Category Archives: Relationships

June 25, 2008 · 5:38 am

Divorce & Remarriage VIII: 4 Biblical Grounds for Divorce


Last week I took a hiatus from reviewing Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church  (IVP). This week we explore chapter 8. I-B starts with a story about a woman whose husband attempted to murder her. Her church leaders decided that it would be okay for her to separate due to the threat to her life but that she could not divorce because the Bible didn’t allow it. He suggests that this is a common response to abuse in marriages: Separation for safety but no possibility of divorce unless adultery.

I-B makes this very clear response: “…[this] solution is not biblical. A couple should not separate without getting divorced, because Paul specifically says that married couples may not separate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).” (p. 94-5)

But we have already witnessed I-B argue that the OT allowed the victim to decide to divorce in the case of abuse, neglect, and adultery. Did the NT abandon these grounds? I-B reminds the reader,

He [Jesus] spoke about the ideal of lifelong marriage, the facts that divorce was never compulsory and that marriage was not compulsory, about monogamy and, of course, about his interpretation of “a cause of sexual immorality’–that it means only sexual immorality and not also “Any Cause.” So if Jesus believed that neglect and abuse were valid grounds for divorce, why didn’t he say something about them? (p. 95)

I-B infers that Jesus didn’t say anything because it was so obvious a reason. It was not considered controversial as was the “any cause” debate that was raging at the time of his ministry. He argues that Jesus didn’t teach about rape, manslaughter, the oneness of God either. Does this mean he didn’t believe those things either? Bolstering his argument is the fact that he reports that no other ancient Jewish literature debates the validity of divorce for abuse/neglect. Therefore, it wasn’t an issue needing attention. He goes on to tell us that what was debated was how one defined neglect (i.e., minimum quantities of clothing and food and conjugal love needed in order to avoid being considered in neglect of one’s spouse).

So, to underline this, the Matthew 19:9 passage is in regard to the question of Deut. 24:1 and the debate about whether any cause divorces were valid and not to say that no other grounds were possible.

So, I-B suggests that Paul teaches 3 grounds for divorce (implicitly) in 1 Cor. 7: neglect of food, clothes and sex. The reason why he talks about the obligations to care for the spouse and not to withhold is because of the known (at that time) grounds for divorce existing in Ex 21:10-11. Further it is assumed that Paul accepted the cause of unfaithfulness as grounds but that he doesn’t speak to this issue.

So how do we apply these grounds for today? While it is easier to assess unfaithfulness, I-B says that we too frequently neglect the matter of neglect that may have helped cause the rift that resulted in adultery (p. 101). Neglect doesn’t excuse adultery but, “it is important to realize that the fault is often not just one sided.” (ibid).

What about frequency of sex a reason for divorce? The rabbis thought men should provide sexual love at least 2 times per week, less if you were an “ass driver” (HIS words not mine), and nightly if you were out of work! Of note were NO rules for women as to how frequently they would need to offer conjugal love. Despite these pieces of advice, I-B reports that, “rabbis were reluctant to allow a divorce on the ground of refusing conjugal activity…” Further, notice that while Paul encourages both parties to see sex as something they owe each other, I-B points out that nowhere does he give permission for one party to demand sex from the other. “…Love is something that we give and not something that we take.” (p. 102). Still further, I-B suggests that we should not define conjugal love as narrowly as intercourse, “because this can become impractical or inappropriate in cases of illness or frailty.” (ibid)

I-B wants us to look at the principles. The husband that never allows his wife to buy make-up, occasional leisure items and the husband that provides weekly sex but no other kind of affection may not violate the technical side of things but certainly has missed the spirit of the biblical mandate to protect and care for her.  

What about the couple who no longer finds themselves in love? Can they divorce? I-B says it would be improper to read back the idea of being in love into the biblical passage. Love is an act, not a feeling.

I-B ends with the question about what can be said to the abused party. Here’s what he would say to an abused wife,

First, we can tell her that God’s law has taken such sin into account. God’s ideal for marriage is for a husband and wife to be faithful to each other and, as we saw in the [OT], for them to support each other with food, clothing and conjugal love. If these vows are broken, then there are grounds for divorce.

