Decision-Based Forgiveness with Devout Christian Couples and Families: A 40-Year-Old Evidence-Informed Intervention

Although forgiveness is a concept discussed and written about through the centuries and has always been a part of spiritual and human relationship dynamics, it has only been during the last forty years that it appears in professional research and clinical therapeutic literature. The first forgiveness session I conducted was approximately in 1982 (see Worthington & DiBlasio, 1990 for an early conceptual/practice paper presenting this case). Now the clinical use of forgiveness is considered an evidence-based practice with hundreds of research studies and clinical conceptual and application literature. Forgiveness interventions have demonstrated effectiveness not only to bring about forgiveness, but also have been instrumental in mending fractured relationships, encouraging empathy, increasing relationship satisfaction, bringing about better physical and mental health, and many other benefits (for reviews and meta-analyses: see Chen et al., 2024; Freedman & Enright, 2020; Toussaint et al., 2020; Wade et al., 2014; Wade & Tittler, 2020; Webb & Toussaint, 2020).

The two approaches most often found effective in empirical research literature are Enright’s Process Model (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2024; Freeman & Enright, 2020) and Worthington’s REACH Model (Worthington & Wade, 2020). However, this paper focuses on Decision-Based Forgiveness (DBF) as an evidence-informed model that is well suited for promoting forgiveness with devout Christian couples and families (and others as well). DBF has strategically blended Scriptural evidence with four other strong areas of evidence-based practice: forgiveness, family systemic theories, cognitive behavior therapy, and neurobiology.

Two objectives guide this paper: (1) to briefly describe the DBF approach along with a brief overview of forgiveness Scriptures and present a case study with a four-year follow-up; and (2) to emphasize a call to the helping professions to be more open to evidence-informed innovation. Building on Nevo & Slonim-Nevo (2011, p. 1193), I define evidence-informed practice as: a logical synthesis of evidence-based practices and empirical research, clinical practice experience and judgment, context of intervention, and values and culture (including spirituality).

Forgiveness Scripture as Evidence

Although an admitted departure from the common perspective of scientific logical positivism as experimentally verifiable, I and many (but not all) devout Christians view Scripture as a source of truth and worthy for use as evidence in its own right (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Therefore, any therapeutic intervention correctly aligned with this evidence possesses an important aspect of evidence-informed practice. Three important forgiveness related areas of Scripture can be categorized as Divine Forgiveness, Interpersonal Forgiveness, and Forgiveness Related Topics (such as loving others, mercy, anger, revenge, reconciliation, and so forth). (See DiBlasio, 1999 for a discussion and comprehensive presentation on these and other related Scripture.)

The most pervasive theme of the Scriptures related to interpersonal forgiveness is that God requires [humans to forgive] others. Most of the references to interpersonal forgiveness stress this component (for example, see Matthew 6:12, 14-15; 18:21-22, 35; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:37; 11:4; Colossians 3:13). Perhaps most striking is Matthew 6:14 where Jesus said that if we forgive people when they sin against us, the Father will also forgive us. The converse is then given in Matthew 6:15: “But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (NKJV). These two verses are designed to work in tandem to make it unmistakable that, for the Christian, forgiving others is a requirement. (The same tandem message is found in Mark 11:25-26.) Interestingly, these verses appear directly after the well-known “Lord’s Prayer” verses (Matthew 6:9-13) in which Jesus is teaching the disciples how to pray. Among all the items in the Lord’s Prayer lesson, Jesus [likely] felt it necessary in the verses directly following (Matt. 6:14-15) to highlight the importance of interpersonal forgiveness. (DiBlasio, 1999, pp. 248 & 250).

No Scriptures were found that promote the concept that God approves a time delay to forgive. In fact, just the opposite is clearly delineated in Scripture: Unforgiveness is listed among several sinful categories (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:1-5; Romans 1:28-32) and given that forgiveness is considered right, James 4:17 says when we do not do what is right, it is sin. According to Jesus unforgiveness has dire consequences (Matthew 18:32-35). Numerous Scriptures give humans ways that they can deal with hurt and anger that provide hope for healing. God created humans with a neurobiological system built to be forgiving and promote healing without sin (e.g., see DiBlasio et al., 2014).

