitments that are time-intensive yet manageable, effortful without exhaustion, and varied without excess.

5. Persuade participants of forgiveness's attainability through deliberate practice. Minimal involvement (up to three activities) offers scant returns; four to 13 activities deliver escalating benefits.

6. Minimize attrition by leveraging established groups where loyalty exists, capping deep dives at seven weeks for faith communities or one month for universities. For newly formed forgiveness groups, constrain session durations and total meetings, clearly communicating their finite nature.

7. Align church deep dives with significant seasons such as Lent, Advent, or Yom Kippur preparations. For universities, steer clear of exam periods like midterms or finals.

Each of us belongs to multiple communities, and we recognize how lingering resentments can sour interactions when they surface. Public and mental health campaigns rarely eliminate issues entirely, yet they can make meaningful dents.

It's invigorating to ponder hypothetical scenarios. Imagine if a single local forgiveness drive could halve this year's interpersonal friction. What if it prompted someone nursing a grudge against you to release it? Consider the ripple effects on your partner or children. What if you yourself grew more forgiving? If this evolved into a standard community tool, might it truly improve the world?