"...As we forgive those who trespass against us...": theological reflections on sin and guilt in the hospital environment.

In general parlance the term sin has lost its existential meaning. Originally a Jewish-Christian term within a purely religious context, referring to a wrongdoing with regard to God, sin has slowly become reduced to guilt in the course of the secularization process. Guilt refers to a wrongdoing, especially with regard to fellow human beings. It also refers to errors of judgement with what can be tragic consequences. These errors can occur whenever human beings are called upon to act, including the hospital environment. A Christian hospital has to address the issue of how to deal not only with guilt-ridden misdemeanors, but also with wrongdoing unto God, which overshadows every instance of guilt-ridden human behavior. Here, as in every parish, the Church Service is the place to acknowledge sin, confess sin, and forgive sin, beyond the boundaries of the parish itself.     

When hurt will not heal: exploring the capacity to relive social and physical pain

ABSTRACT— Recent discoveries suggest that social pain is as real and intense as physical pain, and that the social-pain system may have piggybacked on the brain structure that had evolved earlier for physical pain. The present study examined an important distinction between social and physical pain: Individuals can relive and reexperience social pain more easily and more intensely than physical pain. Studies 1 and 2 showed that people reported higher levels of pain after reliving a past socially painful event than after reliving a past physically painful event. Studies 3 and 4 found, in addition, that people performed worse on cognitively demanding tasks after they relived social rather than physical pain. Implications for research on social pain and theories about social pain are discussed.     

The good I will,I do not

For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do-Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. (Romans 7:19–20)A sermon delivered on November 16, 1958, in James Memorial Chapel. Reprinted by permission from Union Seminary Quarterly Review.     

Private selves and shared meanings: Or forgive us our projections as we forgive those who project into us

Abstract

This paper explores the difficulty university counselling services experience in finding common purpose with their institutions at the present time. It draws on a review of the relevant literature and personal experience to argue that it is extremely difficult to sustain depressive-position functioning in the current organizational culture, which, the author suggests, is dominated by fears about survival. The paper examines some defensive strategies counsellors may use to protect themselves against prevailing anxieties and argues for the importance of recognizing and working with these.     

The capacity to forgive: intrapsychic and developmental perspectives

The topic of forgiveness, despite its importance for the continuity of relationships and for the mental health of the aggrieved party, is relatively neglected in the psychoanalytic literature, perhaps because it is often seen as the province of religion and carries the connotation of reaction formation and inauthenticity. However, genuine forgiveness involves significant intrapsychic work, conscious and unconscious working through of one's anger, and putting the offense into the context of an integrated view of the whole person of the offender. Early developmental structures are the ground on which the relative ability to let go of a grievance depends. While later motives and defenses (e.g., fear of retraumatization, avoidance of shame) may also play a role, these early structures are primary. They are described here in terms of attainment of the depressive position and the development of a sense of secure attachment, the capacity to mentalize, and the ability to mourn.     

On evil, sin, and suffering: toward a hermeneutic of their relation

Historically, evil, illness, and suffering have been interpreted in religious communities as having the imprint of Providence. Many traditions continue to hold to this world view. But increasingly with the burgeoning of technology and the advent of palliative care, more and more religious persons struggle to maintain this belief. Suffering as such no longer holds the kind of "purifying effect" that it once was thought to have. Indeed, particularly with our capacity to mitigate physical suffering with drugs such as methadone and morphine, the belief that all suffering has a purpose seems to have lost its appeal. This article examines and challenges the underlying assumptions that continue to undergird religious communities--particularly sacramental ones--that evil, illness, and suffering are linked to notions such as sin and healing.     

Bioethics and sin.

On the basis of a historical reconstruction of the stages through which the Christian notion of sin took shape in Protestantism, the significance of this term for modern bioethics is derived from its opposition to a holiness of God and his creatures, which in turn translates into the secular moral concept of dignity. This dignity imposes obligations to respect and to relationships that are sustained by faithfulness and trust. In being based on the gratuitousness of God's grace, such relationships preclude attempts at instrumentalization, denial of singularity, and subjection to market forces. Accordingly, reproductive cloning as well as exposing medicine to economical considerations can be classified as sinful. The difference between sinful acts and humans' sinful state furthermore permits to address the problems of evil and misfortune in the world, and to acknowledge humans' responsibility for the threats to humanity entailed by those ills. While the Christian faith relies on God's mercy, it also imposes the task of following Christ by fighting against evil and misfortune.     

Psychotherapy,sin, and mental health

The authors contend that there are important consistencies between the Judeo-Christian tradition and psychotherapy. Empirical findings suggesting a weak correlation between religiosity and mental health are discussed in terms of there being both healthy and unhealthy aspects of religion. The crucial balance may involve the shame engendered via the awareness of sin vs. the assurance of ultimate acceptance or grace. Also discussed are issues that arise when psychiatry and religion seemingly conflict.     