Immediate Forgiveness

The Scriptural reality of the possibilities that one can immediately forgive are gently presented and discussed along with many uplifting benefits of Scriptural forgiveness. Over the years doing DBF sessions, I have found that Scripture works, and that lasting forgiveness can be sought and granted by willing clients in one day (or even in one moment) if they choose. I remind clients who forgive that if feelings of anger or negative thoughts reoccur about the forgiven offense, this is not necessarily considered unforgiveness since a well-informed forgiveness decision was made during the session. I provide recommendations of how to address negative emotions if they occur afterwards.

Providing some focus on the above is one of the primary differences DBF has compared with the Enright Process Model and Worthington REACH Model. Another related difference is that DBF has resulted in lasting forgiveness decisions granted between family members after a long session in one day. For example, DiBlasio (2010) reports on a four-year follow-up: “The couple was convinced that the forgiveness that day was genuine, lasted over the years, and provided them a ‘life-changing’ experience” (p. 299).

It is human nature that most people take time to forgive. The Enright Process Model and the Worthington Model emphasize this human propensity. However, DBF is not designed around this human propensity, but instead focuses on the freedom of people to make forgiveness urgent. There is little debate that true and lasting forgiveness often takes place at the bedside of a dying family member where time is of the essence.

Negative emotions seem to vanish in favor of willful efforts to achieve forgiveness. Seldom will others claim that the forgiveness was too quick, unhealthy, or false when it comes at the time of life and death situations. One of the primary factors involved during a time of crises is “urgency.” Forgiveness matters are elevated as high urgent priority because time is short and there may not be any time left to wait. Therefore, human beings have a choice regarding their own destiny. They have the ability to choose the urgency in which they want to seek or grant forgiveness.” (DiBlasio, 2011 pp. 25-26)

God gives humans all they need to fulfill His will (heart, mind, and soul) and this includes making His priorities urgent.

A Call for Including Evidence-Informed Practice with Evidence-Based

The scientific process is enhanced as both empiricism and clinical practice innovation are freely evaluated. DBF serves as a direct example of how the two relate. Potentially, mental health interventions for helping devout Christians can be better developed if more credence is given to innovation and clinical experience.

This method of conducting forgiveness sessions has some empirical evidence of effectiveness (e.g., DiBlasio & Benda, 2008; DiBlasio, 2010). Conducting forgiveness sessions with DBF has been field tested by me for over forty years, single-case studies have been published, and DBF is cited by those writing on forgiveness. In addition, DBF has been featured in DVD training productions, workshop presentations at national and international organizations (AAMFT, AACC, NASW, CAPS, and NACSW), and has been featured in national televised programs.

Whereas there are many advantages to data-driven evidence, recent concerns have developed that the overuse of evidence-based as a means test for understanding forgiveness can interfere at some level with the free flow and progression of scholarship of ideas and clinical techniques that work with clients. For example, if the current-day standards of empirical evidence-based research needed for publication of scholarship existed in the 1970s, it would have significantly stifled the development of family therapy. In addition, evidence-based research has its limitations, for example: (a) more complicated designs are costly and are avoided; (b) designs rely heavily on easy and cost-effective methodologies; (c) convenient samples (i.e. college/graduate students) are used; (d) some therapeutic studies have small sample sizes; and (e) studies often use subjects who are unrelated, therefore forgiveness data about family groupings is limited. (See Nevo & Slonim-Nevo, 2011 for other limitations of evidence-based empiricism.)

