User talk:Elrapham

MARRIAGE

»Front Matter »Indexes MARRIAGE Contents: Faithful Attraction The Need for a Helpmate Marriage as a Three-Stage Process The Vows of Mystery A Picture of Christian Marriage References and Resources Brenda was a pert twenty-four-year-old who worked behind the counter in a photofinishing store. I often brought my film there for developing. One day I noticed a tiny diamond ring on her engagement finger. She told me that just last night she had become engaged to the man she was living with. I bragged about how I had been well married for over twenty years. Her face whitened. “I have never met anyone married that long!” she said. I asked her if she would remain married throughout her life, and she answered, “I don’t think so. I don’t know anyone who has been married for twenty years.” Both she and I were amazed by the encounter. Faithful Attraction

Faithful Attraction A pastor visiting a fourth-grade Sunday-school class asked the class, “What does God say about marriage?” Immediately one boy replied, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!” Many marrying couples do not know what they are doing. But the statisticians say they are still doing it successfully. The good news for most married couples is very good indeed. There is a resurgence in faith about marital faithfulness, which researchers are calling faithful attraction. Andrew Greeley reports, on the basis of four surveys of couples, that 90 percent of American spouses have been faithful since they were married. Also, more than 60 percent say their marriage is very happy, 75 percent say their spouse is their best friend, and over 80 percent say they would marry the same person again if they had to do it over. Faith Alive magazine (July 1994) asked their Canadian readers (mostly church attendees) to rate their marriages, and on average they rated their marriages with a B+. Over 95 percent of women and men had not had an extramarital relationship, though about 12 percent of men reported that they had been tempted. Of those who rated their marriages with an A+, the most common thread was “seeking God’s kingdom first.” The marrying couple may well not know what they are doing, but they know what they want. Willard Harley in his book His Needs, Her Needs points out what he has discovered as the priorities of the sexes in the order of importance. A man desires sexual fulfillment, recreational companionship, an attractive spouse, domestic support and, finally, admiration from his wife. Harley’s research indicates that a woman desires affection, conversation, honesty and openness, financial support and family commitment. With such different expectations, it is little wonder that the process of becoming one is so fraught with challenges and opportunities. The Bible speaks often about marriage, but nowhere so eloquently as in the creation story in Genesis 2:18-25. The section begins with this striking announcement by God: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18). Adam is alone, and that state is “not good”—the only thing in creation that God judges to be not good. As the man began to function as God had intended him (naming the animals that God brought to him), he became profoundly aware that all the beasts had “equal others,” but he did not. He became lonely. Being alone is always a negative concept in biblical history, for the full life is found in community with all of God’s people (see Eccles. 4:9-12; Jeremiah 16:1-9). The Need for a Helpmate

The Need for a Helpmate Christian marriage is particularly unpalatable to some because of the sacrifice or submission implied, so it is thought, in the phrase “helper suitable” (translated in the KJV as “help meet”). God, however, does not think of this term as a pejorative one. He takes this word helper upon himself in several passages in Scripture, for example, “Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord? He is your shield and helper and your glorious sword” (Deut. 33:29). The word helper essentially describes one who provides what is lacking in the other. The woman by relative difference but essential equality would be the man’s fitting complement. What he lacked, she supplied. And it is equally true that what she lacked, he would supply. The man was thus created in such a way that he needs the help of a partner. Human beings cannot fulfill their destiny without such mutual assistance. What the Bible does not do is spell this out in terms of specific roles. Several years ago there was a teaching in the church that it was the husband’s responsibility to do the home finances as an expression of his God-ordained leadership. This might work well with businessmen or accountants, but with me the teaching was disastrous. Now having control of our modest income, I quickly gave much of it away to those needier, and I spent the rest on books that I was sure I would need one day (many of the books are still unread!). Eventually I came to my senses and returned the responsibility to the member of our family who had the requisite gifting. My wife made up for my lack (and financial deficit) when she used her gifting for our benefit. This is what it is to be a helper. What the man lacks, the woman supplies. So Scripture explains the need for a companion; it also explores the process of becoming married. Marriage as a Three-Stage Process

