Ch apte r 14

Evil, Sin, and Imperfection: Ethics in

Practice
Philip Brownell

INTRODUCTION
What is man that You should take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You make him to rule over the works of Your hands.
Psalm 8:4–6a (New American Standard)

That is a question that has been capturing people’s attention for some
time. In a biblical anthropology, humankind would be male and female–
sexual. Humankind would also exist in the image of God, but in a fallen
state. It is largely the causes, the implications, and the influence of that fallen
state that concerns this series. All who write, do so from a human perspec-
tive. Consequently, this chapter concerns evil in the context of human sin
and imperfection.
What is the difference between evil and sin, or between sin and imperfec-
tion? Are these all words for roughly the same thing, or is there a substantial
difference across the range that they provide?
When people think of evil, names like Adolf Hitler and Charles Man-
son come to mind. There is something quantitatively horrendous in ha’shoah
(the Holocaust). Six million European Jews were systematically killed using
everything that the country of Germany could use and turning the coun-
try into what some have called a genocidal state. Is evil simply a matter of
the scope of sinister intent? When Manson was apprehended and caught on

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 219 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 220 Explaining Evil

camera, there was something malevolent, more than merely deranged, some-
thing qualitatively fiendish in his eyes; he had masterminded and persuaded
several devoted followers to commit multiplied murder. Is evil a demonic
quality of spirit?
Ironically, evil can be associated with the church as well. The various
inquisitions, crusades, witch-hunts, and religious wars—all conducted in
the name of God—provide a gruesome history that cannot be glossed over,
rationalized, or ignored. Neither can the cruelties committed every day in
religious congregations where rigid legalism runs over people for the sake of
righteousness and in which performance-based economies reward the loss of
self in devoted conformity. One need not go to the deception and destruction
caused by a Jim Jones, a cultic figure who leads his flock into mass suicide; the
evil that lurks right next to one as he or she sits in the pew on Sunday is bad
enough. This is what C. S. Lewis (1961) wrote about in the Screwtape Letters,
in which he envisioned demons working in the lives of Christians even as
they sit together in church.
What follows is a defining comparison and contrast of the concepts of evil,
sin, and imperfection, especially illustrated through the clinical examples of
gestalt therapy—a system that is not religious or essentially nomothetic in
itself, yet that does provide a model of health and one that has adopted the
phenomenological ethics of Emmanuel Levinas—both of which are useful in
order to consider evil, sin, and imperfection from a clinical perspective.

EVIL
Two words in Greek stood for the concept of evil. One was kakos, and the
other was ponēros. Kakos meant “bad” or “evil” and its derivatives meant to
harm, embitter, do wrong, and be an evil-doer. Ponēros pointed to being in
poor condition, sick, bad, poor, evil, and wicked (Achilles, 1975).
During the classical Greek period, kakos meant bad in the sense of lacking
something and always in contrast to agathos (good). In secular Greek, there
were four uses: (a) negligible, unsuitable, and bad; (b) morally bad or evil;
(c) weak or miserable; and (d) harmful or unfavorable. The Pythagoreans
regarded evil to be a metaphysical principle, but Democritus, Socrates, and
Plato regarded evil to result from ignorance in that an unenlightened person
does evil involuntarily. Conversely, according to these philosophers, enlight-
enment leads to knowledge and frees a person from evil, “causing him to do
good and so creating the moral man” (Achilles, 1975, p. 562). Plato eventu-
ally created a metaphysical dualism, spirit and matter, by synthesizing these
two concepts, asserting that evil resides in the physical and material. Also in
Hellenistic thought, evil was considered to be imperfection.
Both kakos and ponēros translated the Hebrew words rá and rā´âh (bad,
badness, evil, misery, distress; Brown, Driver, & Briggs, 1907/1978) about

