Next Article in Journal
Moderate Southeast Asian Islamic Education as a Parent Culture in Deradicalization: Urgencies, Strategies, and Challenges
Next Article in Special Issue
A View of Spirituality and Spiritual Care in a Sample of Spanish Nurses
Previous Article in Journal
Introduction to Special Issue “Religion and Food in Global and Historical Perspective”
Previous Article in Special Issue
Forgiveness in Committed Couples: Its Synergy with Humility, Justice, and Reconciliation
 
 
Concept Paper
Peer-Review Record

“Mere” Christian Forgiveness: An Ecumenical Christian Conceptualization of Forgiveness through the Lens of Stress-And-Coping Theory

Religions 2019, 10(1), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10010044
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Religions 2019, 10(1), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10010044
Received: 19 November 2018 / Revised: 20 December 2018 / Accepted: 3 January 2019 / Published: 10 January 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The case for nuanced understanding of forgiveness in Christianity is put forward clearly and persuasively. But the argument could be improved by providing some additional context to delineate what is distinct about the Christian approach. The following scholars could be included in the literature review and their respective contributions used to help sharpen further the methodology: Antony Bash (scripture and psychology), David Konstan (Graeco-Roman clasics) and Charles Griswold (philosophy). Another issue that would benefit from clarification is the ecumenical approach where the Greek patristic and later Eastern Orthodox tradition are not included. Ilaria Ramelli's contribution to Konstan and Griswold's Cambridge volume on Ancient Forgiveness (2012) would be a good place to start here, to be supplemented with Stanley Harakas's chapter in the Forgiveness & Reconciliation: Public Policy & Conflict Transformation volume edited by Raymond G. Helmick, Rodney Petersen (2001).


Author Response

Reviewer 1

The case for nuanced understanding of forgiveness in Christianity is put forward clearly and persuasively. But the argument could be improved by providing some additional context to delineate what is distinct about the Christian approach. The following scholars could be included in the literature review and their respective contributions used to help sharpen further the methodology: Antony Bash (scripture and psychology), David Konstan (Graeco-Roman classics) and Charles Griswold (philosophy). Another issue that would benefit from clarification is the ecumenical approach where the Greek patristic, and later Eastern Orthodox, tradition are not included. Ilaria Ramelli's contribution to Konstan and Griswold's Cambridge volume on Ancient Forgiveness (2012) would be a good place to start here, to be supplemented with Stanley Harakas's chapter in the Forgiveness & Reconciliation: Public Policy & Conflict Transformation volume edited by Raymond G. Helmick, Rodney Petersen (2001).

 

Good points. Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with most of those references, and can’t really read and digest them in the rapid time we have for turnaround. However, the gist of the critique is duly noted and I agree with it. We need to include addition resources from theologians and philosophers, and additionally, we need to make sure to include both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theological traditions and not have it be quite as weighted toward Protestant sources. So, I have included additional references and brief discussions of those from

Philosopher Gregory L. Bock (a two-volume series just published): Vol III, Philosophy of Forgiveness: Forgiveness in World Religions, esp. Don Kraybill’s Anabaptist tradition chapter and Enzo Guerra and Adam Barkman on Aristotle and Aquinas. Also, Vol IV, Philosophy of Forgiveness, Christian Perspectives on Forgiveness, esp. Dylan Pahman’s chapter on “How Is Forgiveness Possible? Toward an Orthodox and Ascetic Answer.” I am familiar with Ray Helmick and Rodney Petersen’s book and mention Stanley Harakas’ chapter.


Back to TopTop