Since there is no question that the abusing husband is “neglecting” to support his wife, she should be aware that she does have the option to divorce him…

We should not forget, though, that Jesus emphasized forgiveness…so we should not advise this woman to divorce her husband the first time he breaks his vows. However, if he continues to sin hardheartedly (stubbornly or without repentance), Jesus says she may divorce him. In practice we have to depend on the individual concerned to decide when enough is enough, because we cannot know what goes on inside a marriage. We cannot know how much emotional abuse is happening, and even physical abuse is largely unseen or unreported. (p. 103-4)

I-B speaks of the false facade that we erect or allow to be erected about “happy” marriages that in fact are not. This is sad and not the way it should be. God does, however, know our secret sufferings and so he says this to the abused,

“God is not a ruler who sits on a high throne in isolation, ignorant of the suffering of his people. He aches with us, even in divorce, which he too has suffered. God loves you and knows your secret sufferings. he wants to help you and has given us practical laws to help deal with your hurt.” That is what we say to a person in a neglectful or abusive marriage. p. 106

—-

So, do you agree? Where does your mind go when considering these as grounds for divorce that the victim uses to decide if she or he has had enough? I have found that while some concede these, they are very afraid that some will cry “victim” when they are not. That these grounds will be used for all manner of excuses and that “victims” will assert that only they can know that they have been abused.

While it is true that some and even many will abuse the divorce rules in the bible, it doesn’t make them any less true.

27 Comments

Filed under Abuse, biblical counseling, Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, Relationships

Tagged as , , ,

June 16, 2008 · 12:54 pm

Are counselors and psychologists an impaired lot?


We’re closing in on the last of the school year. Two weeks to go. Tonight in our ethics class we’ll be discussing the matter of abuse of power, impaired clinicians, and similar issues. In the world of counseling we discuss the problem of impaired counselors/students/trainees when we talk about those who,

(a) do not have the requisite skills, 
(b) have character/attitude deficits, or
(c) reactions to current crises,

AND are unwilling or unable to repair the situation.

First, we ought to be aware of those who are attracted to being counselors. Jeffery Barnett, et al, report the following data from other studies (as cited in the 2007 Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 38(6), pp 603-612):

  • 70% of female psychologists had been either sexually or physically abused as children
  • 33% of male psychologists report the same
  • 33% of psychologists report being abused as adults
  • They feel the effects of these difficulties (and other family crises) just as non counselors
  • They may be less likely to get help due to knowledge and professional identity
    • 60% acknowledged being significantly depressed during some point of their career
    • 29% reported being suicidal at some point
    • 4% had made suicide attempts

Gizara & Forrest (2004 Professional Psychology: Research & Practice,35(1), pp 131-140) reported supervisors experiences of trainee impairment in APA accredited internships (doctoral level). Many of the supervisors had a hard time defining impairment in counseling but had sort of what I call the “I know it when I see it” mentality. What they often described were the disruptive, persistent relationalconflicts that are obvious to most. They did identify that it is hard for supervisors to address these matters because they (a) are trained to be empathic and to try to save everyone, and (b) not wanting to deal with conflict, destroy a career, or make oneself vulnerable to attack that they are holier than thou.

But, I noticed not much discussion or research regarding the one who doesn’t have obvious abrasive relational skills who is prone to using clients and others to make themselves feel good. This kind of person is dangerous not because they disrupt the counseling center but because they are so well liked that they make others overlook “minor” ethical infractions. Further, the person is rarely cognizant of their using others for their own sense of well-being.

To answer my question. No, I don’t think counselors are an impaired lot–at least any more than others. If we are aware of what drives us to be counselors (the good AND the self-serving), are willing to be counseled, discipled, held accountable, etc. (are willing to be transparent), and see our work as God’s first, then I think we are rather a safe lot.

Watch out for those of us who think we have arrived or no longer need teaching. I’m reminded of Aslan’s question to Prince Caspian at his coronation:

Aslan: Do you feel yourself sufficient to take up the kingship of Narnia?

Caspian: I-I don’t think I do sir. I’m only a kid.

Aslan: Good, If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would had been a proof that you were not.     

9 Comments

Filed under Abuse, biblical counseling, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychology, Relationships, self-deception, teaching counseling

Tagged as , ,

June 3, 2008 · 12:34 pm

Divorce & Remarriage VI: Paul in 1 Cor 7


We come to chapter 6 of Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage where he discusses Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7. Before he takes on the text, he surmises that Paul must have been married given that it was mandatory both for Jews (to be fruitful and multiply) and for Romans (made law by Augustus in 18 BC). He notes that Paul contradicts compulsory marriage by making it optional in this passage.

But does he speak against marriage? Well I-B suggests that at that time there was a severe famine going on and so it would be hard for people to care for family. This, he thinks, may have been the “present distress” mentioned in 7:26. Second, he believes that verse 1 of this chapter, “Now for the matters you wrote about: it is good for a man not to marry,” that the phrase “it is good…” is NOT Paul’s belief but only a repetition of what the Corinthians believed and were writing for him to clarify. The NIV study bible also raises this as a possibility since Paul speaks well of marriage elsewhere.