Marriage as a Three-Stage Process Mike Mason, author of The Mystery of Marriage, comments that “a marriage is not a joining of two worlds but an abandoning of two worlds in order that one new one might be formed” (p. 91). This was not in Brenda’s mind (nor probably her fiancé’s) as they began to think about marriage. For her the idea of merging two worlds into one is a dusty virtue for antiquated Christians. But the concept of offering up your own life for the blessing of another is both biblical and profoundly psychological. Marriage is a continual three-stage process that involves leaving, being united and becoming one: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Genesis 2:24-25). Each of these three dimensions is needed for a complete marriage. Marital leaving. The process of leaving means disengaging from one’s family of origin (the family that you were born into and where you formed your initial preadult values and view of the world). It has to do with ending the dependency on the original family and becoming “jointly autonomous” with your mate. It may also mean giving up adolescent expectations of sexual intimacy so that the marriage can be free to enjoy the pleasures and disciplines of marital love or relinquishing the fantasies of being forever nurtured and adored. Whatever kind of leaving is required, the leaving will be ongoing. It is not a “been there, done that” phenomenon. There is a continual leaving of the old to engage the new, even after many years of marriage (see Family Systems). Many couples in marriage counseling find they must work through this issue of leaving. When the first or second child comes around and needs extra care, they begin to parent as they were parented. The problem is that both parents were parented differently and conflicts arise. Both will need to rethink their ideas of what parenting is about. This is the process of leaving. It is a continual process and is provoked by the inevitable conflicts of living in marital proximity. Marital union. The idea of being united with one’s wife or husband as found in Genesis 2:24 raises the question, How do spouses become intimate? This too is a continual process in which none of us is an expert. To be continually united involves many everyday skills of friendship. This is why good friendships so often lead to secure and satisfying marriages. Being united involves mutual affection and mutual appreciation. There is no one who can live in the intimacy that marriage requires without the affirmation of one’s partner. Also, it is impossible to become close friends without the glue of emotions and their effective communication. These emotions may be unpleasant ones (for example, anger or resentment) or the more pleasant emotions of marital arousal and love. Further, becoming united requires simple acceptance of the other and the skills of conflict resolution and anger reduction. No one masters all of these skills on his or her wedding day. Husband and wife are continually becoming more united, more unified, more intimate with each other. Obviously, intimacy is hard work. Many couples, however, think that marital intimacy is a hormonal gift that bubbles them into ecstasy. It is easy for them to fall into despair when they are disillusioned by the necessary work (by the way, it is great to give up illusions that are untrue). But when a couple gets over the disappointment that intimacy is work, they can galvanize their resources to be a missionary to each other’s intimacy needs. This is what it means to be united. Young people grow up looking for the “right one.” When our teenagers talk this way, I interrupt them with the terribly parental judgment, “How are you becoming the perfect person for your future mate?” They need to be converted from the idea that their future marital bliss is caught up in finding the perfect one. Rather, marital intimacy is the mutual commitment of being the right one for the other. Marital sexuality. Sexual intimacy, and not just spiritual and emotional intimacy, is also hard work—though perhaps it was not for Adam. I can envision Adam running across plains and through rivers, brushing aside giraffes and pelicans in pursuit of his equal other, Eve. Along the way he utters the first hymn of praise in the Bible (“here at last”; Genesis 2:23 NRSV) and the first poem (“bone of my bones”; Genesis 2:23). Having seen all of creation designed for a partner, he discovered his own, and he did not need a course in sexual education to know what to do. Adam and Eve had no books, no illustrated dictionaries, no specially priced videocassettes. They enjoyed a naive integrity, absolutely without the experience or knowledge of sin, as the motif of nakedness suggests. They experienced no shame and felt no fear of rejection. This is the hope of all young adults who decide to live together (see Cohabiting). They are desperately trying to get back to Eden. They want the simplicity and naiveté of the Adam and Eve who knew no sin. But unlike the Eden couple, they are cheating and lying to themselves. They have had imperfect parents, who have transmitted generations of fear, unhappiness and twistedness (along with much good) to them. They have developed conflictual personalities that make them suitable to be bachelors and spinsters but never to be husbands and wives. They have developed competing ambitions that place them at loggerheads with each other. They have laughed at Bart Simpson too long and sung Madonna’s lyrics too long and shopped in malls with perfectly bodied mannequins for too long. In short, they are not naive at all. They know too much. And their experience of sexual union is something less than full communion. The idea of becoming one flesh expresses the complete personal community of one man and one woman as spiritual-physical-sexual-family unity. How do two become one? It is difficult, say the psychologists. It is impossible, say the realists. It is a miracle, say the religionists. And it is all three. I call it the “mystery of transfiguration.” When Jesus was on the mountain with his friends, he was transfigured in their view (Matthew 17:2-3). He acted the same, talked the same, but he was now seen in right relationship with all of eternity. A similar transfiguration occurs when a man becomes a husband and a woman becomes a wife. These are not role changes; this is the beginning of the process of becoming the other’s other. Two are becoming one in view of each other. The Vows of Mystery

