Category Archives: conflicts

Hating the desire for intimacy


In prep for a presentation next week I have been reviewing Dan Allender’s”The Wounded Heart.” While I’m not a fan of his approach in this book (it’s too much at once for those with PTSD), I do think he has many, many nuggets of truth. Here’s one on p. 41:

Let me state an important observation: I have never worked with an abused man or woman who did not hate or mistrust the hunger for intimacy. In most victims, the essence of the battle is a hatred of their hunger for love and a strong distaste for any passion that might lead to a vulnerable expression of desire….The enemy, or so it feels, is the passion to be lovingly pursued and nourishingly touched by a person whose heart is utterly disposed to do us good. Such people (if they exist at all) are rare; it is therefore easier to hate the hunger than to wait expectantly for the day of satisfaction.

I see this love/hate/fear theme in many troubled marriages–even those where abuse is absent. When we desire this nourishment from someone “utterly disposed to do us good” and then continually wake to the realization that the person we married is not–no, cannot–disposed to do us good in the way we dream, we often feel rejected and invalidated because it seems to us the person is holding out on us. In response to these fears, we have one of several choices:

  1. Demand/pursue via criticism, complaint, accusation, suggestion, etc. that the person give what they are withholding: perfect validation and intimacy
  2. Withdraw into coldness, self-hatred, workaholism, fantasy, etc. to avoid the intimacy that is present in the marriage because it is not what we think it should be
  3. Actively pursue the dream of intimacy with others, or
  4. Daily die to the dream that the other will make us fully secure and happy WHILE continuing to offer unconditional intimacy, support, validation of the other in order to better provide sacrificial love AND yet still communicating (without demand) clearly our requests for how the other can love us well or what behaviors they should stop that are hurtful.

As you can see the 4th is impossible without the power of the Holy Spirit. The first 3 are much easier choices. They require less of us and maintain our all/nothing view of self and the world. The truth is we can only approach the 4th position if we place our trust in God to sustain us in a broken world. And therein lies the problem. It is hard for us humans to trust an unseen God, especially when our experience with the seen world tells us that love is conditional, that we are not valued, etc.

What’s the answer then? There is no one answer. But am I willing today to do one thing where I trust the Lord and show love/civility to the other as a creature made in the image of God. If I can answer yes, then I need to find another human being (since we are made for community) to help me discern what that love might look like today (hint: it may not look anything like what my spouse thinks it should look like).

5 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Anxiety, christian counseling, christian psychology, Communication, conflicts, Desires, Great Quotes, love, marriage, Relationships

Divorce & Remarriage 14: Summary and application


In chapter 14 of David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church(IVP), we find a summary of the book and some practical applications. In this next to last chapter of the book, he summarizes each chapter. Here are some key points.

Chapter 1 points out that some things we thought were in the bible (re: divorce) aren’t actually there. Chapter 2 looks at how in the OT God corrects an ANE tradition of allowing men to abandon and then return to their wives at will by requiring them to give a divorce certificate to their wives if they refused to provide for her or to be faithful. This certificate allowed her to remarry. Chapter 3 runs down the rabbit trail of God as divorcee. Chapter 4 shows Jesus’ teaching to be in continuity with the OT. Chapter 5 looks at Jesus’ criticism of groundless divorce. Chapter 6 explores Paul’s rejection of groundless divorce and his recognizing that if one is victimized by a groundless divorce that they shouldn’t be enslaved to it and are free to remarry. Chapter 7 and 8 look at whether there is biblical teaching that divorce is always wrong (even for abuse) and that even if they get divorce, whether or not they are really are in God’s eyes. I-B believes there isn’t credibility for these teachings from Scripture and that the OT does allow for divorce in cases of neglect/abuse. Chapter 9 looks at whether remarriage is possible. He believes the NT doesn’t really address this matter in grounded (opposed to groundless) divorces since it was commonly accepted in the first century. He believes both Jesus and Paul assume this in their teachings and didn’t clearly exclude remarriage.

He cites early Reformers who also saw the Scriptures this way (Erasmus, Martin Luther, Zwingli, Cranmer) and allowed for divorce on grounds of abuse, abandonment, neglect as well as adultery.

He then cites modern writers who also have similar positions (although he admits they may hold these positions but fail to use proper biblical grounds).

Finally, he suggests these policies for consideration:

The biblical grounds for divorce are adultery, neglect and abuse, any of which is equivalent to broken marriage vows.

No one should initiate a divorce unless their partner is guilty of repeatedly or unrepentantly breaking their marriage vows.