What about depriving each other of sex? What is this about? I-B says this,

Notice that Paul does not say that either partner can demand sexual love, because both should regard the other person as ruling over their body. Love is a matter not of taking but giving….Also, Paul does not define what this love consists of, because in some situations, a cuddle is a warmer expression of conjugal love than intercourse. (p. 73)

I-B mentions that Roman divorces were very easy. They also had no fault divorce. A person had only to leave and separate. One did not have to prove abuse or neglect. So, in verse 10, Paul (per I-B) is telling the Corinthians that they should not seek no-fault separations. If one does seek a separation, then that person should either remain unmarried or seek to reconcile. At this point he goes into some technical translation work about the word separate. Should it be translated as reflexive–separate oneself, or passive (be separated from by someone else’s act). Bottom line:

Paul’s point is that Christians should not use Roman form of divorce-by-separation because it is groundless, therefore it is too easy to divorce people against their will when they have done nothing wrong. Anybody could take it on themselves to separate, and their partner would suddenly find that they had been legally divorced whether they wanted it or not. (p. 77)

IB then asks, “But what if you have used divorce-by separation?” I-B says Paul is teaching that those who enacted separations without cause should seek to reconcile or remain unmarried. And if you are the victim of such a separation, you treat them as an unbeliever and let them go in peace.

He finishes with these concluding points:

1. Believers should never cause divorce (be the one to break the vows. He is not saying they shouldn’t seek a divorce because the other broke the vows).

2. Believers should not use groundless divorces.

3. But questions remain for later chapters: can a believer divorce a partner who breaks their vows unrepentantly; and can a believer remarry after a divorce.

I think I-B brings clarity to Paul’s seeming contradiction in this chapter. However, he may or may not be correct about the famine bit. One would think that if Paul were referring to something like a famine he might have mentioned it. Seems that he is saying something much more eternal. That is good to marry but it is also good to be single and be devoted to the Lord. I also liked what he had to say about our bodies not being our own. Sometimes that is used to demand sex from another. But if we heed this passage, we cannot demand anything at all but only seek to give kindness and love.

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Relationships

Tagged as , ,

May 6, 2008 · 5:44 am

Context and our perceptions


It shouldn’t be a surprise that context is everything when it comes to perception. Win the the 10 million dollar lotto and then have your car run over by a Mack truck (assuming no one was in it) and you probably laugh it off and go buy your dream car. Context changes how you perceive the event.

I had two reminders of the effect of context last Friday. First, I was on my way to a meeting and listening to an NPR show. The host of the show was interviewing Gary Marcus, NYU psychology prof and author of Kluge (a book on the mind). Though parts of his interview annoyed me greatly, he talked about contextual perceptions by pointing out this research tidbit (my words not a quote).

If researchers ask individuals (a) if they are happy, and (b) how many dates they have had lately they get one set of results. If they reverse these questions, the answer to the happiness question is clearly influenced by the answer to the dates question. I may in fact be happy until you remind me that I haven’t had any dates lately.

Second, at my meeting we were discussing perception of change in clients. Imagine this scenario:

You are working for 6 months with a man helping him to accept responsibility for his addictive behavior (you can substitute addictive with just about anything that needs change). The change has been painstaking but he has indeed begun to see his self-deception and begun to stop blaming his past for his present behavior. About this same time you hear that his wife would like to come in to a session. You invite her and when she comes with her husband you ask him to tell his wife what he has been learning. As he does you see her roll her eyes and smirk. You check in with her and she is absolutely livid. From her vantage point he hasn’t changed a bit. Sure, he’s not drinking anymore, he’s not beating her up, but did you know that he’s become rather obsessed with work, he still doesn’t call to tell her that he’ll be late and he won’t stop overspending each month. And worse for her, now he wants to have sex (in the past he avoided her) all the time. You acknowledge he has lots of work to do but you also realize she feels threatened to admit he has begun to change. If she does, maybe he’ll stop…

Notice how context influences our perceptions. If you think someone has come miles and miles in personal growth you likely get pretty excited. If, however, you focus on how far they have to go, your perceptions will be a bit more pessimistic.

Now here’s the challenge. How do we stop believing that our context is the only context for viewing experiences? It takes openness and empowerment and ability to see two things at once without demanding that one view overpower another. As Christians we must live in this bifurcated life. We are sinners…saved by grace. We are maturing…but never arriving. We are mistreated…and protected by God.

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, christian psychology, Cognitive biases, Insight, Psychology, Relationships

April 23, 2008 · 5:31 am

Divorce & Remarriage I: Confusion!


