Negative Outcomes of Reflecting God's Character in Conflict Resolution
Attempting to reflect God's character in conflict resolution can lead to negative outcomes if certain divine attributes are misunderstood or misapplied. One significant pitfall arises from a distorted view of divine justice. While God's justice is a fundamental aspect of His character, it is not solely reducible to benevolence [4]. Charles Hodge argues against the idea that happiness is the highest good and that all virtue consists in promoting happiness, stating that such a view is inconsistent with our moral nature and should be discarded from theology [4]. If human conflict resolution attempts to mimic a divine justice that is perceived as purely benevolent, it may fail to address the necessity of accountability for wrongdoing.
Another negative outcome can occur when the concept of God's sovereignty over evil is misconstrued. While God uses the agency of the wicked and governs their counsels and affections, this does not make Him the author of sin [7]. John Calvin explains that confusing God's will (as in His sovereign plan) with His precept (His moral law) leads to the erroneous conclusion that humans are unjustly condemned for obeying His will when they commit evil [7]. If individuals in conflict resolution attempt to justify or excuse harmful actions by appealing to a notion of divine orchestration, it can undermine personal responsibility and hinder genuine reconciliation.
Furthermore, a misunderstanding of God's wrath and jealousy can lead to destructive approaches to conflict. The Psalms speak of the wicked person who believes God "won’t call me into account" [1]. However, God declares Himself to be "a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" [2]. If human conflict resolution mirrors a punitive, generational wrath, it can perpetuate cycles of blame and retribution rather than fostering healing. Similarly, if God's displeasure is understood as merely an emotional outburst rather than a righteous response to sin, human attempts to express "godly" anger in conflict may become destructive and unholy.
Finally, the concept of God's judgment and the consequences of sin, such as spiritual death and the forfeiture of divine favor, are profound theological realities [5]. Hodge notes that the sufferings of Christ were not merely martyrdom but were judicially inflicted to satisfy justice [3]. If human conflict resolution attempts to impose a "judicial penalty" or "forfeiture of favor" in a way that mimics divine judgment, it risks becoming harsh, unforgiving, and ultimately counterproductive to human flourishing and reconciliation. The moral law, as the revealed will of God, is the standard of right and wrong, and anything contrary to it is morally wrong [6]. Applying this standard in conflict requires wisdom and discernment, lest human judgment overstep its bounds and become an imitation of divine judgment rather than a reflection of divine love and restorative justice.
Sources
- Psalms “Why does the wicked person condemn God, and say in his heart, “God won’t call me into account?” -- Psalms 10:13”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 44: displeasure of God, and the most dreadful manifestations of his wrath, are the certain consequences of the sin of idolatry; that is, of the sin of having any other God than Jehovah, or of giving to images, to stocks and stones, the external homage due to Him who is a spirit, and who must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. The Lord, therefore, in this commandment, declares Himself to be “a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation; and showing mercy unto thousands (unto th”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 129: dread in the prospect of death, so it was consistent with the feeling of depression and anguish under the obscuration of the favour of God. As the sufferings of Christ were not merely the pains of martyrdom, but were judicially inflicted in satisfaction of justice, they produced the effect due to their specific character. This of course does not imply that our Lord suffered as the finally impenitent suffer. Their sufferings are determined by their subjective state. The loss of the divine favour produces in them hatred, venting itself in ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 112: arguments heretofore urged in proof that the justice of God cannot be resolved into benevolence are valid arguments against the governmental theory of the atonement. The doctrine that happiness is the highest good, and that all virtue consists in the desire and purpose to promote the greatest possible amount of happiness, is almost discarded from the schools, and should be discarded from theology where it has wrought so much evil. It is so inconsistent with our moral nature, to assert that there is no difference between right and wrong e”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 49: alienum , and the penalty of it, the forfeiture of the divine favour, the loss of original righteousness, and spiritual death, are its sad consequences. Just as the righteousness of Christ is not our own but is imputed to us, and we have a title in justice on the ground of that righteousness, if we accept and trust it, to all the benefits of redemption. This, which is clearly the doctrine of the Apostle and of the Protestant churches, the realistic doctrine denies. That is, it denies that the sin of Adam as the sin of another is the groun”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: contain the only standard of right and wrong. The moral law is not something self-imposed. It is not what any man or body of men may think right or expedient. It is the revealed will of God as to human conduct; and whatever is contrary to that will is morally wrong. If this be so, then there can be no doubt that the divorce laws of many of our states are immoral. They contravene the law of God. They annul marriages for other reasons than those allowed in Scripture, and even, in some cases, at the discretion of the courts. They pronounce p”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 34: to bring good out of evil,” ( Augustin. in Ps. 111:2 ). 4. In the same way is solved, or rather spontaneously vanishes, another objection—viz. If God not only uses the agency of the wicked, but also governs their counsels and affections, he is the author of all their sins; and, therefore, men, in executing what God has decreed, are unjustly condemned, because they are obeying his will. Here will is improperly confounded with precept , though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between the”