Page 8 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 4

dependent on what God wishes to reveal, there is no re- The Specifics of Christian Psychology as Exemplified
ason not to do research also in the area of things that are by Forgiveness
transcendent. In accordance with the self-revelation of
God in the Bible, we assume God to be a personal coun- The Problem of Forgiveness in Psychology
terpart as in Buber’s (1994) philosophy): For any “I-thou” Let us proceed to clarify the difference that Christian
relationship, Buber indicates that behind the small “thou” Psychology makes in comparison to the already estab-
is always the big THOU – the eternal Thou, or God. The lished schools of psychological thought by using forgi-
grasp on reality in Christian Psychology, and therefore veness as an example. This suits our purpose because
ultimately its research, must be process-oriented and re- forgiveness is a concept valued by Christians and has
lational – suitable to the Biblical statement that Truth is also been intensively investigated for decades in secular
a person, namely Jesus Christ himself, and not merely a psychology, especially in the USA (Baskin & Enright,
propositional truth that can be formulated. 2004; Enright, 1992,1996; Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2002;
The most concrete way to enter into a relationship with Enright & Gassin, 1992; Gassin 2000, 2001; Linn & Linn,
the one who is Truth is traditionally called prayer. In 1993; Mc Culough, Pargament & Thoreseon, 2000; Pe-
prayer, a Christian, even as a scientist, may expect from terson & Seligman, 2004; Sandage & Weins, 2001; Shults
God an encounter, guidance, and possibly even direct & Sandage, 2003; Seres, 2004; Tausch,1993; Weingardt,
revelation. But since prayer is an intimately subjective 2000). Many of these authors are Christians, but it seems
experience, the knowledge gleaned from prayer must be almost all American authors publish “under the flag” of
tested and argumentatively supported with “intersubjec- mainstream (i.e.,empirical) psychology.Forgiveness psy-
tive” scientific methods. chology is a relatively new subject matter in psychology,
As in constructivism, Christians are challenged to engage likely excluded in the past by positivist biases since forgi-
in our own personal construction or reconstruction/re- veness at least suggests the idea of wilful decisions and of
building ofreality. However,unlike constructivism,God’s value judgments, and along with that the possibility that
willingness to reveal himself through his works opens a one could become guilty. Well-known developmental
gateway to a kind of objective reality. This may happen psychologist Leo Montada (1978) uses the idea of free
through his written Word, but also in daily life, through will to make the point:
current revelation by “natural” means in Creation (which It has become apparent that this discipline has made an
are accessible by traditional methods of research)-, or anthropological preliminary decision that doesn’t allow
by “supernatural” ways of more direct “charismatic” re- the problem of free will to be looked at in a positive way
velation. But let me qualify that by saying that all these of definition at all. That has consequences. Psychology
gateways are accessible only through cultivation of a can’t raise any questions that would require the concept
knowledge and relationship with God formed over time of free will in solving them. Psychology can possibly jus-
through study and experience. tify punishment,but nota guiltyverdict, unlessit seesthe
It is important to note here that the Bible does not teach conviction as the means to a further end that affects the
any one conclusive philosophical worldview or any one culprit or the community. (p. 7)
unambiguous epistemology. The Bible does, however, A search of common German psychological dictionaries
provide standards for such philosophical constructs. The (Arnold & Eysenck & Meili, 1996; Dorsch, 1982; Lexikon
epistemological framework outlined here therefore re- der Psychologie, 2001; Städtler, 2003; Zimbardo, 1995;
presents only one possibility for an epistemology confor- Krech/Crutchfield et al., 1992; Davison & Neale, 1998,
mable to the Bible. Davison, Neale & Hautzinger, 2007) showed no coverage
for “forgiveness”.
International Aspects of Christian Psychology Let us first establish a definition of forgiveness, as there
Besides the philosophical bases of Christian Psychology, are numerous competing variants in the psychological
there is also the fact that the ideals of it are being pursued literature about forgiveness. An attempt has also been
around the world. There is now an international network made to define a sort of irreducible consensus captured
of people who grapple with the basic tenets of Christi- by McCullough, Pargament, and Thoreson (2000):
an Psychology not only the German Society of Christian All of the existing definitions seem to be built on one core
Psychology (IGNIS). Examples of these are the Society feature: When people forgive, their responses toward (or
for Christian Psychology in the USA, the European Mo- in other words, what they think of, feel about, want to do,
vement of Christian Psychology and Anthropology, and or actually do to) people who have offended or injured
the Institute of Christian Psychology in South Africa. them become more positive and less negative. (p. 9)
Christian Psychology is not just a German or an Ame- They summarize forgiveness as being characterized as
rican construct by any means, but one being pursued “intraindividual prosocial change towards a perceived
around the world. transgressor that is situated within a specific interper-
sonal context.” This irreducible consensus is formulated
in such a way that research on forgiveness would still be
somewhat possible within the positivistic paradigm inas-
much as it does not address the problem of objective evil
much less whether there is a God before whom we need
to be forgiven..

8 8