No one should separate from their marriage partner without intending to divorce them.

If someone has divorced or separated without biblical grounds, they should attempt a reconciliation with their former partner.

Remarriage is allowed in church for any divorcee after a service of repentance, unless they have divorced a wronged partner who wants to be reconciled.

The final chapter (15) are several letters written to him asking his opinion on their situation. He replies to each with what he think can be said and what is not clear from Scripture.

——

So we have come to the end of Divorce & Remarriage. It seems I-B has helped us understand some of the cultural contexts in which the OT and NT texts are written. He helps us understand where some of the text may be repeating current “legal” language. A chunk of his viewpoint is based on silence in the text and that the bible may not stipulate every kind of divorce. So, how do you feel about this? Does his arguments have merit? Where? Does he help clarify places where the church has misread the text? For me, I think his work helps me better defend 2 beliefs: a unrepentant breach of the vows may allow the victim to seek a divorce and then remarry; and separation “just to see what happens” is not only unwise but unbiblical.

Will some abuse this work and proclaim their right to no longer suffer? Sure. But that is nothing new. Will a few more who are suffering silently be willing to talk about their victimization? Hopefully. And hopefully church leaders will take their concerns seriously.

I do wish he addressed matters of sexual abuse. Sexually abused individuals are easily triggered by sexual activity. I would be very much against the spouse of a victim of sexual abuse using “neglect of conjugal love” as a reason for divorce. There are other forms of love besides intercourse.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, Christianity, conflicts, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage

The root of conflict in couples?


We often say that most conflict between spouses boils down to money, sex, or power–and the first two are also all about power in the relationship. I think that is true. But, don’t forget that the power struggle may be less about the two people and more about a life-long pattern of feeling powerless  and unsafe in the world. In psychology terms we talk about this as the lack of secure attachment.

Here’s a few summary statements about attachment that I wrote up some time ago. I have no idea where these thoughts came from or why I wrote them so I apologize now for plagarizing them. They may well be my own thoughts or someone else’s…

1. Attachment injuries are often the culprit behind continuously conflicted couples.

2. Fights, then, are more symbolic than content driven.

3. Attachment insecurity precedes most conflict: the feeling of being alone, abandoned, rejected, etc.

4. Injuries usually are trauma based (or the perception of) in the present marital relationship or much earlier in childhood. There is a “violation of connection”

5. Two common problems result: (a) numbing, and (b) obsessional repeating/self-reminder of the experience of the violation. (example: the person repeatedly recalls the time 5 years ago that their spouse treated them as an object)

6. As a result of #5, the person experiences (a) and increased desire/”need” for a safe haven, but (b) lacks trust in the spouse, and (c) is vigilant for any sign of relational danger (i.e., reads ambiguous data in the worst possible manner)

7. The other spouse feels pushed/pulled at the same time and commonly physically and/or emotionally withdraws

8. The cycle perpetuates itself allowing both parties to solidify their labels for each other

9. The GOAL of therapy is to get a commitment to stop the cycle/script and to have each party soften towards each other so as to see the desires behind the emotion/behavior. If couples can see beyond the criticism or withdrawal to common desires of intimacy, they may be able to re-interpret and validate that desire while at the same time supporting a healthier way of expressing that desire.

7 Comments

Filed under Communication, conflicts, counseling, marriage, Psychology, Relationships

Divorce & Remarriage 13: A conspiracy?


On our journey thought David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church we come to chapter 13 where he raises the question why, if the church has had access to rabbinical literature and understanding of the issues at play during Jesus and Paul’s time, hasn’t the church revised it’s understanding of the divorce passages. If you have been following along, I-B has been arguing that most of the church was unaware of the controversy surrounding the “any cause” divorce during Jesus day and that was what he was reacting to in Matt. 19. But now that we have this background available to us again, it helps us understand the context of Jesus comments. So, why hasn’t the church revised divorce teachings? Is it conspiracy? Or just disagreement with I-B?

I-B tells an interesting story at the beginning of this chapter. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, one scholar refused to make public one particular scroll. After he died, the scroll was translated and made public. The controversy? The scroll contains a 1-2nd century divorce certificate written by a woman for an “any cause” (or better, no cause) divorce. The scholar had previously published that this sort of thing didn’t happen in this wonderful period of orthodox Judaism so he sat on the document to hide it. I-B tells the story here because he believes this shows how even Jews had forgotten the only reasons allowed for divorce in Exodus 21 (neglect, infidelity) and that no cause divorces were allowed by both men AND women.

