Page 9 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 4

Emmons (2000) offers a different idea of forgiveness: shown in Figure 1 (for more detailed information see Kix
Forgiveness canactivate integrativetendencies inthe per- & Soldan, n.d., and Soldan, 2010): Forgiving another be-
son, rescuing the psyche from inner conflict and turmoil, gins (I) with the decision to look at the injury holistically
transforming the person from a state of fragmentation to and then to do this (II) as a process of settling accounts,
a state of integration, from separation to reconciliation. recognizing (cognitively and emotionally) the suffered
Forgiveness is the integrated state of a person who is in wrong in all dimensions (see Figure 3). In simple cases
a right relationship with God, with others, and within this will take seconds or minutes while in very severe ca-
himself or herself. (p.171) ses (e.g. child abuse) even the decision making (I) may
This comprehensive and integral definition contains require months or years (rebuilding a sense of one’s own
many statements that are beyond the scope of positi- willpower). The process of looking at the truth always
vism (such as ”right relationship”) and only could be re- starts with the subjective perspective of the victim and
searched under a holistic or constructivistic paradigm. becomes step by step more objective (meaning looking to
The basic conflict of the discipline Psychology shown the wrongas Goddoes) withoutreaching totalobjectivity
in relevant German psychological dictionaries (Arnold, (which is reserved to God).
Eysenck & Meili, 1996; Dorsch, 1982; Lexikon der Psy- The necessarynext phaseis showingmercy (III)to theof-
chologie, 2001; Städtler, 2003, especially the headings fender, but this is rather unnatural if not impossible after
“psychology” and “history of psychology“) whether defi- holistic recognition of the wrong. So the forgiver needs a
ning itself as scholarship of the (human) soul (belonging deep experience of receiving or having received forgive-
to the humanities) or as behavioural science exemplifies ness from God (left side of figure I) to be able to impart
itself in the scholarship of forgiveness: The inadequacy the mercy/compassion he or she has received from God
of positivistic psychology to address vital aspects of soul to the offender. The term used in Matthew 18:21ff is a
care is exposed here. Forgiveness as a complex, both in- holistically embodied word for mercy (literally transla-
trapsychic and relational (understood humanly and spi- ted as something is “bellying” me) and is almost totally
ritually) phenomenon with partly hidden emotional and reserved to God himself in the New Testament (implying
motivational aspects that cry to be addressed more tho- it must be imparted to us by God and we cannot produ-
roughly through the liberal arts, including theology and ce it ourselves). After this experience the forgiver really
philosophy (e.g., Hrassowa, 2009). The empirical scienti- can release or set free (IV) the offender; that is, he or she
fic approaches are in danger of dealing only with the sur- can holistically separate the offense from the offender.
face and thus missing the essence of forgiveness. In the This then is the basis to give away (“remit”) the wrong
American psychological forgiveness scholarship, the em- (V) from me (to God) and to be free to a “renewed” (not
pirical science approach dominates though several phi- restored because it will be different!) relationship. This
losophical and methodological problems are discussed “becoming free” describes the inner forgiving process
(e.g., McCullough, Hoyt & Rachal, 2000). In the existing which may be followed by the analogously described ou-
German psychological forgiveness discussion I could not ter forgiving process (reconciliation of the relationship)
even find a relevant awareness of such problems. that needs both partners (the forgiver and the offender).
The distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation
Comparing the Models through Analysis of Specific is disputed by scholars (according to Frise and McMinn
Examples [2010] psychologists tend to do so more than theologi-
Two fundamentally different approaches have been esta- ans). Because of the theologically sound unity of both
blished in describing forgiveness. One of these has led to concepts, I term them inner (forgiveness) and outer (re-
decision-based models, the other process-based models. conciliation) forgiveness.
Decision-based models reduce forgiveness more or less
to a one-time act of the will. I consider this reduction as
an unrealistic over-simplification and therefore will leave
this approach out of the subsequent discussion. Process-
oriented models are characterized by their attempt to
portray forgiveness as a complex intrapersonal, and also
partly an interpersonal, process.
In the following, I would like to briefly present two such
typical established process models and compare them
with the five-phase forgiveness model that I have deve-
loped.
All three models are outlined here in simplified form. Fi-
gure 1is adiagram thatshows roughlythe typicaldouble-
structure (intertwining “forgiving others” with “receiving
forgiveness”) of my model based on Matthew 18 and se-
veral years of therapy practice. The stripe and the arrows
hint at one possibility of a typical course of phases.
First I begin with a short explanation of my model based
on Matthew 18 and several years of therapy practice as

9 9