Is this “forgiveness”? I would hesitate to call this response—and many Amish responses—by this term. I have several observations of the letter, informed in part by my own years of immersion among Amish and closely related groups. Here’s what I’m seeing:

Ending the fuss: The letter’s phrase “closed, forgiven, dead and buried” appears aimed at stopping ongoing talk and unwanted attention. This suggests the Amish may regret involving authorities due to the resulting commotion. The letter serves as a polite but firm request to let the matter rest.

Pragmatism vs. emotion: The letter emphasizes practical and good-spirited—but also peremptory—resolution rather than emotional catharsis. “All is taken care of” suggests a matter-of-fact approach to conflict resolution, not an emphasis on forgiveness, reconciliation, justice, or a transformative process.

Understating to minimize: The incident itself is barely mentioned, with no elaboration on feelings, damages, or police involvement. New readers would know nothing about what actually happened. This understated rhetorical approach contrasts sharply with emotionally charged mainstream narratives of forgiveness that may require revisiting what happened.

Refocusing on routine: By wishing the football team well in a return to future games and mentioning a recent community benefit, the authors redirect attention to normal activities. Routine helps bury upsetting and embarrassing events. For Amish, resolving a Chiss (a fuss) frequently involves parties “laying low” until everything “blows over” and people have moved on to something else, that is, focused on routine or another Chiss. Nothing should remain reminding people of this incident. Forgotten.

Emotional detachment: While expressing well-wishes for the football team, the letter shows no intent to build closer relationships with the offenders. It maintains a clear emotional distance. Even the acknowledgement of community support for a recent Amish benefit auction is non-emotional, albeit grateful, e.g. support being “beyond our expectations” rather than “made us feel extremely grateful.”

Silencing and distracting as avoiding potential systemic problems: After closing the matter, a significant portion of the letter draws attention to positive community interactions. This pivot potentially deflects attention from systemic issues triggering “what happened.” Perhaps it was a random act of violence. But if this case of harassment reflects deeper one- or two-way resentments and grievances, those systemic problems remain unaddressed and, perhaps, even more deeply buried since this case must be closed without further conversation.

Religious framing: Despite a brief religious reference that signals religious identity, the letter doesn’t frame the response as religiously motivated. This contrasts with how Amish forgiveness is often portrayed, as deeply religious. Possibly, the writers may not want the public to dissect their religious beliefs on forgiveness so didn’t disclose, but we have no material to examine.

Reluctant public engagement: Amish individuals often handle problems in as small a group as possible, avoiding wider attention, whether for a Chiss within the group or beyond. Yet, individuals routinely talk about happenings in these thick social networks. The fact that some Amish individuals issued a written statement speaks to the unusual level of intervention in this case. For many Amish, writing something creates a sense of official acknowledgement that the issue exists beyond mere talk, representing an escalation beyond what other cultures may feel.

Community forgiveness? Or individual anonymity? Do unsigned letters represent “The Amish” as a community collectively forgiving? Actually, it probably serves other purposes, namely, to keep from further formalizing/escalating the situation, which happens when individuals are named, and blunt any focus on individuals (including from potential misquotes from rumors), so all impacts of the letter are diffused across the population. You can’t pin down one person. 

Audience: Us and Them: The letter seems carefully crafted to speak to two parties with two goals: Amish (this letter represents “our” consensus) and non-Amish (thanks for being kind, now please stop talking about this). The authors may be suggesting a unified community consensus not because consensus exists but as a way to end variations in attitudes. Only certain individuals have the internal rapport to write this letter, and community members likely know who they are: the final consensus forgers.

In sum, the Amish letter is aimed at deflecting added attention to the Amish people and individuals, and it strategizes ways to end the buzz. While I do not fully know if this is what the letter’s writers were thinking, I find my interpretation falling within a range of reasonable possibilities among the Amish. The popular “forgiveness” narrative, though, is not supported.