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 220 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 Evil, Sin, and Imperfection: Ethics in Practice 221

equally in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In

the Old Testament kakos is mostly the evil that objectively hurts one’s exis-
tence. As such it is the reciprocal consequence of the sin, which God brings
back upon the people who commit sin (Deut 31:17; Amos 3:6b). On the other
hand, God protects from evil as well (Ps 23:4; Jer 29:11). Evil is also an aspect
of moral behavior (Mic 2:1; Jer 7:24; Ps 28:3, 23:12). The Old Testament
seldom describes evil in the abstract and theoretical; usually, it is done so
concretely and in terms of a specific instance or case (Achilles, 1975).
The range of activity associated with rá starts with activity that is con-
trary to God’s will and begins with the rejection of God Himself (Is 1:4, 9:17;
Jer 7:26, 16:12). This includes the practice of idolatry and extends to the
abuse of people and their property (physical pain, slavery in Egypt, dishon-
esty, demand for immoral relationships, verbal abuse, etc.). The people who
do these kinds of things do so because they lack understanding of the true
nature of what they do (Livington, 1980).
The New Testament prefers the terms pon¯eros and hamartia for the con-
structs of evil and sin (see below). Further, with regard to evil, the sense is
more to a state of being than to specific acts, and this trend finds its culmi-
nation in the evil personified, that is, the evil one, Satan (Achilles, 1975). In
Matthew 6:23 and Luke 11:34, the reference is to an eye that is sick (or evil).
In Matthew 18:32, it refers to servants who are worthless. In Matthew 7:11,
people are referred to as being evil. It is also used to refer to being hardened
or opposed to God (Matt 12:34, 16:1–4; 2 Thess 3:2). When its use extends
to people’s actions it is usually a qualitative statement regarding what
kind of behavior is in question. For instance, Cain was of the evil one and
slew his brother because his deeds were evil—they were evil qualitatively
(1 Jn 3:12).
Thus, Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson would be considered essentially
evil because there was something intrinsically bad and contrary to God’s will
and God’s nature in who they were. They would be considered necessarily
evil and not accidentally so, because they were inherently bad. They were not
simply mentally deranged and pathetic; they were inexcusable.

SIN
By contrast, sin in reference to Hitler and Manson would mean they did
something bad and were guilty. Sin can refer to a single failure or transgres-
sion, but that can also extend to one’s complete ruination (Günther, 1978).
The most general word for sin is hamartia, followed by adikia and its cog-
nates, and then parabasis and paraptōma. Table 14.1 compares and contrasts
the various meanings of these words in classical Greek, the translation of
Hebrew words in the LXX, and their use in the New Testament.
Relative Understandings for the Concept of Sin

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 221 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 222 Explaining Evil

Table 14.1 Relative Understandings for the Concept of Sin

Word Classical Translation for Words Use in the New
Understanding in LXX Testament
Hamartia Missing a mark, losing Falling away from The comprehensive
one’s way, or making a relationship of expression of
a mistake; an offence faithfulness towards everything opposed
against prevailing God as well as to God, including
order but without evil disobedience to the the self-righteous
intent commandments keeping of the law
Adikia Commit an injustice; Translates 24 different Act unjustly and
all that offends against Hebrew words harm people;
morals, customs, or concerned with acting behavior not
decency unjustly, oppressing conforming to
or extorting; to lie or the moral norm;
defraud; as an offence in contrast to
against the sacral order hamartia, adikia
of divine justice (1 Sam. describes more
3:13) clearly the outward
and visible
characteristics of
what is under the
power of sin
Parabasis Deviate from an Not common in the Related to
original and true LXX; neglect God, the gracious
direction; transgress or break the covenant; fail ordinances, such
neglect the norm to maintain the correct as His covenant, it
relationship with God means to deviate
from observing
them
Parapt¯oma Fall by the wayside; Translates words Fall away, be
miss one’s way or the meaning to commit unfaithful, as a
truth; fail in one’s duty acts of unfaithfulness; whole position–
conscious and deliberate abandonment of
sinning against God Christian truth–and
as a single act
representing that
position
Adapted from Günther, 1978 and Bauder, 1978

Hamartia was considered to be an offense against morals, laws, people

or the gods and related to ignorance; Aristotle placed it between adikēma
(injustice) and atychēma (misfortune) as an offence against order, but without
evil intent. Adikia was more akin to a legal term, implying a breach of law,