What is the right biblical and pastoral answer for those with real questions concerning divorce and remarriage? David Instone-Brewer in Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (IVP, 2003/6) suggests that much of our current advice and interpretation of Scripture on these matters are not clear nor sensible (hence the need for his book 🙂 )

The trouble with most theologies of divorce is that they aren’t sensible. They may give a reasonable account of most of the texts, in a forced way, but their conclusions just aren’t practical… (p. 13)

Instone-Brewer says most interpretations today fall into 2 camps: (a) there are 2 valid reasons for divorce; remarriage is not allowed unless one person dies, and (b) no grounds for divorce or separation.

The first interpretation isn’t logical says the author. “Why would Jesus and Paul identify these two grounds for divorce but not allow divorce for physical abuse or other harmful situations?” (p. 14) The second option is more logical but no more practical.

Adding to the confusion are those who just decide the bible isn’t practical and so try to extend the texts on divorce to cover adultery, abuse, abandonment, etc. While these are more sensible, their textual support is “dubious.”

Instone-Brewer came to see the texts in new light after studying the text AND first century Judaism and so the remainder of the book will be his conclusions in 4 sections
1. God is a divorcee (OT material). ch 2-4
2. Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on divorce and remarriage (ch 5-7)
3. How this teaching should work and a look at marriage vows (ch 8-10)
4. Church policy on divorce and what it should do now (ch 11-15)

But the author can’t bear to stop the chapter now so he launches into what he didn’t find in the Bible: the words, “Those whom God has joined, no man can separate.” What Jesus DID say is, “let no one separate.” Why the distinction here? Is Jesus saying it is not possible to separate? If God has joined, then no one can unjoin? Instone-Brewer says no. What it means is that no one SHOULD separate.

Second, who are these words to? The one who causes it? The one who starts the proceedings? You get the inkling that Instone-Brewer believes it is the one who causes vows to be broken. Why? Well, God divorces us but he is the victim.

…his warning is not to the person who finally tidies up the legal mess after the marriage has broken down but to those who would violate their marriage vows and, in so doing, cause the marriage to break up. (p. 18)

Of course people do break their vows all the time and so if they are repentant, I-B says we should forgive them. But if vows are repeatedly broken, then the marriage is, “in shreds.” (p. 19).

Again, I-B can’t wait to reveal his hand later and so concludes (a) the bible only allows victims to initiate divorce and Jesus’ problem with his hearers was that they had abandoned this idea for groundless divorce, and (b) the OT also allows divorce for abuse and neglect.

Well, what do you think? Should biblical intepretations be sensible (to us) and practical? I confess that I have never used sensible when considering whether my interpretation is good–at least knowingly. Seems much doesn’t make sense to me. But, it is an interesting way of thinking about these passages. If they are meant for us to use, they they should be practical, no?

I think he’s shortchanged us by limiting the typical camps on this topic. There are many who believe that there are a limited number of legitimate reasons and in those reasons, remarriage is possible.

For those really wanting to get into the topic, I would recommend two other writers: Jay Adams book on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Also, check out John Piper’s lengthy document. He takes a very conservative (no remarriage) position–even more conservative than the official position of his elders.

Let’s see where I-B goes as he engages the OT next.   

Leave a comment

Filed under biblical counseling, Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Relationships

Tagged as , ,

April 16, 2008 · 5:41 am

Integrative Psychotherapy XIII: Concluding Thoughts


We come to the concluding chapter of Mark McMinn’s and Clark Campbell’s Integrative Psychotherapybook. They remind us that it was their endeavor to detail their model of integration, psychotherapy, and Christian approach. By integration they meant that they wanted to thoughtfully integrate a variety of psychological theories (as opposed to mindless or even pragmatic eclecticism) as well as their theological views of persons. Their version of integration is best defined, so they say, by the term theoretical integrationism (TI). “[TI] occurs when a person begins with a particular theoretical starting point and then extends the theoretical base by incorporating one or more additional theories” (p. 386). What is the heart of the IP model found in this book? McMinn started with CBT and CT and has incorporated relational approaches more likely found in dynamic models of therapy. Campbell is reported to have begun with interpersonal and family models and incorporated and practiced CT. I would suggest that CT is the heart of the IP model with relational and interpersonal understandings of persons included. I would suggest that there is little evidence of family models in this book.

The authors make brief mention of their theological integration in this chapter. They admit that they take a rather narrow view of Imago Dei and apply that to personhood and psychotherapy by looking at the image of God through the lens of functionality, structure, and relationship.