Yet I-B doesn’t really believe conspiracy is the problem with the church. Just confusion. Why the confusion? I-B reviews the sexual mores of the early Christian world. Outside the church immorality was a given at levels we don’t even have today–open sexual contact with prostitutes, friends, etc. even when married. So, I-B reports that the church reacted to this to even become suspicious of conjugal love in marriage. If a marriage ended due to the death of a loved one, the widow should not remarry and if he/she did, it was a sign of lust. He quotes Tertullian’s belief on this matter that Christians should seek abstinence. It is I-B’s believe that this view of sex and celibacy is what grew until the 9th century when the Roman church instituted celibacy for priests and comes out the believe that Paul and Jesus both taught that celibacy was superior to marriage. (Remember that in a prior chapter I-B stated his believe that Paul’s comment in 1 Cor. 7:1 that it is good for a man to not marry is not Paul’s belief but his quotation of a common belief which he rejects in following verses).

Further, I-B reports to us that many early church fathers (and contemporaries as well) believed that the OT was for then and the NT is for the church. So, even if the OT had other rules about divorce, Jesus rules supercedes and is the only rule for Christians today.

But since this “any cause” dispute has been known to us for 150 years why haven’t we reconsidered the divorce interpretations? I-B ultimately says it is because of the status quo. Church doctrines shouldn’t change. He says the thinking goes like this: God doesn’t change, the bible doesn’t change, doctrine doesn’t change.

I-B ends this chapter rather abruptly (IMHO) with the admission that he has undertaken this scholarly study given our better understanding of the misery of abuse within the church. And yet he believes his understanding of the key issues surrounding the culture of the 1-2nd century Judaism and Christianity helps us re-consider the meaning of Jesus and Paul’s words on divorce.

So, what are we left with? There may be more ambiguity in some of our passages on divorce, reasons for divorce, and remarriage. Certainly, we must admit there are some silences that trouble us. We would have liked greater clarity. We all recognize that Jesus and Paul rejected baseless divorces. That sexual purity is essential. That marriage is good, sex is good, but not to be worshipped. I think we can also see that divorce is part of the fall but a reality. It is forgiveable but there remain questions of whether remarriage is possible. If we take the no remarriage passages as speaking about baseless divorces, then we are to work for reconciliation. But if that is not possible, we must acknowledge that there are many situations with the Scriptures do not provide us clear direction. In those cases we ought to be careful not to act as if we did get a clear message from the Lord. We ought to be very careful not to hang weights on the necks of believers and to bind their conscience where there is ambiguity. This does not mean we cannot seek to preserve marriages as our ideal.

Well, we are almost at the end of the book. Two more chapters on recommendations for what the pastor/church should do given the possible new interpretations.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, book reviews, Christianity, church and culture, conflicts, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage

When you can’t solve a problem…


you find someone to complain to. Right?

I just lost two hours of my life that I can’t get back, and the problem still isn’t solved. How do you handle frustrations like this:

Buy HP deskjet black ink cartridge for my printer at home. Bring it home. Install. Print 10 pages just fine. Go to sleep. Try to print 2 more the next morning but the black ink is first faint then gone. Take out cartridge and shake it. look at contacts. Determine they are just fine. Try several times. No luck. Determine I must have bought a bad HP cartridge. Call the 800 number. Listen to the options and find none really fit. Choose the printer problems. Describe my printer. Get told its ancient (born in 2000) and not covered. Explain, patiently, that I don’t have a printer problem. I have a defective cartridge. Get transferred, Wait…., explain it all anew to the next person. Get transferred again. Wait….., start explaining it to the new person only to be disconnected somehow.

Call back after dinner. Do the same thing as above (less patiently), get put on hold. Put phone on speaker phone. Do dishes, clean kitchen. After 1 hour, hang up and go swimming with my son.

This morning. Do the hp.com chat with a tech. from a local coffeeshop (I only have dialup at home). Describe the whole thing. Another hour later after less patiently telling them that I KNOW it is a defective ink cartridge and would they please just replace it, I’m asked to find some small print on the cartridge that tells that it expired in 2007! I should go back to Walmart, says the tech, and ask for a replacement. If I don’t get satisfaction, I should call back and they will kindly redirect me to the right dept.

Problem. I can’t from the recpt from last Friday. I probably threw it away and thus threw away 2 plus hours of my time and the 40 dollars for the cartridge.

I’m happy that I didn’t curse. I was respectful but firm and direct with the hp.com person. But I’d like to tell SOMEONE off. It would seem hp has done a masterful job at getting people to follow protocol, but that means they stop thinking.