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 222 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 Evil, Sin, and Imperfection: Ethics in Practice 223

and it was regarded to be the opposite of righteousness. Paraptoma depicted

a moral fall and an offense for which a person would be responsible (Günther,
1971, pp. 573–587).
Sin is an act, a state or condition in which one might find oneself, and it
is a ruling power that deviates from God and leads to destruction (Bauer,
Arndt, & Gingrich, 1957). Paul of Tarsus wrote,

For what am I doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I

would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very
thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is
good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
(Romans 7:15–17)
This so aptly describes a dynamic in people with which most can under-
stand and identify. The very thing I tell myself I should not do, will not
do, I do. “I will not eat that extra piece of pie.” I eat it. The very thing I tell
myself I will do, I do not. “I will exercise and trim off this extra fat.” In
reality, however, I do not exercise as I should and each day God has a little
talk with me about that.

By contrast, sin’s dynamic counterbalance is grace, or undeserved favor.

This word for grace, the Greek charis, translated a Hebrew word, hēn in the
LXX, denoting a stronger person coming to the aid of a weaker who stands
in need of help by virtue of his or her circumstances or intrinsic weakness.
God comes to the aid of sinners, who stand in need because of the sin that
separates them from a holy God. Grace covers sin and makes up for it’s
destructive effect. It is the power that flows from God to accompany and give
success, as in the case of the mission of the apostles, and it empowers one to
overcome sin and deal with evil.

IMPERFECTION
Recently, while interacting in a listserv discussion group of professionals
someone corrected me on something, and I responded by saying, “How nice
to be imperfect.” It was sarcastic. I did not feel nice, and I was not happy to be
corrected; however, someone else on the list responded to what I had written,
affirming that yes, indeed, it was nice to be imperfect. That puzzled me. What
could be nice about that? Was it the freedom that person might have felt not
to have to live up to a standard, not to have to perform according to someone
else’s sense of “the way it should be?” I could not figure it out.
We are finite. Limited. We are made in the image of God, and we have
some of His attributes, but we have those attributes only to a point. God has
the capacity to love to an infinite degree, without measure, but we do not.
Our love comes in dribbles and mixed with all kinds of other motives and
behaviors that makes it diluted in quality.

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 223 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 224 Explaining Evil

This limitation of ours, this finitude, is by design. It was not an accident,

and it was not just a product of the fall; so, when God was finished with cre-
ation and He proclaimed His work “good,” that included the fact that human
beings are limited.
Perhaps we were created perfect even though limited. After all, how could
anything created be infinite in the first place? Thus, the fact that we are
creatures makes us finite. We are the work of God’s creativity; so, perhaps
we were created perfect to fit a design and to take our place on the stage of
His creation for a purpose. I believe that is so, and I believe that design and
purpose linger in our being; it’s what compels us to investigate the world
in which we live so as to understand it and to manage it. God gave us the
world, and after he pronounced His creation good, he commissioned human
beings as the foresters to husband and manage the world—to have domin-
ion. Environmentalists will say that we have done a lousy job at that, but the
original purpose still shines through the corruption that makes us want to
have dominion at the expense of almost everything and everyone else.
Our state is a fallen state—what the Bible teaches to be a state of sin. Jesus
described us as evil in this fallen state (Luke 11:13) when He was teaching
His followers about prayer. He said, “If you, being evil, know how to give
your children good things, how much more does your heavenly Father know
how to give good things when you ask Him?” (my paraphrase).
Is all this what compels me to make mistakes and forget names? Is this why I
misjudge the distance between my bumper and the next car? Is this why my vision
is blurred up close? God made me limited, but did God make me imperfect?
Many people would say that sickness and flaw, failure and imperfection,
as exemplified in the kinds of things mentioned just above, are the result of
sin, that the whole of creation was marred in the fall of humankind. What
is the difference between evil and sin or between sin and imperfection? Are
these all synonyms and caused by the same, terrible event? Are evil, sin, and
imperfection simply points on a gradient?
In the story of life in the garden of Eden, leading up to the fall, Adam and
Eve walked with God openly and had a transparent and authentic relationship
with Him. However, when they decided to go against God’s will, they became
ashamed and hid themselves from God. That was the beginning of a darkness
in understanding that the Bible describes to be the crux of evil and sin. It is
not simply a matter of being imperfect, in the sense of being limited. It is a
loss of self, loss of a knowledge of one’s self, and it is a loss of authenticity.

