Rabbi Nathan Goldberg on the potential use of forgiveness in recovery from childhood incest and sexual abuse

Of Cheap Grace, Radical Redemption and Compound Sinfulness*

For centuries, science and religion have vacillated between conflict and creative tension. One area of potential therapeutic fertility is working with patients/clients in the area of forgiveness. This article focuses on using forgiveness as a therapeutic tool in working with people who are recovering from childhood incest or sexual abuse. Some research on this subject seems to indicate that forgiveness offers fertile ground for healing. Other views provide a more sober, if not contrary, view.

Snyder and Heinz found utility in the use of forgiveness therapy: “As posited, overall forgiveness [of self and situation] mediated the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)-hostility relationship and the forgiveness of self and situation were strong mediators.”[1] In particular, “forgiveness is the means by which a person reframes the negative bond of PTSD to the experienced hostility so that these undesired thoughts and feelings of anger are diminished.”[2] Similarly, Hebel and Enright found the victim’s ability to forgive the perpetrator facilitated a “reduction in negative self-referenced feelings.”[3] Two caveats here include, “one cannot infer causality from the present data,”[4] and Snyder and Heinze were not exploring forgiveness of the perpetrator, the most controversial aspect of this article.

Potential Critiques

The American religious scene is often referred to as “Judeo-Christian.” While this term may be meaningful in articulating some of the common roots and approaches of the two religions, it fails to comprehend some of the inherent differences in the two distinct approaches of Judaism and Christianity. This is true in the area of attitudes toward and theology of unforgivable offenses. Studies in this area found that Jews would “agree more”[5] than their Protestant counterparts that certain offenses were unforgivable. Indeed, they found that as the Jewish respondents reported a higher degree of religious commitment, they were also more inclined to assert that certain offenses were indeed unforgivable. “Among Protestants, being a religious person is strongly associated with believing that no offenses are unforgivable, whereas among Jews, this relationship does not exist.”[6]

Indeed Judaism does have a tradition of offenses which are unforgivable.[7] Thus, the unreflecting caregiver may actually trample their patients’ own spirituality if they push forgiveness without examining the place of forgiveness in the patient’s approach to life. Therapists, therefore, must tread carefully and ascertain their patients’ need to forgive before moving forward toward the use of forgiveness in therapy.

Whereas the study on the diversity of views between Jews and Protestants provides a cautionary perspective on the potential use of forgiveness in post-abuse therapy, Sharon Lamb provides a virulent attack not only on its potential efficacy but also on the mere premise of using forgiveness in abuse instances. In her chapter from the book Before Forgiving: Cautionary Views of Forgiveness in Psychotherapy (which she edited), Lamb lambastes the notion that forgiveness should or could be used in sexual abuse/incest recovery. Using Eugene Fisher (an essayist in The Sunflower) as a springboard, Lamb labels the potential use of forgiveness in these cases as the therapist committing “yet another sin”[8] against the patient.

Lamb posits that giving forgiveness to “non repentant wrongdoers” may do “more damage than good.”[9] She continues with a cogent feminist critique that this type of forgiveness “is dangerous and plays into deep [harmful] stereotypes of women’s essential nature.”[10] Lamb posits that for a person to authentically forgive a non-repentant perpetrator, the patient would need “agency” (autonomy). In many of these cases, forgiveness may be more “coerced” [11] rather than autonomous.

This approach can end up demonizing the victims, either implicitly or explicitly, if they have difficulty in forgiving their offenders. This point also connects to the aforementioned critique of undermining the therapeutic endeavor by playing into harmful stereotypes of women, who have long been asked to value giving to others over taking care of themselves.

Perhaps an even more pernicious risk, according to Lamb, comes along with the “Christian view that we forgive others because we want to be forgiven ourselves.”[12] This places the victim at risk of losing Grace if she cannot forgive. If this is so, why open that Pandora’s box? The risk far outweighs the reward – if there is one. Factor in women’s “ambivalent feelings, especially with negative emotions like anger,” and the potential misuse of forgiveness in this type of therapy is even more sobering.[13]

Snyder and Heinz also seem to lend some more justification to Lamb’s worry about forgiving the offender as well: “such therapeutic interventions may be misguided in that it may be more useful to focus on helping the survivor forgive him/herself and the abuse situation rather than on having the survivor forgive the transgressing persons.”[14]

Thus, the literature on the subject of using forgiveness as a tool/goal in therapy is ripe with conflict and ambiguity. Different researchers use different tools and definitions of forgiveness. Some that advocate its use admit that more research needs to be done to conclude its effectiveness. Still others challenge both the premise that forgiveness is a useful tool and the ethical implications of using it in the first place. Additionally, there has been little exploration in terms of the religious, cultural, and ethnic attitudes towards forgiveness and how they may or may not inform the therapeutic endeavor as it deals with post-childhood incest/sexual abuse recovery.

