Why Divine and Interpersonal Reconciliation Differ: A Conceptualization and Case Study with Implications for Clinical Practice
This article conceptually analyzes the difference between divine and interpersonal reconciliation. Given the ways in which these two views of reconciliation can be conflated by pastors and clients, a clear exposition of their differences is necessary for accurate pastoral counseling. Conceptually, d...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
[2017]
|
| In: |
Journal of psychology and christianity
Year: 2017, Volume: 36, Issue: 2, Pages: 161-167 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Relationship to God
/ Interpersonal relationship
/ Reconciliation
/ Church work
|
| RelBib Classification: | AE Psychology of religion NBC Doctrine of God NBE Anthropology RG Pastoral care |
| Summary: | This article conceptually analyzes the difference between divine and interpersonal reconciliation. Given the ways in which these two views of reconciliation can be conflated by pastors and clients, a clear exposition of their differences is necessary for accurate pastoral counseling. Conceptually, divine reconciliation does not seem to share the essence of interpersonal reconciliation, which is, the restoration of trust. We offer five contrasts between the two that delineate the process of reconciliation from an original injustice. After an original injustice, God is not psychologically damaged (so there is no risk for further injuries), does not suffer uncertainty about the future (because God sees into the future), and thus does not need to restore trust toward sinners before reconciling. God is forgiving sins, not personal offenses, when sinners express genuine remorse and repentance. Therefore, without needing to trust first, God's reconciliation can occur immediately. In contrast, people suffer from injustices and are uncertain about the future. As a reaction to the two, they would want to minimize further injuries when engaging with the offender by restoring a sense of trust toward the offender before reconciling. People who are not forgiving sins need to see enough evidence from the offender to be convinced that reconciliation is worthwhile; therefore, interpersonal reconciliation does not take place immediately. We discuss a case study that demonstrated the clinical significance of distinguishing divine and interpersonal reconciliation and suggest implications for clinical practice |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0733-4273 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of psychology and christianity
|