GESTALT THERAPY ’ S MODEL OF HEALTH

Gestalt therapy has been variously described, and can be summarized as
follows:
Gestalt therapy is a holistic system offering an emergent view of self that
comprises what other systems know as personality, that is, the organizing of

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 224 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 Evil, Sin, and Imperfection: Ethics in Practice 225

subjective experience with a metanarrative about the identity of the person in

which both move through time and space, syncopated by the evolving situa-
tions in which the person exists. This includes the relational considerations in
the working alliance as well as intimate systems such as couples and families,
and it extends to teams and large configurations within organizations. It is
the same view as that of relational systems psychoanalysis, which illustrates
gestalt’s comprehensive ability to pull together constructs from various clini-
cal paradigms. A similar consilience exists between gestalt therapy and the
mindful and constructive elements of cognitive-behavioral therapy. Gestalt is
a comprehensive, all-encompassing approach. Gestalt therapy’s field method-
ology includes all things having effect, regardless of what domain or system
is in focus, and its philosophical base includes major discussions of epistemol-
ogy, ontology, and ethics. In terms of a philosophy of science and a scientific
method in psychology, gestalt therapy provides a solid ground for the third
leg of scientific method (systematic observation, mathematical analysis, and
conceptual analysis) (Brownell, Meara, & Polák, 2008). Individual experience
is relational, situated, and made manifest through experimental action, all of
which is indivisible—a unity. This is gestalt therapy (Brownell, submitted).
Gestalt therapists believe that people incline toward growth. They self-
regulate in their best interests, and their natural tendency is toward self-
actualizing. Thus, gestalt therapy is one of several positive psychology
approaches. Positive psychology provides a frame for understanding what Mar-
tin Seligman (2002) called “the good life.” Among those factors associated with
positive psychology, and a picture of good psychological health, would be an
emphasis on positive subjective experiences (such as happiness, pleasure, grati-
fication, and fulfillment), positive individual traits (such as talents, strengths
of character, interests and values), and positive institutions (such as families,
schools, businesses, communities, and societies) (Peterson & Park, 2009).
Gestalt therapy understands people by investigating their experience. Its
theory of health is simple:

Healthy functioning requires being in contact with what is actually occur-

ring in the person-environment field. Contact is the quality of being in
touch with one’s experience in relation to the field. By being aware of what
is emerging, and by allowing action to be organized by what is emerg-
ing, people interact in the world and learn from the experience. By trying
something new, one learns what works and what does not work in various
situations. When a figure is not allowed to emerge, when it is somehow
interrupted or misdirected, there is a disturbance in awareness and con-
tact. (Yontef & Jacobs, 2007, p. 339)

AN ETHICAL STANCE IN GESTALT THERAPY

Gestalt therapy is not essentially an ethical system. That is, it does not
advance categories of right and wrong or enlist imperatives by which it tells

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 225 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 226 Explaining Evil

people what to do. It does not pass judgment. It follows the figures of inter-
est and the current experience, and it advocates acceptance however a person
enters the circle of contact. Still, no system in which people work with other
people can be values neutral. People bring into a system all their relative
beliefs and morals; it cannot be helped.
Nonetheless, the phenomenological ethics of Emmanuel Levinas has
become important to gestalt therapists. Utilizing his system of thought, the
client or patient becomes mystery, the transcendent presence which is the
other person. Gestalt therapists recognize that to characterize that other
person in the process of case conceptualization, even to diagnose them,
requires that one “thematize” the other person (represent the other person
as an intentional object that stands in the place of the actually existing other
whenever the therapist perceives or contemplates that person). Levinas con-
siders this thematizing to be violence, and an ethical breach. Thus, through
the acceptance of his thinking, gestalt therapy adopts a moral posture. It’s as
if to say, “Thou shalt not thematize.” To do so might be considered turning
aside from the dialogical stance.
That sets up a problem. If a therapist cannot conduct therapeutic business
(assessment, case conceptualization, and treatment planning) without doing
violence to the client, then what is to be done? Is there a way around such an
apparent impasse?
James K. A. Smith (2002) suggested the iconic look. He contrasted the idol
with the icon. The idol is an end in itself; it is the object of worship. However,
an icon is not an end in itself; it points beyond itself to something greater. In
the case of gestalt therapists, it is possible to perceive the client as an icon;
that is, when we attend to the client in the aboutness of the therapeutic pro-
cess, we see the other person, but we do not sum them up in our minds nor
strive to completely “figure them out.” We remain close to their phenomenal-
ity, their subjective experience, and we accept that what we see and hear of
the client only points to something greater—their being.