Toward that end what is needed is a theological anthropology of forgiveness that is created in dialogue with faith traditions and the scientific community. Some of the questions that need to be answered by theologians, therapists, chaplains, researchers and others include:

1. Is there a basic human need to forgive?
If yes, this would be a strong impetus to move forward with research. If this is not a fundamental human need, then the therapeutic community must answer what need they are filling and how they can justify this approach with the potential ethical limitations before proceeding in forgiveness therapy.

2. What are the parameters/limits of a (divine) obligation/goal to forgive?
This question maintains importance especially as we explore how different faith traditions approach forgiveness.

3. How does forgiving inform the forgivers moving toward wholeness (or does it)?
Whether it is the relieving of symptoms, achieving greater self-esteem, emotional catharsis, or reconciliation with the Holy, researchers need to be focused on just what forgiveness may accomplish.

4. Are there other ways to achieve this?
After question 3 is answered, the next step will be to ascertain if there are other therapeutic approaches that may accomplish the same outcome. If so, then why use forgiveness, especially given the aforementioned ethnic, cultural, and gender issues that lead the prospective therapist into some cloudy waters?

5. What are the strengths and limitations of the answers to the previous questions in terms of how they impact the therapeutic endeavor?

6. How is this definition informed by culture, gender, and religious issues?
Even if one were to divorce the theological from the therapeutic, the sensitive scholar would still have to address issues such as gender and culture within each discipline. How is the pastoral theologian’s stance impacted by the bifurcation of Judaism and Christianity with regard to forgiveness? Even if one were to focus along religious lines, how do theologians reflect upon the strengths and weaknesses of their own religious approaches?[15] Similarly, how does the therapist reconcile conflicting social, gender, and cultural issues within therapy?

7. What are the ethical implications of this/these approaches?
To forgive or not to forgive, that is the question. Ironically, depending on perspective and underlying assumptions, both approaches can engender an ethical problem. Thorough evaluation is necessary to move forward in either direction.

* This is a segment of a much longer thesis.

Footnotes:

[1] C. R. Snyder and Laura S. Heinze “Forgiveness as a Mediator of the relationship between PTSD and Hostility in Survivors of Childhood Abuse,” Cognition and Emotion, 2005, 19 (3), 413.
[2] Ibid., 415.
[3] Enright, R. , North, J. & Tutu, D. eds. Exploring Forgiveness. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998, 26.
[4] Ibid., 426.
[5] Cohen, Malka, Rozin, and Cherfas, Religion and Unforgivable Offenses, 97.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Moses Maionides Hilchot Teshuva, Chapters 3 & 4.
[8] Lamb, 155.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Lamb, 156.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Lamb, 161.
[13] Lamb, 162.
[14] Snyder, 427.
[15] For an example of this, vide Margaret Kennedy, “Christianity and Child Sexual Abuse - the Survivor’s voice Leading to Change” Child Abuse Review, Vol. 9: 124-141, 2000.

Herbert W. Helm Jr., Jonathan R. Cook, and John M. Berecz .“The Implications of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Forgiveness for Sexual Abuse,” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 1, September 2005, 23.

Bibliography:

Cohen, Adam B. and Malka, Ariel and Rozin, Paul and Cherfas, Lina. “Religion and Unforgivable Offenses,” Journal of Personality, February 2006, Vol. 74, 85-117.

Enright, Robert D. Forgiveness Is a Choice: A Step-By-Step Process for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001.

Enright, R. , North, J. & Tutu, D. eds. Exploring Forgiveness. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998.

Enright,Robert D. and Freedman, Suzanne, and Rique, Julio. “The Psychology of Interpersonal Forgiveness,” Exploring Forgiveness. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1998.

Greenberh, Anna. Grande Soy Vanilla Latte with Cinnamon, No Foam: Jewish Identity and Community in a Time of Unlimited Choices. PDF can be found at http://www.rebooters.net/index.php?site=reboot&page=rbt_usethesetools. Accessed 6/02/08.

Helm, Herbert W. and Cook, Jonathan R. and Berecz, John M. “The Implications of conjunctive and Disjunctive Forgiveness for Sexual Abuse.” Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 1, September 2005.

Kennedy, Margaret. “Christianity and Child Sexual Abuse- the Survivor’s voice Leading to Change,” Child Abuse Review, 2000, Vol. 9: 124-141.

Lamb, Sharon. Before Forgiving: Cautionary Views of Forgiveness in Psychotherapy. New York: Oxford, 2002.

Maimonides, Moses. Hilchot Teshuva, Chapters 3 & 4.

Snyder, C. R. and Heinze, Laura S. “Forgiveness as a Mediator of the relationship between PTSD and Hostility in Survivors of Childhood Abuse” Cognition and Emotion, 2005, 19 (3) 413-431.

Wiesenthal, Simon. The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness. New York: Schocken, 1997.

Wise, Caroll. Pastoral Psychotherapy: Theory and Practice. New York: Aronson, 1983.

Do you have thoughts about LongView you’d like to share with your colleagues? Send an e-mail of any length to info@PlainViews.org.