Of course, my complaining here probably shows some immaturity on my part. In the scheme of things this isn’t a problem. I have food and water and no one is trying to kill me. I can afford another cartridge…

12 Comments

Filed under anger, conflicts

Practicum Monday: Scott Stanley on Couple Conflicts


Last week in our staff meeting we listened to the end of Scott Stanley’s conference presentation on couples communication. You may remember I blogged previously on his funny but too-true analogy of dogs and marriage (We fall in love with the front end of the puppy/marriage, but they both have backs ends that need to be managed).

In this section of the presentation he makes this statement: events trigger issues. Couples tend to fight about events but really most conflicts are about issues that are deeper (e.g., Who gets the say around here, Do I have influence, Do you care, and other expectation clashes). The challenge is to get couples to see past events to the issues.

Problem: most couples only talk about issues during emotionally charged events. Why? It would be easy to say avoidance. But take that a step further. If the couple is no longer in conflict, why bring up something that is likely to trigger it? As Stanley says, “We’re really getting along right now, so I don’t want to screw it up by talking about a problem.” Seems good in the moment, but bad over time.

Stanley’s point is to deal with this problem by (a) handling events well (time out, staying in the moment, etc.), and (b) being proactive by maintaining safe, open communication about issues. This takes sacrifice, he says. Healthy sacrifice (not martyrdom) is pretty powerful and helpful in moving toward the desires of the other.

Here’s a couple of my thoughts:

Stanley has some great techniques and seems to have a good handle on what goes wrong in conflict. I think many couples can benefit from better care of the “back end” and making sure to remember and reinforce the front end as well. He rightly points out that we can easily miss the good sacrifices others do daily and then only recognize the good when it stops for some reason. If we’re not careful we take for granted the sacrifices of others and come to expect and even demand them as rights.

Stanley’s techniques seem not to work with couples where insight is low, trauma or violence has been a part of it, when folks have personality disorders, or when the couple are deeply entrenched in their bitterness towards each other. All events have meaning. The couple that is not willing to reconsider the meanings they apply to events (she is evil, that is why she leaves the kitchen that way), little couple work is possible. In fact, maybe even contraindicated. Techniques that should help become

weapons to hurt and destroy. Couple counseling is based on the capacity to observe self and other and to withhold judgment to see life from another perspective. Without this, it is hard to make much progress outside of painstaking experiential work.

2 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, conflicts, counseling, counseling science, love, marriage, Psychology

Practicum Monday: Is conflict necessary in therapy?


In the latest edition of the Journal of Counseling Psychology (55:2, 172-184), Nelson, Barnes, Evans, and Triggiano have published an article on the inevitable conflict between supervisor and supervisee–what leads to it, how supervisors react to it as well as supervisor strategies for managing it.

But, these lines about therapy caught my eye:

It is likely that conflict is as difficult to manage in supervision as it is in psychotherapy. Yet addressing conflicts successfully can be a healing and educational venture. The work of “tear and repair” in therapeutic relationships suggested by Safran (1993) and Safran and Murran (1996, 2000) is thought to be critical to optimal outcome in psychotherapy. The capacity of therapeutic relationships to recover from relationship breaches is thought to enhance client trust that relationships can survive misunderstandings and disagreements as well as client confidence that he or she can successfully resolve them. A skillful therapist can guide a client through the process of accepting the therapist’s inevitable fallibility, thus enhancing client capacity to accept his or her own… (172)

What do you think? Is conflict necessary for healing? I think yes. Otherwise, the client and the therapist idealize each other and so become blind to reality.

However, not all relationship breaches are good and we don’t always respond well to them, making matters worse.

How do you feel about conflict with your clients? With your counselor?

6 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, conflicts, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychology

Science Monday: Easing the suffering in schizophrenia


While few outpatient, private practice therapists deal much with those diagnosed with schizophrenia, there are things therapists can do to ease the suffering of both client and family. Kim Mueser, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School has published a number of helpful research and popular writings designed to increase social and cognitive functioning and decrease family distress in people with schizophrenia. Click here for an Amazon.com list of his writings. His Complete Family Guide (#1 on the list) is probably the best though several other texts may be just as useful depending on the reader’s focus. And while medications are important in the treatment of schizophrenia, it is quite clear that when families and client learn to minimize family distress and conflict, they also reduce active psychotic episodes

—–

There are a number of interesting research angles on the pathways of Schizophrenia. One such hypothesis is that the croticostriatal loops do not work correctly in such patients. In lay terms this means that information doesn’t flow normally from the frontal lobe of the brain to some of the mid-brain structures and then back again. This seems to be part of the cause of apathy and lack of volition and/or planning. One wonders whether the longer time it takes for information to flow properly in order to make a decision or interpretation increases the likelihood of making random assumptions about the world. I know that when my children get stuck in a math problem, they are more likely to begin wild guessing to complete the task.  