AN ETHICS IN PRACTICE
So, how do we pull all this together to make some useful observations?
The goal is to explore these concepts using a clinical heuristic so as to see
what evil, sin, and imperfection look like in that kind of light.
First, a primary consideration is the emotional consequence that follows
either feeling one has done something bad or one is something bad. This is
the difference between guilt and shame. Both guilt and shame are self-con-
scious emotions (Tangney & Fischer, 1995); they arise because of the subjec-
tive sense of a social audience whose opinion matters. Whereas guilt (I have
done something wrong) can be made amends for, shame (I am something

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 226 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 Evil, Sin, and Imperfection: Ethics in Practice 227

wrong), cannot without the extinguishing of the person who is ashamed.

Thus, in terms of self-conscious emotions guilt is to sin as shame is to evil.
To sin means to make a mistake, turn aside from the standard, act unjustly,
and/or fall away from a relationship with God. It is something we do. Evil is
an active and knowing state of being that is in opposition to God, and it often
comes with a malevolent tone. Imperfection is a state of being that exceeds
finitude and it relates to being a sinner; our imperfect state is one of being
“in” sin. There is overlap, because while being imperfect, characterized by
sin, we are also opposed to God and therefore evil. These are not all the same
things, but they are related in a biblical anthropology.
Second, in a therapeutic relationship there is the person of the client and
the person of the therapist. Each may demonstrate imperfection, commit sin,
and exhibit evil. In a gestalt therapeutic process these categories of right and
wrong, good and bad, suggest the issue of ethics, and when that happens then
gestalt therapists are eager to differentiate the ethics that arise from within
the process of therapy itself as opposed to the ethics that are often imposed
upon the process from outside of it (Dan Bloom, personal communication,
May 26, 2010). The guideline set from the outside of any given therapeu-
tic process, extrinsic ethics, is comprised of such things as a personal code
for life, an ethics code or standards of practice, and the philosophical study
of ethics (Bloom, 2010). The guideline that emerges from within the pro-
cess, intrinsic ethics, relates to the quality of contact and the respect for the
Other—the ethics of alterity experienced in the current moment of contact
between therapist and client.
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Ethics in Gestalt Therapy Practice

Table 14.2 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Ethics in Gestalt Therapy Practice

Extrinsic: Imposed from (1) General Pattern or Way of Life (e.g., Religious
outside gestalt process Values and/or Spiritual Disciplines)
• Sin: falling away or deviating from the norm
• Evil: living in an active opposition to the norm
• Imperfection: existing in a state of deviation
(2) A Set of Rules of Conduct or Moral Code
(e.g., Guidelines for Best Practice)
• Sin: deviating from guidelines for best practice
• Evil: actively opposing practice standards
• Imperfection: having assimilated practices in
opposition to best practice
(continued)

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 227 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 228 Explaining Evil

Table 14.2 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Ethics in Gestalt Therapy Practice

