Page 13 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 4

One other clear difference among these models is in em- though in-depth qualitative research would seem to be
pathy or mercy. In most secular psychological process an important method for exploring the theoretically de-
models of forgiveness, including Shults and Sandage’s scribed nature of forgiveness.
(2003), the construct of empathy plays an important sup- Forgiving encompasses the transcendent relationship in
porting role. the sense that faith in a transcendent other can help one
Although this role of empathy is considered valuable, to forgive but also, forgiveness can relate to the reesta-
it is still not indispensable to many secular models. In blishment of a relationship with the transcendent other.
the Schults and Sandage model empathy is an integral This phenomenon secular psychology has noted, and yet,
component, one of the three phases, though the authors in accordance with the pragmatic and sometimes still
pay attention not to force empathy (encouraging empa- rather positivistic tradition in psychology, models are ne-
thy!) whereas Enright resists making empathy inevitable ver formulated or studied that would incorporate a tran-
(in Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2002, this is not quite clear, scendent other. In contrast, the Christian psychological
though in Enright & Reed, 2011, the repeated use of model, based on the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant,
“may” with regard to empathy makes this uncertainty is dependent on the big THOU as Buber (1994) would
more obvious. The Christian Psychology model replaces put it; indeed, even more so in the deepened form of
the term empathy with mercy as an essential and inevi- faith in a God who sacrificed himself for our sins to take
table component of forgiveness. This concept is derived this wrong upon himself and away from us. Of course at
from the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant in Matthew the same time, Christian Psychology therapists also face
18:21-35. Because of the absolute necessity of mercy the challenge of helping people along in the forgiveness
(Matthew 18:27; in KJV: compassion) and its special qua- process who do not grasp these core Christian const-
lity of being given by God, it seems reasonable to suspect ructs. This problem is solved in my model in that, in ac-
that this mercy can also often be found in a false form cordance with the picture of God in the New Testament,
within forgiveness processes. The question of counterfeit God works even among people who do not perceive his
empathy is missing from most secular models. Insincere workings themselves. He stands at the ready incognito,
empathic mercy can, for example, be found in an arro- so to speak, as a helping counterpart for those who doubt
gant inner attitude of moral superiority to others, which his existence and/or would not acknowledge his vital role
in secular psychological models would nevertheless be in guiding an authentic, deep forgiveness process. In this
labeled empathy since in psychology empathy usually is way, the steps of the five-phase model can also be applied
understood as morally neutral, unlike compassion (En- to non-Christians, whereby naturally if the person con-
right & Fitzgibbons, 2002). In the Christian Psychology sciously acknowledges the essential role that God—or
model, however, such an attitude would be perceived as more specifically Jesus Christ—plays in forgiving, the po-
counterfeit mercy, and consequently, leading to a type of wer of the forgiveness will be even stronger and deeper.
false forgiveness. Of course the application of the model to unbelievers re-
quires an adaptation in terminology avoiding unfamiliar
Consequences and Implications for Research Design biblical terms (which sometimes is the case when dealing
In research on forgiveness, forgiveness is stressed as a with some Christians!). Fortunately, naming the phases
relational construct which must be examined on the ba- avoids explicit biblical terminology and has been applied
sis of its impact on concrete relationships. Therefore, in to non-Christians.
some secular psychological models, just as in my model,
the level of internal forgiveness is clearly distinguished The Principle of Rebuilding
from the level of external reconciliation, that is, coming The last point in illustrating Christian Psychology with
anew into a constructive relationship with the offender. forgiveness is the principle of rebuilding. Because Chris-
But it is striking that most research (McCullough, Hoyt tian Psychology grants epistemological presuppositions a
& Rachal, 2000) focuses on the individual side of forgi- decisive role in the way that psychology is studied, practi-
veness, and only the introspective side at that (the main ced, and organized, it could definitely stand to learn so-
research method is self-report questionnaires). Research mething from psychological schools of thought that have
designs that actually investigate relationship dynamics in different presuppositions, though it cannot adopt them
vivo in the context of forgiveness research are extremely just as they are. This process whereby findings from secu-
rare, still in the very beginning stages. It is remarkable lar psychology are gathered and comprehended but then
that, in spite of the theoretical knowledge about the na- purposefully reworked is called reconstruction, or rebuil-
ture of forgiveness, quantitative research predominates ding (Halder, 1999).
in the literature For example, the reference lists of En- An example of how this is accomplished within the
right & Fitzgibbons, 2002, and Worthington, 2011, con- framework of the forgiveness model could be the defense
sist predominantly of theoretical or quantitative research mechanisms of projection and transference. The preva-
publications, and in the same proportion found in the lent mechanism of transference, for instance, was concei-
forgiveness-related articles in the Journal of Psychology ved of in the five-phase forgiveness model as an indicator
and theology over the last years. Even students at the IG- that forgiveness had not yet taken place or been comple-
NIS Institute of Christian Psychology have written only ted, whereby some paraphrasing of the classic definitions
theoretical or quantitative papers about the topic (Jäkel, were necessary and the construct of transference given a
1999; Seres, 2004; Schlagmüller, 2003) This holds even new ecological environment, namely the forgiving pro-

13 13