The words that you used about the two approaches through the lectures are
based on that it is not always the case that these approaches lead to similar
answers is very accurate. What we can see from observing these lectures is that
Dr. Worthington focuses on forgiveness and God says that we have to forgive but
does not tell us how to forgive. This will determine on how we react to situations
whether it be the Scripture fate of an individual that God has predetermined or
whether is based on the reaction of the people and how they perceive the
situation of what forgiveness means to them. How this differs from what Dr.
McMinn states is that he believes that it does come down to acts of kindness and
positive attributes. It is that the Church give us the foundation and then we have
to take personal responsibility of our actions.
You delivered a wonderful explanation of your interpretation of how science does
give us opportunities to better understand the elements of forgiveness and how
the Church has given us a starting point and the emphasis on ‘virtuous living’.
What think that I feel that Dr. Worthington and Dr. McMinn both stated as you
have demonstrated is that they both agree that faith and science do play a part in
determining future action of forgiveness. While there is no correct answer as to
which viewpoint is more accurate is more accurate than the other, a levels of
explanation view states that you have to have either the Church or science while
an integration view states that it is more like one layer of the Church is a
precursor to the other layer added on by psychology and science.
Reference
Johnson, E. L. (2010). Psychology and Christianity: Five views (2nd ed.). IVP
Academic.
McMinn, M. “The science of virtue: Why positive psychology matters to the
church.” Westmont College
Worthington, E. “Why you should forgive and how to do it.” The Table Conference
