God image and the sacred.

Abstract

The notion of the God image as a psychological construct dates back to the 19th century, with much of the theoretical discussion being initiated by Freud (1913Freud ( /1950Freud ( , 1927Freud ( /1961. Although the God image generally refers to one's personal view of God, numerous theoretical lines are converging in suggesting two broad layers to the God image that are based on two distinct types of knowledge: explicit, or propositional knowledge of God, and implicit, or experiential knowledge of God (e.g., Rizzuto, 1979; see also Volume 2, Chapter 6, this handbook). Although these layers are distinct, they are all part of an individual's personal view of God, and can certainly influence each other, although they may also operate somewhat independently.A person's God image not only has multiple layers in terms of how the information is processed, but it also has multiple dimensions such as the biological, cognitive, emotional, motivational, behavioral, and relational dimensions. In addition, we can think of the God image interacting in reciprocal ways with multiple levels, such as the individual, familial, organizational, and community levels. These layers, dimensions, and levels of the God image have a multidirectional impact, meaning they cause certain outcomes, but they are also influenced by contextual factors, both of which are the result of complex processes. Finally, it is important to point out that the God image has multiple valences-that is, a person's God image exists on a continuum ranging from positive and health inducing to negative and health diminishing.As part of the integrative paradigm of this handbook, our goal in this chapter is to integrate as much as possible the various layers, dimensions, levels, directionalities, and valences within several foundational conceptual headings related to the God image: terminology and the layers of the God image, the nature and formation of the God image, the God image and psychological functioning, contextual influences on the God image, the transformation of the God image, and measurement issues. Although theory and research will lay the foundation for this chapter, we will discuss implications for practice throughout the various sections. TERMINOLOGY AND LAYERS OF THE GOD IMAGEIn reviewing the literature on the God image, one is quickly confronted with the fact that various terms are used to refer to an individual's personal view of God. The three main terms found in the literature-God image, God concept, and God representationare often used interchangeably and inconsistently, which promotes conceptual confusion. Generally, the term God concept has been used to refer to more conscious, propositional beliefs about God. In contrast, the terms God image and God representation generally have been used to refer to a more experiential view of God. Jones (2007) highlighted these two layers in his discussion of two approaches to people's beliefs about God: (a) the correlational approach that uses empirical methods and focuses

An Item Response Theory Analysis of The Questionnaire of God Representations

“…In the S-QGR, non-significant DF items with high information values were included. When we regard these items from a relational theoretical perspective that builds on attachment and object relations theories (Davis et al, 2013;Hall & Fujikawa, 2013;Jones, 2007;Rizzuto, 1979), these items fit exactly into this relational perspective. The content of the various scales reflect an attachment relationship with God, which may be characterized by closeness, love, and affection to a supporting, patient, and protecting God who is unconditionally open and/or by feelings of fear of being rejected or punished by a God who judges and exerts power and/or by angry and disappointed feelings because of a God who does not care, leaving people to their own devices.…”

“…In this way, the list functions as an operationalization of a relational view that understands God representations as comprising both emotional aspects ("heart knowledge" or experiential representations) and cognitive aspects ("head knowledge" or doctrinal representations; cf. Zahl & Gibson, 2012; see also Davis, Moriarty, & Mauch, 2013;Hall & Fujikawa, 2013). This view implies that there is no such thing as one uniform and consistent God representation.…”

“…From a relational theoretical perspective, which combines insights from attachment theory and object relations theory, one's emotional understanding of God, or God image, is assumed to reflect subjective experiences of God/the divine (e.g., experiences that are characterized by trust, thankfulness, fear, or disappointment) and is developed through a relational, and initially subconscious, process to which parents and significant others make important contributions (Davis et al, 2013;Hall & Fujikawa, 2013;Hoffman, 2005;Jones, 2007;Rizzuto, 1979; for an overview of models inspired by psychodynamic theory see Corveleyn, Luyten, & Dezutter, 2013). Early interactions with parents are generalized and represented in a preverbal way as "ways of being-with" (Stern, 2000, p. xv), resulting in a characteristic mode of relating or attachment style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;cf.…”

“…Davis et al, 2013). The resulting relational and emotional representations of God function as internal working models, guiding and integrating a person's embodied, emotional experiences in relationship with God, usually at an emotional, implicit, and largely nonverbal level, outside of conscious awareness (Davis et al, 2013;Hall & Fujikawa, 2013).…”

Religious and Spiritual Coping. An Overview of the Western Studies

“…Обвинение Бога в ответ на вызовы, которые несут с собой страдания или беспокойства о том, что Бог не одобряет, покидает, наказывает (под-робнее об образах карающего Бога в исследованиях [Hall, Fujikawa 2013;; в контексте теории привязанности [Kirkpatrick 2005]; интерес к данному методу Д/Р совладания проявлялся также в рамках теории объектных отношений). Данным методом негативного Д/Р совладания интересовались также в рамках теории объектных от-ношений.…”