Sample Article Review Paper on : The Church as Forgiving Community: An initial Model

Summary

Scriptures make the depiction of forgiveness appropriate not just in the heavenly-human affiliation, but also in person-person dealings. Forgiving does not signify ignoring, excusing, overlooking, or reconciling, but offering mercy to people that have acted unfairly. People who have a broad scope of hurts have faced statistically considerable decreases in fury, despair, anxiety, sorrow, and post-traumatic depression signs, and statistically considerable increases in forgiveness, self-worth, anticipation, positive feelings, environmental control, and getting meaning in affliction. Current empirical research has revealed that forgiveness interventions reduce nervousness, stress, and fury, and this led to Magnuson and Enright (2008) recommending a three-leveled holistic psycho-educational advance referred to as “The Forgiving Communities,” with the purpose of targeting three mutually supporting groups that include the family, church, and school. Enright’s process model and Worthington’s REACH model accord importance to forgiveness. The purpose of The Forgiving Communities is to assist children to gain more understanding concerning the issue of forgiveness and to assist parents, educators, and spiritual leaders strengthen their comprehension, individual practice, and support of forgiveness as they assist children.

Most people understand that human beings gain knowledge more strongly when they try to educate children. The greatly advanced element of this advance is the education system (Magnuson & Enright, 2008). The authors demonstrate an original formation of the church as a forgiving society, comprising of different ranks of forgiveness learning aimed at cultivating a civilization of forgiveness in addition to the anticipation that forgiveness is a section of the existence of the congregation. The teaching of forgiveness targets the spiritual leaders as well as every stage of development, from childhood to old age. Over and above integrating forgiveness into small groupings and edifying chances, the leadership of the church ought to be supported in designating a given period of every year to highlight the good value of forgiveness.

Possibly, churches could call outstanding speakers once per annum to tackle the virtue of forgiveness. Perhaps, such a period of the year could be suitable for providing forgiveness conferences or retreats (Magnuson & Enright, 2008). In such a manner, individuals would greatly enjoy and remember an annual practice of forgiveness. Integrating multi-sensory practices of forgiveness instead of concentrating on reasoning alone will result in longer-lasting conduct and behavior transformation, and assist in the development of a Forgiving Community.

Reflection

The article sought to train children and the community to forgive and inculcate the forgiving model (Magnuson & Enright, 2008). A way of inculcating the forgiving model was for people to gain understanding from practicing forgiveness, and realize that one has to forgive since he/she has also been forgiven by others. Enright’s process model and Worthington’s REACH model put emphasis on forgiveness with Enright’s process model offering four levels of forgiveness that encompass revealing fury, choosing to forgive, practicing forgiveness, and the result. The article affirms that this guideline to forgiveness essentially assists in the emotional well-being of the victims. Worthington’s REACH model contributes to forgiveness by affirming that an encouraging environment assists in the provision of sympathy for the offender where sympathy is crucial to the practice of forgiveness.

Insights could be gained from the article’s emphasis on the forgiving community model as it greatly concentrates on teaching the forgiving model (Magnuson & Enright, 2008). The comprehension of forgiveness as a model in the place of worship in different stages of its hierarchy is greatly perceptive since it results in a purpose-focused background. On this note, people should not exclude others who wrong them but should cultivate a way of life of residing in the practice of forgiveness. The reasons for the interest in the topic are that when forgiveness is practiced and appreciated by the forgiven, the forgiver finds and comprehends the benefits of residing in a world filled with humility, and people desire to be reinstated into complete companionship with each other. Future research interest founded on the topic should initiate forgiveness interventions to assist in the reinforcement of the forgiving practice.

Application

As a pastor in our local church, one day Esther, a woman member of the church, approached me requiring help for his husband’s infidelity. Her husband had an affair five months ago and from that time, she had developed a great hatred and lost trust towards him for the betrayal. She wanted to continue in the marriage but had a hard time forgiving him. The inability to forgive had disturbed her and she needed to recover. I started by telling her that she would heal and save her marriage if only she would be able to forgive her husband and talk it out with him. Admitting that she was wronged is the first step to forgiveness and healing (Magnuson & Enright, 2008). I advised her to develop the eagerness to let go.

Eagerness does not denote that she had to know the way to go about it, but she was willing to do it. Moreover, I informed her that such an act of infidelity was five percent concerning the situation and ninety-five percent regarding her reaction to it. The triumph would be realized if she were in a position to change her psychological reaction from viewing herself as a victim to considering herself a survivor. Attempting to forgive was the key step to forgiving and since healing is a progression, I advised Esther to love her husband, show him affection, and pray for their marriage and with time she would triumph over it.

Reference

Magnuson, C. M., & Enright, R. D. (2008). The church as forgiving community: An initial model. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 36(2), 114-123