I argue that the next level of theory development for forgiveness interventions needs to encourage and publish independent conceptual treatment innovation and broaden the concept of evidence-based to include evidence-informed that invite new ideas and innovation. Although the three forgiveness models discussed here were developed independently of each other, all three now contain many similar characteristics. Therefore, DBF is now considered an evidence-informed intervention as it has evidence-based concepts from the empirical forgiveness literature (interesting to note that DBF has used these concepts from the beginning). DBF may be further along in integration of evidence-informed practice than the other two models because, as previously mentioned, DBF synthesizes a total of five evidence areas: (1) Scripture; (2) forgiveness empirical studies (see above for references); (3) Systemic Family Therapy Models (such as Structural and Strategic Family Therapies) (Sprinkle et al., 2012; Stratton et al., 2015 Sexton et al., 2013); (4) cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (e.g., Hoffman et al., 2012; Fischer et al., 2016); and (5) developments in neurobiological science about the role of upper brain structures with the limbic system, neurobiological release of adrenaline, oxytocin and cortisol, etc. (See DiBlasio et al., 2014 for references.)

Brief Description of the Decision-Based Forgiveness Steps

DBF is designed to help couples and families resolve past and current issues. Although space allotted here does not allow a full description of the steps, they are more fully explained in several places (e.g., DiBlasio, 1999, 2000, 2010). Each person decides if they want to do a forgiveness session, and if so, when in the timing of the therapy to do it. I recommend bringing it up at the beginning of a therapy so that clients have a full range of self-determination of timing which includes the beginning. Interestingly, most clients, regardless of their religious/spiritual perspective (including atheistic and agnostic) choose at the beginning.

The first three DBF steps are:

1. Definitions of forgiveness are discussed;
2. The focus on each person having the opportunity to seek forgiveness for his or her wrongful actions is established (that is, each participant is guided to choose an offense that they take accountability for and admit was wrong); and
3. Introduction to the forgiveness treatment and decision whether to participate. These three steps constitute a defining and contracting phase of DBF.

In the next phase, one person is chosen to begin step 4 and continue to step 12. Then a second person does the same steps, 4 through 12. This continues in turn until all who are present have an opportunity. The steps of this phase are:

1. Statement of the offense is made;
2. Offender provides an explanation;
3. Questions and answers about the offense;
4. Offended person gives emotional reactions;
5. Offender provides empathy to the offended person;
6. Offender develops plan to stop/prevent behavior;
7. The offended person identifies with the offender’s hurt;
8. Emphasis on choice and commitment involved in letting go; and
9. Formal request for forgiveness.

When all have completed their turn, the therapist suggests the last step:

1. Ceremonial act to celebrate the forgiveness decisions made.

A Case Study

The following is a case (with highly disguised identifying information) involving siblings: Lucia, 24 years old (oldest sibling) and her brother Sal, 14 years old (the youngest sibling of three children), as well as Lucia’s husband, Dante, also 24 years of age. Dante and Lucia were working on their relationship issues in marital therapy and seeking help in dealing with Sal, who came to live with them after Sal experienced significant conflict with his (and Lucia’s) father, Mr. Diaz. Some details of this case have been previously reported (DiBlasio et al., 2013). However, in this paper, new pertinent forgiveness session details are described below particularly relating to preparing for the forgiveness session, role playing a missing family member, and explaining in more detail steps 4 and 5: a statement of the offense is made and the offender provides an explanation. In addition, this paper includes a four-year follow-up of the case.

Background Information

Mr. Diaz was awarded custody of his three children when Sal was 4 years old. The children’s mother left the family (and state) to be with another man and had little contact with her children after she moved away. Sal reported that outside of a few calls over the years, he did not have many memories of his mother. When given opportunities in therapy to explore his feelings related to his mother, Sal consistently expressed no anger, resentment, or negative thinking toward her. Sal reported that his relationship with his two older sisters has always been positive and supportive. Perhaps the combined effect of the sisters, especially the eldest, Lucia, provided their baby brother alternative maternal-like love and nurturance.

