Response to “A Winnicottian Redescription of Christian Spiritual Direction Relationships: Illustrating the Potential Contribution of Psychology of Religion to Christian Spiritual Practice”
In this response to Hardy's article, I argue that redescribing the spiritual in psychological terms as a methodology for integration between the two is workable to the degree that these areas overlap, but is reductionistic in that it tends to minimize the supernatural aspect of the spiritual. R...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
2000
|
| In: |
Journal of psychology and theology
Year: 2000, Volume: 28, Issue: 4, Pages: 276-279 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In this response to Hardy's article, I argue that redescribing the spiritual in psychological terms as a methodology for integration between the two is workable to the degree that these areas overlap, but is reductionistic in that it tends to minimize the supernatural aspect of the spiritual. Redescribing the spiritual direction relationship of directee and director as Winnicottian potential space appears to reduce negating the human-human relationship while tending to negate intervention that is radically divine. Hardys suggests that spiritual directors alter their primary or sole focus on the Divine in order to focus on transference-countertransference in the directee-director relationship. I argue that this shift in focus significantly alters an ancient and proven genre of counseling. Therefore, I suggest possible ways to integrate director-directee play in the potential space with radically Divine agency. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2328-1162 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of psychology and theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/009164710002800405 |