Enright The Church As A Process Model Summary

The article, “The Church as Forgiving Community: An Initial Model by Magnuson and Enright (2008) is about the necessity and benefits of forgiveness among family, community, and the church. The authors posit that research studies have shown that the act or process of forgiveness reduces angst, depression, and intense feelings of resentment and hostility; and strengthens self- esteem, hope, and positive feelings and emotions. According to Magnuson and Enright, the general notion of forgiveness originated in the Bible, and the Scriptures call to mind that forgiveness is relevant in “divine- human relationship also person-person relationships” (p. 114). The authors diligently pointed out that to forgive is not to accept and allow, fail to remember,
or necessarily restore friendly relations between, rather it is to offer mercy to someone who has acted in an unjust manner. For instance, followers of Christ are impelled to forgive because God has forgiven them through Jesus (of the Bible). Forgiving is a matter of attitude, letting go of resentment, and implementing a favorable response toward an offender.
Despite the fact that forgiveness has been part of the Church’s message for a thousand years, the subject sparked the interest of some social scientists approximately twenty years ago when Smedes, Worthington, and DiBlasio introduced the topic (as cited in Magnuson & Enright, 2008).
The thing that stands out the most was the formation of process models or comprehensive account of how persons deal with forgiving others. The two most cited models are Enright’s process model and Worthington’s REACH model, in which the forgiver moves from one point to another or through four phases of Enright’s model (p. 114). The process involves first admitting the pain and surveying the injustice. The second is taking a look at forgiveness and setting one’s mind on working toward forgiveness. The third point is expressing and generating empathy and compassion for the guilty party and bearing the pain. The fourth is the outcome or healing takes place (Freedman, Enright, & Knutson, as cited in Magnuson & Enright, 2008). Of fourteen published forgiveness interventions, empathy was an essential
component.
Persons progress at the pace that suits them during the forgiveness process through 20 steps organized into the four forgiveness steps mentioned above, disregarding some and reconsidering or discussing others. In a string of studies “using the gold standard randomized, experimental and control group designs with follow- up testing” (p. 114), Enright and associates have shown that the use of a road map to experience forgiving someone who has acted unjustly is beneficial to emotional health. For instance, participants with many different types of hurts who used the road map experienced noticeable reductions in anger, hopelessness, stress, grief, and post-traumatic stress (PTSD). Moreover, the same participants showed significant increases in forgiveness, self-respect, hope, optimism, psychological well-being, and meaning in the bearing of pain and distress. In Worthington’s model, the forgiver (R) brings the memory back to his or her mind in a supportive surrounding or environment, constructs (E) empathy, through different exercises, for the one who has acted unjustly, offers an (A) altruistic gift of forgiveness to the wrongdoer, acknowledging that, previously to the present, one has produced a feeling of pain or discomfort to others, and (C), commits publicly to the forgiveness one has been given, and (H) holds onto the forgiveness that one has obtained (Wade & Worthington, as cited in Magnuson & Enright, 2008).
Psychophysiological data pointed out that adopting the REA steps (Worthington’s earlier model) following a violation or wrong, leads to reduce physiological stress responses and quicken control than does holding on to resentments (Witvliet, Ludwig, & VanderLaan, as cited in Magnuson & Enright, 2008). Later studies revealed that the full REACH model steps produced greater effects on helping participants to overcome their unforgiveness over time, in which showed gains in forgiveness more so than the shorter REA model. In sum, various research studies have shown that forgiving and being forgiven responses correlate with lower blood pressure levels and increased heart health. Understandable, then, is the idea that forgiveness is of vital importance for psychological, physical, and relational health (p. 115). What then, if the forgiveness process helps persons to cope and resolve conflicts in adulthood, then can the literature equip and aid children in the learning forgiveness process so as to meet head on injustices in a healthy manner when they are grown?
Magnuson and Enright found that to set about promoting good moral character in children they developed a three-tiered holistic psychoeducational method called “The Forgiving Communities,” that can be practiced by family, school, and the Church.
The goal, on the one hand, is to help children to learn about the theory of forgiveness, and on the other, The Forgiving Communities approach is to strengthen the understanding and encouragement of forgiveness by parents, educators, and pastoral leadership in their personal and professional practices, as they help the children. The authors maintained that the notion of interpersonal forgiveness needed to reach beyond marital relationships, families, and schools and explored within the religious arena. (p. 116). This article presents a model of an education plan in the context of a Christian congregation: “The Church as Forgiving Community” (p.116) that has its roots in God’s love and found in the Holy Bible. The model composes several levels of forgiveness education that occur at set times each year to develop a culture of forgiveness that is part of the congregation’s makeup not in spurts but throughout life. the Pastor, associate ministers, children’s minister, youth minister, music minister, couples, families, and individual ministers. Forgiveness “creates a new context and capacity for community, in which forgiven forgivers live paradoxically, in communities of broken yet restored community” (Jones, as cited in Magnuson &
Enright, 2008, p. 116). Forgiveness is of the utmost importance for communities to develop and thrive, thus, pastors and church leaders need to be encouraged to set a time each year that focuses and speaks on the morality of forgiveness.
Interaction
I feel that the article is representative of a subject that needs to be spoken of and practiced more often amongst society and the church singularly and collectively.