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 , ,

June 2, 2008 · 5:24 am

Practicum and Ethics Monday: Deficient Trainees


Since both of these classes are in progress here at Biblical, I thought I’d bring up a rather touchy subject: impaired students. Ruth Palmer, Gwen White, and Walter Chung (a Biblical grad!) all of Eastern University have recently published an article in the Journal of Psychology and Christianity(2007, 27:1, 30-40) entitled, “Deficient Trainees: Gatekeeping in Christian Practitioner Programs.”

Palmer et al surveyed profs in master’s level counseling related departments at Christian colleges and universities to find out, 1. what percentages of students were perceived by the profs to be professionally deficient, to have received help or dismissal. 2. Whether or not the schools have formal gatekeeping procedures. 3. Whether senior level faculty and junior level faculty perceive the pressures of dealing with impaired students differently, and in part, 4. Whether views on grace, calling, and gifting have any effect on how faculty respond to deficient students.  Their study replicates one done on secular campuses.

Before I mention the results, it would be good to consider why this is important.

1. Because faculty are obligated to protect the public. The authors quote from the ACA code of ethics, “Counselor educators, throughout on-going evaluation and appraisal, are aware of and address the inability of some students to achieve counseling competencies” (ACA, 2005, Section F.9.b) (p. 31). This is a relatively new topic amongst programs. Previously, we merely taught our students but it was up to licensing boards to weed out incompetency. Not so any longer. And rightly so is this change. We have an obligation to remediate problems before sending folks to their fieldwork sites. When we bless a student with an internship, we are saying they are ready to work at an entry level. When we find students with significant relational, behavioral, motivational problems prior to graduation, the authors remind us that the data are “strongly linked to subsequent poor performance in clinical work. (p. 31)

2. Counseling programs tend to attract people who are working out their problems. In fact, the authors point to a study that reported first year counseling students showing more severity of problems on MMPI scales. (This may be partially explained away by the common tendency of students to think they have all the disorders of the DSM). While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing (could mean that students are more likely to be cognizant and empathetic to the trials of life), it becomes a problem when said students are either unaware of the extent of the problems, unwilling to work on these problems, or so overwhelmed in the moment as to not have the capacities to deal properly with the problem. I find most students very committed to personal growth and change. There are those, however, who are so desirous of the prestige of the position or of looking good that they cannot bear to admit their flaws. The authors point out the crux of the problem. “…there is a tendency of impaired students to resist submitting to ‘the very therapeutic process through which they wish to lead others,’… (p. 31)

3. Finally, turning a blind eye to student problems and/or mismatch in skill/profession/calling is akin to walking around the man and left to die on the side of the Jericho road (Luke 10).

Results of the study? The authors got responses only from 1/3 of the surveyed professors (the surveyees should be ashamed at their lack of cooperation with this important study! They ought to know better having all been through programs that value the research question). But from respondents they found,

  • Faculty of CCCU estimate an avg. of 10.9% of impaired students in their program (SD=9.89; I would have liked to see the modal response since the range was from 0% to 50%!! reported). This fits with the prior secular program survey.
  • Interventions with these impaired students only happens about 50% of the time (again a big SD with response rates ranging from 0% – 100% (yeah, right!)). 38% of faculty reported interventions less than 20% of the time.
  • What are some of the bigger reasons for not addressing these matters formally? Fears of lawsuits, institutional pressures (we need students to survive!), fear of poor teaching evals by junior faculty, and inadequate administrative support.
  • They suggest the need to have departments talk regularly about policies, students, and the need to follow-up with potential or actual problems.

Do we ever have impaired students at Biblical? Of course. But I am determined at dept chair to help those in need find help. I remember being a student at another seminary and seeing those that EVERYBODY knew should never be a pastor or a counselor and yet NOBODY (student or teacher) said a word. So, we have 6, 12, and 18 month evals collecting data from the student, profs of each class, peers, mentors, and supervisors to help catch a remediate problems when they exist and to encourage on-going personal growth even when they don’t exist. It still surprises me when I find counseling students balking about getting some of their own counseling. We really do want to be the one who has it together, don’t we. Me included.