Death,sin, and God's judgment

Grief is difficult for everyone, including the professional. And yet resolving grief is necessary for life to be comfortable and productive. This paper looks at the story of a young man and how unresolved grief, inappropriate guilt, and uncontrollable despair colored every phase of his life. It also demonstrates the tragedy when grief is allowed to remain in denial and resolution comes too late.     

Life history, sin, and disease.

On the basis of experiences in pastoral hospital care, the relationship between disease, sin, and guilt in the life of patients is explored. Against the disregard of this subject in medicine, and even in most of pastoral care, it is argued that patients' interest requires that their hidden or manifest questions be addressed, rather than their being exposed to efforts at "helping" through mere attempts at "debt clearance." Only by openly confronting sin and guilt can the patient be taken seriously in his role as subject of his disease. Theological and anthropological background considerations revealing the essence of sin as a disruption or even destruction of the Divine gift of life in its realization through a lived relationship to God and other humans are offered as evidence for this claim.     

Vengeance is mine: Narcissism, vengeance, and the tendency to forgive

Recent theory and research have suggested that the disposition to forgive and the tendency to seek vengeance are related but distinguishable characteristics. Although highly forgiving individuals cannot be simultaneously high in vengeance, those who are low in forgiveness could be either vengeful or not. The present study tested the hypothesis that what distinguishes unforgiving people who are highly vengeful from unforgiving people who are not highly vengeful is that the latter group is lower in narcissism. Measures of dispositional forgiveness, narcissism, global self-esteem, and vengeance were administered to 248 undergraduates. As expected, people low in dispositional forgiveness were more vengeful than were people high in dispositional forgiveness, but particularly so among those high in narcissism; among those low in narcissism, forgiveness was less strongly related to vengeance. Thus, the most vengeful people were those who were both low in forgiveness and high in narcissism, independent of gender differences and healthy self-esteem.     

Marriage guidance counselling: I. What clients think will help

Thirty-one first-time attenders for marriage guidance counselling were given a non-schedule standardised interview and a client questionnaire. The main aim was to identify the counselling and counsellor characteristics which clients considered would be most helpful in dealing with their problems. Traditional counselling skills such as the ability to be warm, supportive, understanding and a good listener were seen to be important by most clients. However, the vast majority of clients indicated that it would be helpful to receive the counsellor's opinion about their marriage, their personal problems and marriage in general: this is incompatible with a non-directive approach to counselling. Whilst clients may not know best how they should be helped, counsellors who fail to address their preconceptions risk mutual disappointment and premature termination of counselling.     

Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: construct validity and links with depression

Four studies examine the construct validity of the Tendency to Forgive Scale (TTF), a brief measure of dispositional forgiveness. Study 1 showed that romantic partners' ratings of targets converged with targets' self-ratings, and Study 2 demonstrated that higher scores on the TTF were associated with lower offense accessibility. Study 3 examined the TTF's relation to self-reported depression symptoms, both independent of and interacting with attitudes toward forgiveness and dispositional vengeance. Lower TTF scores were associated with higher degrees of depression, especially for individuals with positive attitudes toward forgiveness or those low in dispositional vengeance, although neither of these latter variables displayed significant zero-order relations with depression. Finally, Study 4 examined relations between the TTF, dispositional empathy, another recent measure of dispositional forgiveness, and the dimensions of the Big Five, providing both convergent and discriminant validity evidence for the TTF.     

Trait tendencies to forgive,punish, and exonerate oneself: A multi-study investigation

In two studies (N’s = 515 and 359), we examine the utility of the Dual-Process Model of Self-Forgiveness for conceptualizing and measuring trait self-forgiveness with South African and American adults. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the trait-adapted Dual-Process Self-Forgiveness Scale supported an eight-item, two-factor structure of self-forgivingness consistent with prior theorizing and empirical evidence. The trait-adapted measure predicted incrementally more variance in outcomes beyond an existing measure of trait self-forgiveness. Latent subgroups characterized by tendencies to forgive, punish, and exonerate oneself in response to wrongdoing or failure were identified. Comparisons of mean differences provided preliminary evidence supporting the validity of the subgroups. Implications of the findings for conceptualizing and measuring self-forgiveness are discussed.     

Reformed and evolutionary epistemology and the noetic effects of sin

Despite their divergent metaphysical assumptions, Reformed and evolutionary epistemologists have converged on the notion of proper basicality. Where Reformed epistemologists appeal to God, who has designed the mind in such a way that it successfully aims at the truth, evolutionary epistemologists appeal to natural selection as a mechanism that favors truth-preserving cognitive capacities. This paper investigates whether Reformed and evolutionary epistemological accounts of theistic belief are compatible. We will argue that their chief incompatibility lies in the noetic effects of sin and what may be termed the noetic effects of evolution, systematic tendencies wherein human cognitive faculties go awry. We propose a reconceptualization of the noetic effects of sin to mitigate this tension.