3 Comments

Filed under conflicts, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychiatric Medications, Psychology

The danger of apologizing too soon


Can an apology come too soon? I was listening to an NPR show discussing a national apology for slavery in the US (and reparations). One guest on the show stated that if a government or organization apologizes before there is adequate dialogue about the real effects of that entity’s misdeeds (i.e., support of slavery), it kills further dialogue.

Really? Why is it that if we apologize for hurting someone that we think the conversation is over?

Point of fact: true apologies invite further discussion, including exploration of the effects of the “crime.” When discussion ends because of an apology, we discover that the apology was really cover for, “Will you let me out of jail for what I did to you? Will you forget my bad behavior?”

True apologies are not formed as questions or requests–either explicitly or implicitly. It is offerings of forgiveness that end or at least change discussion regarding criminal activity. When we demand instant forgiveness or apology acceptance we inappropriately tie apologies with conversation endings.

Do you agree with this next statement? The truly repentant do not mind apologizing as many times as necessary nor engaging in conversation about the effects of their misdeeds.

In relationship to slavery, the matter is complicated in that the conversation is happening between those who either indirectly benefit or suffer from slavery. Because of our overemphasis on individualism, we often fail to acknowledge corporate sins and that some of us benefit from those corporate sins. Read Ezra and Nehemiah and you see a different picture. A people repenting for sins done by the previous generation. Now there’s a novel idea.

6 Comments

Filed under conflicts, Cultural Anthropology, Doctrine/Theology, Forgiveness, News and politics, Race, Racial Reconciliation, Repentance

Students as consumers or disciples? Or both?


I’ll let you in on a snippet of a faculty meeting. We were discussing how best to give students regular feedback beyond letter grades a brief comments–especially those who might have some particular struggle: academic, spiritual, interpersonal, etc. While we offer academic degrees, part of what we do as a Seminary pays attention to spiritual formation. That’s a broad category of course. But any student or group issues (and cohorts almost always have some group issues) have the opportunity of being formative teaching/pastoring moments. But I digress…

In the midst of this conversation, some faculty noted the consumerist mentality that some students have. They are coming here for MAs, MDivs, or DMins and the program should serve their interests and at the end they should get a degree that will get them a job. Nothing really new here. Most wouldn’t spend 20+K on an MA or 40+K on an MDiv just for the enrichment of it. Other faculty noted that some consumer mentality is appropriate. Students are coming here to buy a product and we need to sell the best version of that product.

So, here’s my question, can student as consumer also do a good job being student as disciple of Christ? Where’s the line between wise consumer and self-focused/demanding consumer?

This past month my credit card company submitted my check to them TWICE to my bank. That means they took a significant amount of money out of my checking account without my consent–and it could have caused other checks to bounce. I was not happy. Calls to the bank quickly resulted in our getting back what was rightfully mine. I was not happy with the bank for letting it happen and I was not happy with the credit card company for making the mistake. I want them to know that I’m not happy and to assure me it will never happen again. Ultimately, I want them to make me happy all the time. I want them to never let me down. And if they do not make me happy? Then I’ll take my business elsewhere.  Isn’t that how we approach most of our consuming? If my favorite restaurant stops pleasing me and treating me as a king, then I’m not likely to go back.

Do students bring this attitude into their education? I think so. I think I did as a student. I noted every failure of my profs. I rarely brought my concerns to them (for fear of looking petty) but more than once I’m sure I complained (shared my feelings) to my peers. Where does it lead us? Grumbling and complaining. Looking at the faults of others rather than our own. Defending rather than being appropriately self-critical. Not sure it is easy to be a disciple when I’m grumbling and complaining.

So, the challenge for students is to bring legitimate concerns and complaints to their professor’s attention, avoid gossip, and consider the formation opportunity in front of them (e.g., life when things don’t turn out as expected). And faculty/administration have the challenge before them to make sure they listen to said complaints, avoid defensiveness, repent where necessary, and pursue both their own and their student’s formative learning moments. Teachers and program administrators must remember that they too are disciples on the same journey as their pupils.

May we all pursue excellence as servants of the kingdom.  

4 Comments

Filed under conflicts