The Vows of Mystery The wedding vows express the process of transfiguration. The wedding vows not only describe the commitments of marriage, but they obligate one to another. They are not merely descriptive; they carry the weight of the word spoken (see Promising). Just as God created life out of the spoken word, the vows powerfully implement the process of transfiguration. Carelessly spoken vows carry such carelessness throughout the duration of the marriage. Vows taken as if God sustains the covenant carry the sacredness throughout the couple’s journey. The marriage vows from The Book of Alternative Services of the Anglican Church of Canada illustrate the mystery well. “I take you . . .” suggests the activity of a freely disposed individual who entrusts himself or herself to another. It is the most profound ontology: to choose and to be chosen. Marital “taking” has great power. It is the power of acceptance. It is one of the needs of all human beings—to be accepted as we are. In marital taking we accept our spouse without the anticipation of changing. Too many spouses endeavor to create the spouse over into their own image. It takes many couples years to discover that a copy is a cheap imitation. “To be . . .” speaks of the transition from one state of being into another. Marriage is not so much a role change as a profound transfiguration into being a husband or wife, not a mere man or woman. The marital transfiguration usually leads to parental transfiguration—the becoming of a father or a mother (see Parenting). These transfigurations are a continual process and therefore involve continual change. So the process of mutual acceptance is never a once-and-for-all event. “My lawfully wedded wife/husband . . .” speaks of the community aspect of marriage. It is accepted and affirmed as good for society and is the covenental hope of the community for the future. Marriage always has this beyond-ourselves dimension. In the marriage ceremony the pastor may address to all present, “Will you do all in your power to support and uphold this marriage?” As the community answers in faith, “We will,” they echo the covenant of the couple to each other. Sometimes when a couple is remarrying, they quote the passage from Eccles. 4:12: “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” Their confession is that they were not together on their first try. Their hope is that with God empowering their marriage and with faith making it alive, their covenant will not be ruined. It is with great confidence that a minister marries a couple who depend fully on God. But there is another dependence: the believing community, who will be “God with skin on” when their marriage is straining. “To have . . .” speaks of the delight and pleasure of the marital covenant. To have is to be thrilled with the discovery that now the spouse has what he or she has waited for. It is a my-beloved-is-mine experience. Having also includes tragedies as well as joys. Problems and challenges are not interruptions in the marriage. Embracing the complexities, disappointments and genuine hurts is as much a part of marital having as relishing the excitements. “And to hold from this day forward . . .” speaks of the permanence of the having. Holding your spouse speaks of sustaining the power of the vows throughout the marriage. How do you hold your spouse? Ask yourself these questions: How do you talk about your mate when he or she is not there to hear? Do you hold him to be valuable to your children or when jesting with friends? Is it your plan every day to discover more of her giftedness, to empower and not to limit your spouse? A couple in conflict described their problems: “I try to hold her back. She gets so emotional. I just wish that I had married someone who would not be so demanding.” Are you trying to hold her back out of fear? Or are you holding to empower her? The Bible frees me from the responsibility of controlling my spouse, whom I can now hold with open hands. “For better, for worse; for richer for poorer; in sickness and in health . . .” is a reality statement. There will be many highs and lows, and the covenant is sufficient for all of them. If a couple has not significantly suffered, it is probably because