3 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling science, counseling skills, Psychology, teaching counseling, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

May 30, 2008 · 3:16 pm

Barriers to race and gender reconciliation


From our faculty retreat, I was left thinking about some of our own barriers to reconciliation. Here is a few that I was thinking about:

1. Limited perseverance. I think we have a sense that it shouldn’t be so hard to do. We see the length of the journey and find ourselves giving up.

2. Me centered living. We shouldn’t have to work so hard because of other people’s sins against others in the past. People should honor my good intentions and when they are suspicious, I feel wronged.

3. Stories. I believe that stories are what we commonly use to keep people in boxes. Tell an anecdote about a person of particular hue and it becomes true of all. We know that isn’t true, but we do it just the same.

4. Individual rights. I have the right to be given all my rights. I shouldn’t have to give mine up so that you can have yours. Not fair! I deserve to be treated well.

I’m sure there are better ways to categorize these barriers but these are how I thought about them. The solution to all of these means that I see myself as in Christ and not protector of myself.

1 Comment

Filed under Race

Tagged as

May 28, 2008 · 9:53 pm

Overheard at Sandy Cove


In our discussion about race and implicit oppression:

If you manipulate history, you manipulate consciousness. If you manipulate consciousness, you manipulate possibilities. If you manipulate possibilities, you manipulate power.

Seems about right. When we tell a history in a particular way, we can change how we think about ourselves (we’re pretty good, right?) and change how what possibilities we consider and ultimately the power. We talked about this especially when white folk ignore or deny the Blackness of biblical figures.

Also overheard here at our faculty retreat: “That’s going to hurt. Us 40-50 somethings have played basketball both nights. We’re not a particularly in shape group and so we can feel the creaks and the pains a comin.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

May 28, 2008 · 5:54 am

Things heard at Sandy Cove


Yesterday, we dwelt on Acts 15 and the story of the Jerusalem Council. Notice that even though the Gentiles had evidence of the Spirit, some considered them unsaved due to the lack of circumcision. We wondered what we burdens we place on others that are not Gospel burdens. We also noted that the solution was to not overburden Gentiles in their turning to Christ and not to so disturb the Jews in the area of idol worship (meat sacrificed to idols).

In our discussion of race in America, our speaker suggested that 11 am on Sunday morning is NOT the most segregated hour. But, the 6 pm news hour is just that (given the sense that black crime is the only kind of crime happening.

More later.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

May 27, 2008 · 12:21 pm

Retreating to the bay


The Biblical faculty are spending the next 3 days at Sandy Cove in MD for a retreat to discuss where we’ve been and where we’re going. Of particular focus is the next steps in racial reconciliation and how our curriculum will continue to change. Should be good. That said, I’ll probably not have much here until Friday as I hope to spend some time walking on the shore.

Sandy Cove Ministries

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

May 26, 2008 · 5:20 am

Top 10 Counselor Nightmares


No classes today because of the holiday. Next week, we’ll be discussing the perils and pitfalls of being a counselor. In partial jest here’s my “top 10” counselor nightmares. A few of these happened to me, some happened to my friends and others are just fears: 

10. Someone from your past shows up as a counselee or at a seminar you give and they know all your immaturities

9. You run into a counselee from a couple of years ago and although they are grateful for your help,  you don’t remember ever meeting them before

8. Spending the whole hour with a new client and your fly was down and open the whole time

7. Same as 8 but you passed gas

6. Its time to pray at the end of the session and as you go to pray for them you can’t remember their name and so you have to pray for your “brother” instead.

5. You worked really hard helping a resistant client learn something and then they come in and tell you that their aunt told them this amazing thing (the thing you have been trying to tell them for 6 months) and now they wonder why you didn’t help them.

4. You come to the waiting room only to find you double booked by mistake.

3. You’re at the hospital having a colonoscopy and you find out the nurse assisting is your client who probably hates you

2. You fall asleep in session for a few minutes and wake up wondering how long it has been and whether they noticed or not (they did!)

1. Subpoena and/or call from the licensing board

3 Comments

Filed under Psychology

Tagged as , ,

May 23, 2008 · 5:49 am

The two sides of Power


In staff meeting today we listened to a Tim Keller sermon on political power (I wonder how many private practice psychology staff meetings do something neat like this!) from the text of Jesus conversations with Pilate. In talking about political power, Keller quoted Vaclav Havel on the topic. You can find Havel’s quote herewithin a speech he made after receiving the Sonning Prize in 1991. This speech was designed to answer these two questions:

“Why is it that people long for political power, and why, when they have achieved it, are they so reluctant to give it up?” 

