Page 138 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 5

A Portrait of a Christian Psychologist: Paul C. Vitz

authentic, assessing the accuracy of a self-judg- to interpersonal forgiveness which many self-
ment becomes a curious affair…” (1997) How forgiveness proponents cite.
do the different selves reach agreement? Which Finally, while it is commonly reported that self-
one leads or controls the internal reintegration? forgiveness does lead to short-term cessation of
Where does the leading self get the authority the prior persistent negative feelings, we think
and purity to forgive the “bad” self? that in the long-term, the client will realize
Several self-forgiveness advocates have dealt that this self-forgiveness was entirely internal
with these challenges by responding with the and subjective. The person could easily grow to
human capacity to self-transcend. Lewis Sme- doubt his or her judgment because of its sub-
des uses this capacity and that of remorse as one jectivity, and thus, the effects of self-forgiveness
of the two factors that make it possible for the would wane and the original negative feelings
client to engage in self-forgiveness. “Our power reappear.
to transcend ourselves is unique in the world Some cases of self-forgiveness ( Enright, per-
of creatures. One of me can step alongside the sonal communication, November 19, 2008)
other me and take stock of what I see while the do not involve splitting into a good self and a
other me feels either judged or loved by me. We forgiven bad self as described here. Instead, the
constantly play the role of both actor and the situation goes as follows: a) The person has bro-
acted upon” (Smedes, 1996, p. 96). We certain- ken a standard or important rule based on their
ly agree that self-transcendence is an important conscience; b) This results in the person’s being
human capacity. Yet Smedes’ proposal still pro- angry with his or her self; c) Seeking and recei-
motes an inner duality: “When people forgive ving forgiveness from God (for religious peop-
themselves for hurting others in their lives… le) should relieve the anger, but this often is
they reconcile their humanness and transcend not the case. Self-forgiveness, in this situation,
it at the same time” (Flanigan, 1996). Such is working at seeing the self as truly human; d)
“transcendence” is in actuality a continuation of This recognition commonly involves recalling
splitting since it creates a new abstract or only good things about the self, thus increasing a po-
linguistic self above the other two. Clearly, no sitive self evaluation. This decreases the anger
new meaningful self with a genuine identity is and is interpreted as “self-forgiveness”. Enright
created by the act of transcendence. notes that here the focus is on broken standards
Interestingly, a fourth aspect of the self-forgi- and self-splitting need not enter the picture.
ving split points to an integral link (in many We agree with this scenario but would descri-
models) to interpersonal forgiveness. For ex- be what is going on as positive self-acceptance
ample, Smedes observed that “we feel a need to not as self-forgiveness. We discuss this further
forgive ourselves because the part of us that gets below.
blamed feels split off from the part that does the
blaming” (Smedes, 1996, p. 96). He argued that Conflict of interest
work on correcting this splitting occurs through A second major challenge to the model of
self-forgiveness that in turn is linked intimately self-forgiveness is the intrinsic conflict of in-
with feeling forgiven by another. “If I do blame terest involved. The fundamental problem is
myself for wronging someone, I will still not feel the transgressor’s ability to be fair and accurate
free to forgive myself unless I feel forgiven by with respect to what he or she has done. How
the other person” (Smedes, p. 101). Thus, and bad was the injury? How responsible was the
we fully agree with this understanding, being transgressor for the bad behavior? How is one
forgiven by another is vital. But, in the self-for- to judge or determine an appropriate degree of
giveness model this interpersonal forgiveness is remorse, of punishment? Smedes (1996) has
at most a small part of the process – the ma- noted that remorse gives the client permission
jority of the work remains internally focused. to use their transcending ability to forgive the
Self-forgiveness with its internal focus can lead self. However, while remorse is said to give the
the client to minimize the need for interperso- former transgressor the right to forgive him-
nal forgiveness, thereby discounting that link self, the individual is still left to his own judg-

138