Page 145 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 5

A Portrait of a Christian Psychologist: Paul C. Vitz

criticism, clients are freed to rediscover their self-hatred and self-contempt that results from
innate dignity. After all, such shame is not roo- hurting another” (p.621-2). These authors also
ted in their own actions but in what others have propose besides the removal of negative feeling
done to them. For these actions, the others need that self-forgiveness involves “an internal accep-
forgiveness, not the client. tance of oneself.” (p.622). They also quote En-
Once shame and parent-based self-condem- right with his concern with the abandonment
nation have been addressed then the issue of of self- resentment and others who emphasize
self-acceptance arises. For the Christian, Wort- shifting from self-estrangement to a feeling of
hington offers the following advice: “We must being at home with the self (Bauer et al. (1992).
courageously face our character under the gent- These understandings, we believe are good de-
le yet truthful guidance of the Holy Spirit. We scriptions of self-acceptance.
are all imperfect …” (2003, p. 226). Helping Enright also emphasizes that more than a neu-
the increasingly self-accepting client to see – tral self-acceptance is needed. The self must be
and to choose – the healing power of God and understood as positive, as having intrinsic di-
relationships with others becomes the next step. gnity (Enright, 2008). We agree with this point
Although interpersonal forgiveness is healing and would characterize the empirical positive
to the forgiver, it is incomplete for the forgiven effects of self-forgiveness as really the result of
until they learn to accept the offered forgiveness positive self-acceptance.
and to accept the self. Whether reaching out Empirical and Theoretical Challenges to Self-
to sources of grace through faith, or to others forgiveness
experiencing the same challenges, the client We reject the terminology of “self-forgiveness”
will be reminded that he or she does not have for the various reasons already discussed but
to transform the self; rather, one merely must also for one other major reason that now has
choose to cooperate with the support offered. good support. Theory and research have re-
The client is relieved of the poplar notion of cently made clear that forgiveness of others
“self-help”; instead, he or she must see their and forgiveness of the self are based on quite
need of other people. This reality of connec- different psychological factors. Hall & Fincham
tion, which is intrinsic to interpersonal reality, (2005) develop a model of other and self-for-
is ignored in the self-forgiveness model. In our giveness that in spite of similarities clearly diffe-
case history these interpersonal connections rentiates the basis for the two processes.
had many expressions, but a central one was to Ross, Kendall, Matters, Wrobel & Rye (2004)
hear and observe other women whose worth also conclude that their findings “suggest that
was easier to acknowledge than her own and to self and other forgiveness, although seemingly
be accepted by them. similar, carry very different motivational under-
We propose that much of the reported bene- pinnings.” (p. 207). Ross, Hertenstein & Wro-
fits of self-forgiveness are in reality the result of bel (2007) later provide evidence for their two-
self- acceptance. An early model with an em- component model of forgiveness. They note in
phasis on self-acceptance is that of Linn & Linn their study that “hierarchical multiple regressi-
(1978); another self-acceptance interpretation on analyses emphasized the discrimant validity
influenced by the Linn’s is Vitz & Mango (1997). of self-forgiveness from other-forgiveness. …
At present we interpret many of the definitions Negative temperament (+) was the sole pre-
of self-forgiveness found in the literature as in dictor of self-forgiveness. In contrast, Positive
fact descriptions of what can be better under- Temperament (+), Aggression (-), and Histrio-
stood as self-acceptance. For example, Enright nic PD (-) were most associated with other for-
(1996) described self-forgiveness as “fostering giveness” (p.158.). Similarly, Wohl, DeShea &
compassion, generosity, and love toward one- Wahkinney (2008) propose that the two types
self” (p. 116) a definition used by Turnage, Ja- of forgiveness are different: “it would not be
cinto & Kirven, 2003. Hall & Fincham (2005) wise to simply transpose notions of other-for-
understand self-forgiveness “as a show of good- giveness onto the construct of self-forgiveness”
will toward the self which clears the mind of (p.1.). They go on to develop a measure of sta-

145