I don’t have it exactly as either Keller or Havel said it, but both were making this point:

1. We want to use power in the service of all that is true, good, and right. We want to use power to better the world. While some may use power from the get-go for evil purposes, most do not.

2. But we also wan to use power in the service of self. Havel talks about use of power for self-affirmation. Self-affirmation, Havel says, is not “essentially reprehensible” but human. But without suspicious self-examination, a slippage happens–something like this, it makes sense that my important work means I get special privileges in order to do my work well. But then I begin to lose the difference between being enabled to do my job better and the self-affirmation that I so desperately crave.”

Regardless of how pure his intentions may originally have been, it takes a high degree of self-awareness and critical distance for someone in power–however well-meaning at the start–to recognize that moment [when we stop caring about the state and start only caring about self-affirmation]

I see similarities outside of power. When I counsel someone long silenced through abuse and neglect, I see someone who is readily aware of the impact of abuse of power. When that person develops their voice, they begin to exert power for the sake of truth, goodness, and all that is right. They say no to further abuse; they raise their voice so as to be heard. They learn to use power to draw proper boundaries. But like all, it is easy to use the power for self-affirmation and self-protection. It is easy to argue for its goodness and rightness and to become blind to the demanding side of self-affirmation.

Power is good, but humans with power must be vigilant to avoid the corruption. Vaclav Havel recognizes the need to stay vigilant. John Adams recognized the inherent corruption of power as he designed the separation of powers for the USA. And we look to Jesus who willingly gives up his right to power but uses his power to sacrifice himself for our sake.

Good to think about in this season of elections. Pray we have leaders who will question their tendency to self-affirmation. And pray that each of us uses power for justice and not for self alone.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Cultural Anthropology, Great Quotes, News and politics, self-deception

Tagged as , , ,

May 22, 2008 · 10:04 am

Subtle Racism: How do you know it’s happening?


“You just know.” Well, how DO you know? It seems that in the US minorities are well aware of both explicit and implicit or subtle racialization. But on the other side, dominant culture (White) folk are quick to point out that certain comments (“you are so articulate” to a Black man) might not be racist. Stupid but not racist. So, whose being over-sensitive?

The latest American Psychologist (63:4) has comments and author reply to a previous article by Derald Wing Sue et al on the topic of microaggressions(in vol. 62, entitled: Racial microaggressions in everday life: Implications for clinical practice). 3 of the 4 commenters were defensive of Sue’s allegations of these microaggressions. And Sue replied saying that their defensiveness is ample evidence that white people can’t take the reality of racism. They always want to find other reasons for racist activity (i.e., oversensitivity of minorities).

End result? No good dialogue; distance; defensiveness. One guy questions one of Sue’s hypotheses in his article and suggests an alternative (innocently portrayed). Sue replies and says he of course considered (and rejected) that hypothesis and that the guy has a problem because he can’t deal with the reality of racism.

What got the commenters up in arms wasn’t the science in the article but Sue’s personal story of being asked to move to the back of a small prop plane to balance the weight out when 3 late arriving white businessmen were not asked to move. In a personal story, we make ourselves vulnerable to attack because it is our perceptions that we state as reality that tempt others to challenging what we “saw”. 

Unfortunately, the inability to talk about microaggressions is based on the problem of defensiveness of both sides and feelings of invalidation when one questions our sense of the world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Black and White, Psychology, Race, Racial Reconciliation

Tagged as , ,

May 21, 2008 · 5:11 am

Divorce & Remarriage V: Divorce on Demand?


