Scholarlink

<p>This article introduces the spiritual repair pathway (SRP), a practice-based and conceptually informed approach to clinical work following spiritual abuse. The framework is developed through engagement with Jewish theological resources, including <i>lament</i> (sacred protest), <i>chesed</i> (loving-kindness), and <i>kavod ha-briyot</i> (human dignity), together with trauma-informed practice. SRP provides clinicians with interpretive reference points that guide assessment, shape language, and support client-led re-engagement with meaning when desired. A composite clinical vignette, constructed with full anonymity protections, illustrates how SRP functions as an interpretive lens in practice. Ethical safeguards are emphasized, including non-coercion, the primacy of dignity, and clarity of professional boundaries, alongside recognition that the paper is context-bound and does not claim outcomes. Although grounded in Jewish sources, the framework’s function-first, form-flexible, channel-aware orientation is broadly applicable across traditions. It coordinates established clinical modalities toward symbolization and safety while safeguarding client choice and autonomy. In this way, SRP offers practitioners a practical method for addressing spiritual struggle in care, while also setting an agenda for exploring what helps survivors reclaim language, practice, and voice on their own terms.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

From Spiritual Abuse to Spiritual Repair: A Trauma-Attentive, Theologically Grounded Pathway for Religious Survivors

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月2日

查看全文
  • Lauren Kalvari

摘要

This article introduces the spiritual repair pathway (SRP), a practice-based and conceptually informed approach to clinical work following spiritual abuse. The framework is developed through engagement with Jewish theological resources, including lament (sacred protest), chesed (loving-kindness), and kavod ha-briyot (human dignity), together with trauma-informed practice. SRP provides clinicians with interpretive reference points that guide assessment, shape language, and support client-led re-engagement with meaning when desired. A composite clinical vignette, constructed with full anonymity protections, illustrates how SRP functions as an interpretive lens in practice. Ethical safeguards are emphasized, including non-coercion, the primacy of dignity, and clarity of professional boundaries, alongside recognition that the paper is context-bound and does not claim outcomes. Although grounded in Jewish sources, the framework’s function-first, form-flexible, channel-aware orientation is broadly applicable across traditions. It coordinates established clinical modalities toward symbolization and safety while safeguarding client choice and autonomy. In this way, SRP offers practitioners a practical method for addressing spiritual struggle in care, while also setting an agenda for exploring what helps survivors reclaim language, practice, and voice on their own terms.