Page 11 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 4

In Figure 2 I compare my model with two established Psychology, is the basic definition of what is to be for-
American process models of forgiveness. The secular given, i.e., a wrong. In the secular models, the wrong—
psychological forgiveness models focus mainly on “how what is to be forgiven or that for which I myself want
to forgive others”, sometimes mentioning that “receiving forgiveness—can be only either purely subjectively defi-
forgiveness” can be important (but without being part of ned (wrong as the wronged person experiences or inter-
the model). The arrows in the diagram indicate the extent prets it), or defined by a social consensus about right and
to which I can recognize connections between the three wrong.
models in regards to content. The basic similarity in all In contrast, my Christian psychological model looks to
three models is that they all seek to conceive of forgive- the Bible to understand what guilt, wrong, or to use the
ness as a complex process that runs its course in phases, biblical term, sin, are. This leads directly to a second dif-
and if necessary, this process can require a good deal of ference from these secular models: the Bible describes
time. In its conception, a model must be differentiated wrong as a multidimensional entity. The first dimension
enough to be able to portray various ways that forgiven- is personal acts, the second dimension is personal inner
ess can come about while still maintaining enough order attitudes, the third dimension is relationship, interper-
as a model to remain somewhat researchable, and also to sonally or transcendently, and the fourth dimension is
serve as a map for those working practically in the field of being subdued to sin in my own existence. These are not
forgiveness. All three models fulfill these requirements. different forms of sins but a multidimensional design of
I will briefly explain the two other models. every sin: If somebody does something wrong, at least if
For Magnuson and Enright (2008) the forgiver moves it is repeatedly and not only by chance, this deed roots in
through four phases: uncovering anger (acknowledging an inner attitude which is more or less (sub)conscious (cf.
the pain and exploring the injustice), deciding to forgi- Carson et al., 2009). This deed has always implications
ve (exploring forgiveness and making a commitment to of relation and responsibility: With the wrong I violate
work toward forgiveness), working on forgiveness (refra- healthy relationships to me, to the other(s), to the creati-
ming and developing empathy and compassion for the on, to rules/commandments/conscience, and ultimately
offender and bearing the pain), and outcome (experien- to God. At the same time, I come into destructive relati-
cing healing). onship with the evil and idolatrized parts of the creation.
The Shults and Sandage (2003) model is quite holistic and At last every wrong has a connection to forces outside of
theologically grounded. They propose the following sta- me, including all kinds of evil beings, evil things, evil tra-
ges: ditions and so on, without erasing my personal responsi-
Engaging in Lament: Lament is a psychological and even veness or responsibility).
spiritual practice of facing and experiencing the emotio- Out of this arises a four-dimensional model of guilt or
nal pain caused by an interpersonal conflict. … This in- wrong (see Figure 3) which is grounded in the Bible and
volves empathically helping the client acknowledge sha- proven many times over in my practice, both with clients
me, anger, sadness, and confusion and sensitively moving and students. One must address all four dimensions in
past defenses to uncover unacknowledged or bypassed order to deal completely with concrete wrongs, thereby
shame. working through Phase II of my model, which corres-
Encouraging Empathy and Humility: The second major ponds to Phase I of the American models described abo-
phase in the forgiveness process involves encouraging ve. In achieving or consolidating forgiveness, which ul-
intersubjective empathy and humility…. Forgiving em- timately implies lifestyle change and further personality
pathy or compassion is the capacity to become aware of development, the relational dimension plays the decisive
the suffering and weakness of our offenders while still role.
holding them responsible for moral wrongdoing. … This Realizing deeply (cognitively and emotionally) that sin
form of empathy is closely related to the humility that can always hurts God himself in the deepest possible way and
allow us to realize we might be capable of similar failures yet at the same time he offers and is the solution to sin
and offenses. (both mine and others’) is the only way to totally over-
Extending Narrative Horizons: Some cases of unforgive- come sin through forgiveness. In this reality all of us
ness can be understood as confusion over how to make meet in God as sinners, delivered and sanctified by grace
sense of the chaos of hurt and injustice in an interper- and therefore becoming part of his genuine mercy and
sonal relationship. … The process of forgiveness should compassion that we could never obtain by merely human
ultimately move beyond experiencing forgiveness of a means. So the ultimate forgiveness is not a moral effort
specific offense or offender toward wrestling with the (as in modern psychologies) but rather a gift to be recei-
potential meaningfulness of forgiveness as an overall life ved with humility (thus the provocative term “immoral
practice and a theme in one‘s future story. (pp. 93-97) morals” infigure 3).This aspectis notvery clearin theex-
Shults and Sandage offer a kind of a halfway house bet- plicitly secular psychological model by Enright (Enright
ween secular and Christian psychological models alt- & Fitzgibbons 2002), whereas in the Schults and Sandage
hough they argue explicitly in secular psychological (2003) model, which attempts to integrate secular psy-
terms. So, in differentiating between secular and Christi- chological ideas with theological ideas, this aspect is as
an models theirs might be atypical. strongly emphasized and elaborated in a manner similar
The first big difference between typical secular models to the Christian Psychology model.
and my model, which is formed on the basis of Christian It is common in process models to attempt to distinguish

11 11