(3) Philosophical Ethics (e.g., Emmanuel Levinas’s
Philosophy of Alterity)
• Sin: ignoring or turning aside from ethical
considerations
• Evil: challenging the need to think about ethics
• Imperfection: living in ignorance of ethical
considerations in clinical work
Intrinsic: Emergent from (1) Therapist observes the lived faith of his or her
within gestalt process client and inquires as to how such trust in God affects
the current situation.
• Sin: ignoring the emergent figure of how the
client’s faith in God affects his or her situation due
to an a priori conviction that God does not exist
• Evil: making it a priority to turn clients away from
faith in God due to a conviction that religion is a
source of suffering
• Imperfection: practicing with a blind spot to
religious matters that limits an ability to follow
clients’ emerging figures
(2) Therapist recalls the theoretical “core” of gestalt
practice and chooses interventions consistent with
tracking the client’s phenomenality, engaging in
contact over time (a real relationship), and engaging in
experimental action consistent with a field methodology.
• Sin: forgetting the basics of gestalt praxis and using
a technique one recently read about
• Evil: actively opposing gestalt praxis
• Imperfection: having developed a technically
eclectic style of working that is not integrated into
the core of gestalt praxis
(3) Therapist is “overwhelmed” by the presentation
of the client and receives the revelation of the client
as a gift given in the moment–actual contact of an
ontologically present Other.
• Sin: retreating in panic from something not
understood, something not reducible to one’s
existing categories of thought
• Evil: actively opposing the spontaneous creativity
in gestalt praxis as being dangerous and without
evidence
• Imperfection: keeping the client at an interpersonal
distance by using diagnostic interviewing as a
constant practice
Developed following Bloom, 2010

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 228 11/8/10 1:30:22 PM

 Evil, Sin, and Imperfection: Ethics in Practice 229

CONCLUSION
This chapter presented working definitions for the concepts of evil, sin, and
imperfection. Sin is a deviation from the norm, often out of ignorance. Evil is
an ongoing and active opposition to the norm. Imperfection is a state of being
characterized by the presence of sin. The “norm” in terms of a spiritual life is
God, but the norm can also be any standard of life that produces an ethic in
which people sense a right way and a wrong way of living or doing something.
The example of gestalt therapy praxis was offered, with its adoption of Emman-
uel Levinas’s philosophy of alterity as an ethic, and that helped to extend the
understanding of how evil, sin, and imperfection compare and contrast.

REFERENCES
Achilles, E. (1975). Evil, bad, wickedness. In C. Brown (Ed.), The new international
dictionary of New Testament theology (Vol. 1, pp. 561–567). Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
Bauder, W. (1978). Paraptōma. In C. Brown (Ed.), New international dictionary of New
Testament theology (Vol. 3, pp. 585–587). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Bauer, W., Arndt, W., & Gingrich, F. (1957). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testa-
ment and other early Christian literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bloom, D. (2010, June 1–6). Chasing rainbows: Ethics in gestalt therapy: External
(extrinsic), foundational—and the “rainbow,” the emergent “ethos.” Presentation
given at the 10th biennial conference for the Association for the Advancement of
Gestalt Therapy (AAGT), an international community.
Brown, F., Driver, S., & Briggs, C. (1978). A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old
Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press. (Original work
published in 1907).
Brownell, P. (Submitted). A theoretical core for gestalt therapy.
Brownell, P., Meara, A., & Polák, A. (2008). Introduction. In P. Brownell (Ed.), Hand-
book for theory, research, and practice in gestalt therapy. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge
Scholars.
Günther, W. (1978). Sin. In C. Brown (Ed.), New international dictionary of New Testa-
ment theology (Vol, 3., pp. 573–585). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Lewis, C. S. (1961). Screwtape letters. New York: Macmillan.
Livingston, G. (1980). Ra. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theo-
logical wordbook of the Old Testament (pp. 854–856). Chicago: Moody Press.
Peterson, C., & Park, N. (2009). Positive psychology. In I. Marini & M. Stebnicki
(Eds.), The professional counselor’s desk reference (pp. 791–799). New York: Springer.
Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.
Smith, J. K. A. (2002). Speech and theology: Language and the logic of incarnation. New
York: Routledge.
Tangney, J., & Fischer, K. (1995). Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt,
embarrassment, and pride. New York: Guilford Press.
Yontef, G., & Jacobs, L. (2007). Gestalt therapy. In R. Corsini & D. Wedding (Eds.),
Current psychotherapies (8th ed., pp. 328–367). Florence, KY: Cengage.

ABC-ELLENSV2-10-1102-014.indd 229 11/8/10 1:30:23 PM