One year prior to moving in with his sister and brother-in-law, Sal was expelled from school due to his repetitive disruptive behaviors. Because of this expulsion, Mr. Diaz attempted to homeschool Sal, but this led to constant arguments between the two. Sal had difficulty maintaining focus and completing tasks, which was usually attributed to his diagnosis of mild ADHD. However, Sal explained to me that he thought his problems extended past his ADHD diagnosis to being embroiled in a deep resentment toward his father because he viewed him as mean and controlling. Sal admitted that he was purposely stubborn and often would try to match wits with his father to frustrate him. To combat Sal’s noncompliance, Mr. Diaz would require more assignments and would require Sal to sit in his study chair until all assignments were completed. Instead of finishing his assignments, Sal would purposely not complete much of his work and instead would sit the required time in his chair. Mr. Diaz would respond with increasing restrictions which culminated in Sal being restricted for most days and weekends. The two were locked in a highly dysfunctional cycle that grew in intensity and exasperation. Finally, Lucia and Dante intervened and negotiated with Mr. Diaz to allow Sal to move into Lucia’s and Dante’s home (in another state), where they cared for Sal and supervised his homeschooling.

The DBF Intervention

Starting DBF and preparing for the forgiveness session

Sal was happy to live with his sister and brother-in-law, and immediately responded with increased appropriate behaviors and academic efforts. In time, however, Sal would occasionally resume old patterns of passive resistance, but this time with Lucia. Therefore, Dante and Lucia arranged for Sal to come for both individual sessions and family sessions with the two of them. During my initial individual and family session, Sal expressed that he “hated” his father, and wanted everyone to know that he would never see his father again. I spoke to Sal and Lucia about the decision-based forgiveness session. Sal was particularly fascinated when he heard that most people who go through the session end up deciding to forgive, that the decision was often a lasting one, and that they did not have to wait to feel the forgiveness first. After hearing a bit about the DBF session, the family was interested in scheduling an appointment for one.

Family members did not want to include Mr. Diaz for the forgiveness session because they believed that the tension and animosity between him and Sal would be so intense that it would be counterproductive. Lucia was also concerned that her father would be unpredictable and possibly revoke his permission for Sal to stay with the couple if something was not to his liking during the session. The desire of the family was honored, but it is important to comment that usually this is not the case, especially when I get permission from the family to contact the offender beforehand. During the call, I am usually able to connect with the person and find that a well-delivered personal invitation goes a long way in promoting their cooperation to come and constructively participate. In this case, however, I did not offer this contact option to the family because the risk was too great that the father might require Sal to return home.

Conducting the DBF session

The first three steps of the session (the defining and contracting phase) went quickly and smoothly, as all three family members described themselves as “committed” Christians and wanted the forgiveness session to be Christian-oriented. The family expressed that the decision-based forgiveness was in harmony with their Scriptural beliefs. Because the father would not be present, I gathered the family’s description of the father’s personality, their perceptions on how and what he might think, and his likely reactions had he come to the session. This information prepared me to role play the father and represent him for steps 4 through 12 of the forgiveness session. The family freely offered this information and gave me permission to use their perceptions to attempt a two-sided role play: (1) initially describe what the father may say given the description the family provided, then (2) saying what the father might say if he were accountable for his actions and thinking clearly. In the statement of the offense, I cautioned the family that there was a chance that if the father was present, he may not be able to articulate his offensive behavior. Therefore, I began with what the father should say to start on a positive note. Role playing the father I said: “I want to seek your forgiveness for the harsh punishments and unkind ways I have treated you. I was wrong. No father should treat a son in that way.” After this statement, Sal became less restless, had a few tears in his eyes, and began to look at me intently as I spoke because he was immediately emotionally touched by the statement.