IP attempts to address life both at the level of symptom reduction AND transformation. The authors recognize that many things lead to transformation–not just therapy. However,

“Psychotherapy is only one means of transformation, but in today’s society it has become an important and ubiquitous one. Even within the church there appears to be a strong and growing interest in counseling and psychotherapeutic ministries, though suspicions about psychology persist in many congregations and denominations. Church-based counseling ministries are now commonplace, most pastors and church leaders have a referral network of therapists in their community, seminaries offer courses and degrees in counseling, and support groups and peer-counseling ministries are being established in many churches. This trend is encouraging insofar as it helps the church care for whole persons as Jesus ministered to the spiritual, physical, relational and emotional needs he saw in others” (p. 388).  

Notice the word, “insofar” in the previous sentence. The authors see increased chance for harm if we “conflate” psychotherapy and the church. They are concerned about two problems: (a) making the gospel about us (self-actualization) instead of Jesus work, and (b) having untrained and undertrained individuals offering therapeutic help and so causing harm to vulnerable people. They do not want to see the Church compromised by becoming therapeutic nor do they want to see the profession of counseling dumbed down by removing the professional, academic, and scientific groundings.

Finally, they end the book by listing 6 ways their IP model is comprehensive: (a) includes both psychology and christianity, (b) consider multiple domains of persons, (c) multiple dimensions of therapy, (d) includes both scientific and relational approaches, (e) christocentric, and (f) usable with both christian and nonchristian clients.

So, now that we have concluded their book, what do you think? Did it make you more interested in viewing therapy through the symptom, schema, and relationship lenses? Did their model seem usable in your context? Were their Christian foundations necessary, or said differently, how did their Christian beliefs change how they function with clients? Would a Christian therapist who loves Jesus but sees their work as being a relational cognitive therapist act any differently? I’m curious if you have a reaction.

Some of my reactions:

1. This is probably the best Christian integrative book I have read. They work harder in this book to make sure that they acknowledge the all-too-common superficial use of Christian beliefs in building a model of care. They also display much humility and do not want the church to water down the Gospel. Therapy isn’t everything for them. Christianity is trump, in their eyes.
2. There is almost no negativity directed at any other model. Most of us use other models as foils for why what we do is better. I congratulate them on being able to map out a model without attacking others. When they do point out weaknesses, it is in their perception of the limits of cognitive therapy.
3. The book is now in need of a follow-up that more deeply illustrates case material. What does IP look like in an extended case study. I would love to see that as a follow-up text. What they did provide were little snippets that had a lot of realism to them. I just want more. Here’s one little question. Does Scripture only come into play at the symptom level of change? It seems to by the way they write and don’t write about Scripture. Does Scripture have anything to do with transformation and experience? Scripture is not merely a cognitive or intellectual enterprise (though we often use it this way).
4. I might quibble with them on their Christology, though I found their positions not quite clear and so may not differ as much as I think. Christ’s death and resurrection IS the power for change (2 Cor. 5:16f). His life does inspire us but we cannot love others merely because of his life. I think they might agree with this, but I’m left with confusion as to where they stand here.
5. As expected, this is a text for therapy trainees. It sets out boundaries for the profession. Lay and church leaders can learn from this model, say the authors, but ought to be careful not to function as a professional. Even though I am a professional and I have found in teaching counselors that it takes character, the Holy Spirit, skill acquisition, and much practice to be a wise counselor, I am always a bit troubled by the boundary setting. It seems we are trying to protect our own domain. I do think there are wise counselors who never had any academic psychological training. It may not be common, but let’s remember that pastoral care has been helping people long before clinical psychology developed into a discipline. I would have liked to see a bit more work in informing the reader (a psychology trainee) about the dangers in trying to function like a spiritual shepherd.
6. I’m in concert with their model as it functions in session. We are conduit for reconciliation. Therefor our working relationships matter almost as much as our words and interventions. When we can reduce symptoms of suffering, we should. But, we also recognize the insidious nature of sin in our lives and must seek transformation of our minds and experiences in submitting them to reality as seen through God’s eyes.

For those interested in Mark McMinn’s further work, you might check out his new book on sin, Sin and Grace in Christian Counseling (IVP, 2008). It is also written for the counseling practitioner.

6 Comments

Filed under book reviews, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychology, Relationships, teaching counseling

Tagged as , ,

March 14, 2008 · 12:15 pm

John Freeman’s story of God’s mercy


Several of the folks at HarvestUSA (see my sidebar for their site) have written pieces for the Philadelphia Daily News. My friend John’s piece was published most recently so click the link and read and rejoice in God’s redemptive power.

1 Comment

Filed under Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, Relationships, Sex

Tagged as , , ,