In chapter 5 of Instone-Brewer’s (I-B) Divorce and Remarriage in the Church we come to Jesus’ reactions to the “any cause” debate raised by the religious leaders. I-B suggests that prior to the time of Jesus, divorce was only allowed for failure to provide clothing, sex, and food–and could be initiated by either a male or female (I am suspicious as to whether women really could initiate divorce…). But by the time of Jesus’ ministry, Hillel, a popularized the “any cause” divorce by his mis-reading of Deutronomy24:1. Hillel and his followers proposed two grounds for divorce: sexual immorality and “any cause” based on some fault other than immorality. I-B reports that women were in favor of the “any cause” clause. If a woman was divorced for immorality (or allegations thereof) she could be killed or at minimum lose her rights to her marriage inheritance. But the “any cause” divorce was quietly done and mean she would probably get some of her inheritance. I-B suggests that Joseph’s plan to divorce Mary quietly followed the “any cause” clause,

Joseph did not want to put Mary through the disgrace of a public trial, so he decided to use the quiet “any cause” divorce that did not require any proof of wrongdoing. Matthew considered that this would be the action of a “just man,” because Joseph could have ensured that he didn’t have to pay Mary’s marriage inheritance if he had decided to prove her guilty of adultery in court. (p. 57)

Countering Hillel was Shammai and his followers, who only saw sexual immorality as a reason for divorce. I-B reports that this controversy “was a matter of huge public debate” (ibid). So, we come to Matt. 19:3 where the rabbis ask Jesus his opinion on the matter. Is it lawful to divorce for any cause, they ask. I-B does not think that our commentators and translations get it right. The rabbis are not asking Jesus if divorce is okay but if “any cause” divorce is okay–based on his reading of this contemporary debate among the rabbis. But what of Mark 10 where the text doesn’t include the “any cause” type language? Here I-B suggests the analogy of someone asking if it is okay for a minor to drink. Here we all understand the question is about alcohol and not drinking liquid. I-B suggests the audience would never consider that what Moses enacted as law would be unlawful. Divorce is allowed, but is “any cause” divorce allowed?

Jesus ignores the debate and tells both groups their mistake per I-B. But when he directly answers, Jesus supports Shimmai’s position and rejects the “any cause” divorce.

I-B points out that most biblical scholars get hung up on the meaning of porneia and miss the context of the rabbinical debates of the day. Jesus, says I-B is only answering the specific question of how to interpret Deut 24:1 and NOT nullifying the other legitimate reasons for divorce that we looked at in previous posts (abandonment, failure to provide food, clothing, and conjugal love). Jesus answers the question at hand but focuses on marriage rather than divorce. I-B again uses the illustration of telling his wife to “just wear the dress” and having her think he means she shouldn’t wear shoes.

The rest of the chapter considers some other parts of Jesus’ teaching. He supports monogamy and when the rabbis try to suggest Moses commands divorce, Jesus retorts and says that Moses allowed it but did not command it (verse 8). I-B suggests that the rabbis heard the “because of your hardheartedness” like this: They heard him quoting Jeremiah 4:4 where divorce and stubbornness are mentioned together.

Jesus thought that people were being too quick to divorce, so he reminds them that Moses meant divorce to occur only when there was “hardheartedness”–that is, a stubborn refusal to repent and stop breaking marriage vows. (p. 63)

I-B reports that the disciples’ response reveals the bombshell of Jesus’ teaching (verse 10). If its like this, maybe it’s better not to marry.” Jesus is radical by suggesting that marriage was optional. Apparently, Jews always saw it as compulsory due to the command to be fruitful.

So, Jesus denies the “any cause” divorce and even suggests that attempts to divorce are not valid and therefore remarriage is an act of adultery. If you are following along in the book, be sure to re-read I-B’s summary of what he thinks is going on in Matt 19 on pp 65-66. He also reminds readers that the Gospel accounts cannot possibly contain all that was said but are shortened to get to the main point.

Mark wrote first and abbreviated the debate as much as possible, but Matthew wrote later, when the debate was more or less over and was less well known. He knew his readers might get confused, so he helped them out by putting a few details back in. (p. 67)

So, what do you do with these proposed ideas about the context in which Jesus is speaking? Are you suspicious that the church could have missed this context for so long? Even I-B raises this question and promises to answer it in a later chapter. If you do use this lens (that Jesus rejects the any cause divorce but supports the sexual immorality cause) then I think it begs the question whether Jesus would agree with hardheartedness as a cause for divorce as well (which I-B wants to have at the bottom of all appropriate divorces; we should forgive even adultery, but divorce only when stubborn refusal to repent is the issue). If that was his point, why was this not clearer in the text. On the other hand, contumacy has long been seen as the cause for divorce (excommunication) from the church. One is not cut off from the church because of any type of sin, but because of a pattern of stubborn refusal to repent and turn.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as , ,