In the explanation step, I started the role play with what I surmised may have been the explanation the father would give, such as focusing on Sal’s ADHD, his belligerence, and disrespectful and disruptive behaviors. However, I then shifted into what the father was likely to say if he were in touch with his feelings and the situation. The following are some selected statements I made as I role played the father: (a) “When your mother left, I was devastated, greatly hurt, confused, and felt hopeless as I lost my wife and had to figure out how to raise two girls and a boy alone while at the same time putting food on the table;” (b) “As the girls married and left the house I started to feel more hopeful and positive that my children were tuning out to be okay and that my parenting was working;” (c) “I thought you [Sal] would benefit from my parenting style as the girls did, but I learned very quickly that raising a boy presented me with new challenges. You were not as compliant as your sisters, and you were a lot more stubborn, much like me! I was not used to failing, but I did fail with you.” During the role play of the explanation, I noticed that everyone (including me) was gently crying. This emotional and cognitive experience caused the family to see the father in a new light. This led to a cognitive understanding that their father also had a story of hurt and pain. By gaining this deeper understanding, the family was able to experience an emotional vicarious connection to the father that led to a measure of empathy for him. Often in forgiveness sessions, forgiveness begins when an emotional connection like this is made.

Overall, the 13 steps of the forgiveness session had a profound effect on this family. Lucia and Sal left the session with a heart-felt forgiveness decision, and they felt empowered with a plan to establish future loving and respectful boundaries and a commitment to avoid their systemic role in the dysfunction. Sal was particularly committed to avoiding his negative interactional cycle with Mr. Diaz. Directly after the session, Sal also said he no longer felt resentment or anger, but instead understood his father in a new way. Sal commented that he not only forgave his dad during the session, but he now had a renewed hope for the future. The positive effects of the forgiveness session became a springboard to excellent results in a few therapy sessions that followed, and the case was successfully terminated.

The Four-Year Follow-Up

Four years after the forgiveness session, I noticed Sal’s forgotten journals in my cabinet and wanted to return them to him. I called to ask Sal if he would allow me to call him from a speaker phone a few weeks later to interview him during an upcoming forgiveness workshop presentation. Instead, we decided to coordinate the pick-up of his journals with a live surprise appearance by him and Dante at the workshop. I had a thorough conversation with Sal and was confident that this was not only safe for Sal and Dante but also would further enhance their positive forgiveness journeys. With permission, parts of the family forgiveness session video were shown to the participants and afterwards I assigned small work groups to meet and discuss what questions they would ask if the family were there to answer. To the participants’ surprise, at the designated time scheduled to address their questions, I called up Sal (now six inches taller!) and Dante who were sitting at the back of the auditorium awaiting that moment. One group asked them, “Was there a moment in the forgiveness session where you knew that your feelings changed toward your father?” Sal answered, “I will never forget when Dr. DiBlasio looked at me [while role playing] my dad and said he was wrong in treating me the way he did.” Sal was referring to the moment described above in the statement of the offense. It impressed me that after four years that memory was still held dearly by Sal (and me as well).

Sal and Dante explained that during the four-year period following the completion of the therapy, the family was successful in setting up a nurturing structure for Sal that led to not only a high school diploma, but also allowed him to mature and thrive. Sal reported that he began participating in a local church youth group, which provided him with peer encouragement, love and acceptance, wholesome and fun activity, and spiritual development. Within a short time after ending therapy, on his own initiative, Sal reported that he began calling his father. Sal said he practiced the skills he developed during the forgiveness session and the follow-up therapy. He said he saw his father in a new light and found the provided “brain information” (the neurobiological explanation) that sometimes applies to people who have a “mean streak” was very pertinent in his efforts to understand his father. Sal was determined when visiting his father not to let his father’s negative opinion and meanness influence him to become resentful, which in part led Sal to avoid negative cycles and instead engage in more peaceful conversations. Sal reported that months after the therapy, he was able to tell his father about the forgiveness decision that he made the day of the forgiveness session, and that he loved him. A couple of weeks later, the father had asked Sal for forgiveness and expressed his love for him. Since this interaction, Sal expressed that the two have enjoyed a more loving and peaceful father/son relationship over the four-year period.

Conclusion

In conclusion, forgiveness knowledge related to devout Christians will be enhanced if more attention is placed on treatment that includes both evidence-based and evidence-informed perspectives and knowledge. Concepts and practice techniques that are solely from one or the other may not be enough in creating future forgiveness interventions. DBF is one example of an approach using a combination of evidence-based and evidence-informed knowledge that has demonstrated the potential to help hurting clients to forgo months, or even years, of needless unforgiveness and anger. The decision-based forgiveness model presented here is highly congruent to Scripture and opens the door wide for devout Christians and others to living out forgiveness and love.

References

Chen, Z. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Cowden, R. G., Ortega Bechara, A., Toussaint, L. L., Ho, M. Y., Rodriguez, M. A., Mathur, M., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2024). Do forgiveness campaign activities improve forgiveness, mental health, and flourishing? International Journal of Public Health, in press.

DiBlasio, F. A. (1999). Scripture and Forgiveness: Interventions with Families and Couples. Marriage and Family: A Christian Journal, 3, 257-267.

DiBlasio, F. A. (2000). Decision-based forgiveness treatment in cases of marital infidelity. Psychotherapy, 37, 149-158.

DiBlasio, F. A. (2010). Christ-like forgiveness in marital counseling: A clinical follow-up of two empirical studies. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 29, 291-300.

DiBlasio, F. A. (2011). A time to forgive. Family therapy. A publication of The American Association of Marital and Family Therapy, Washington, DC, March/April 24-27.

DiBlasio, F. A. & Benda B. B. (2008). Forgiveness intervention with married couples: Two empirical analyses. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 150-158.

DiBlasio, F. A., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Jennings, D. J., II (2013). Forgiveness interventions with children, adolescents, and families. In D. F. Walker & W. L. Hathaway (Eds.). Spiritual interventions in child and adolescent psychotherapy. American Psychological Association (APA), Washington, DC.

DiBlasio, F. A., Hester, C., & Belcher, J.L. (2014). Emotional and interpersonal dyslexia: Thoughts toward a neurological theory of personality disorders. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 33, 374-384.

Enright, R. D. & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2024). Forgiveness therapy: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Fischer, M. S., Baucom, D. H., and Cohen, M. J. (2016). Cognitive-behavioral couple therapies: Review of the evidence for the treatment of relationship distress, psychopathology, and chronic health conditions. Family Process, 55(3), 424-442.

Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (2020). A review of the empirical research using Enright’s process model of interpersonal forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington, Jr., and N. G. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness, 2^nd ed. (pp. 266-276). New York: Routledge.

Hofmann, S., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I., Sawyer, A., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 36(5), 427–440.

Nevo, I., & Slonim-Nevo, V. (2011). The myth of evidence-based practice: Towards evidence-informed practice. The British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), 1176–1197.

Sexton, T. L., Datachi-Phillips, C., Evans, L. E., LaFollette, J., and Wright, L. (2013). The effectiveness of couple and family therapy interventions. In M. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (6th ed., pp. 587– 640). New York: Wiley.

Sprenkle, D. (2012) Intervention research in couple and family therapy: A methodological and substantive review and an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 3–29.

Stratton, P., Silver, E., Nascimento, N., McDonnell, L., Powell, G., and Nowotny, E. (2015). Couple and family therapy outcome research in the previous decade: What does the evidence tell us? Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 37(1), 112.

Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E. M., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2014). Meta-analysis of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(1), 154-170.

Wade, N. G. & Tittler, M. V. (2020). Psychological interventions to promote forgiveness of others: Review of empirical evidence. In E. L. Worthington, Jr. & N. G. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness, 2^nd ed. (pp. 255-265). New York: Routledge.

Webb, J. R., & Toussaint, L. L. (2020). Forgiveness, well-being, and mental health. In Everett L. Worthington, Jr. & Nathaniel G. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of forgiveness, 2^nd ed. (pp. 188-198). New York: Routledge.

Worthington, E.L., Jr. & DiBlasio, F.A. (1990). Promoting mutual forgiveness within the fractured relationship. Psychotherapy 27, 219-223.

Worthington, E.L., Jr. & Wade, N.G. (2020) Handbook of Forgiveness (2^nd Edition). New York: Routledge.