they are still young in their marital journey. James tells us to “consider it pure joy . . . whenever you face trials of many kinds” (James 1:2). There is an inevitability about these trials—they will come—but they can be appropriated for the good of the marriage and for the blessing of the couple. Some couples do not think that trials produce a good marital crop. When struggles inevitably materialize, they think that they have married the wrong one. Challenges are reminders to become the right one. “To love . . .” emphasizes the emotion (eros) and the motivation (agapē) of the covenant. This kind of love is both vertical (from ecstasy to sadness) and horizontal (from now to eternity). Much is said in popular marriage books about the various kinds of love. There is friendship love, erotic love, steadfast love and dependency love. The list is quite exhaustive. At different times of the couple’s journey, different loves are required. The love of middle-aged spouses is quite different from the love of aged grandparents preparing to move into a retirement village, where their grandchildren can come for lunch on Sundays. Newlywed love is unique and quite unrepeatable (thankfully). Marital permanence and satisfaction have to do with reading the stages of your marriage as to the kind of love that is best. “And to cherish . . .” speaks of the attitude of prizing the chosen other. Cherishing is to put the right value on the marriage and the one loved. Cherishing is the penicillin to the sickness of coveting, coveting another or another’s marriage. Coveting was Eden’s first sin. Adam and Eve disbelieved that God would provide what was necessary for them to live life to the full. They thought they needed something more than God had provided. They did not love God enough to be content—so searing the first marriage. The remedy for coveting—in relation to both God and one’s spouse—is cherishing: receiving and valuing fully what has been given. This is the everyday plea of marital therapy clients the world around: “Cherish me. Value me. Love me.” “Until death do us part . . .” is also a reality statement of marriage. In the midst of the teary happiness of the wedding vows, reality enters in. This covenant will be broken by death. In the birth of marriage intimacies, the d word is spoken not so much as an interruption but as a reminder of reality. This aspect of the vow reminds the couple of the permanence of the covenant. As Mason writes, One thing very important to know in marriage is that there is always a way out. And the way out is not divorce! No, the way out in marriage (no matter how bad things may get) is simply to put everything we have back on the line, our whole hearts and lives, just as we did the moment we took our vows. We must return to an attitude of total abandonment, of throwing all of our natural cautiousness and defensiveness to the winds and putting ourselves entirely in the hands of love by an act of the will. Instead of falling in love, we may now have to march into it. (p. 125) “According to God’s holy ordinance . . .” speaks of the One who enacts and empowers the covenant. It is God’s ordinance because it is God who “holds the paper.” While the registrations of our marriages are filed in the appropriate governmental offices, God holds and sustains the covenant that is the marriage itself. It God who transfigures man to husband and woman to wife. It is God who empowers this union. What vows! But what a God! And what a mystery marriage is! A Picture of Christian Marriage

A Picture of Christian Marriage Richard Selzer in his book Mortal Lessons wonderfully pictures what marriage is. I stand by the bed where a young woman lies, her face postoperative, her mouth twisted in palsy, clownish. A tiny twig of the facial nerve, the one to the muscles of her mouth, has been severed. The surgeon had followed with religious fervor the curve of her flesh; I promise you that. Nevertheless, to remove the tumor in her cheek, I had cut the little nerve. Her young husband is in the room. He stands on the opposite side of the bed, and together they seem to dwell in the evening lamplight, isolated from me, private. Who are they, I ask myself, he and this wrymouth I have made, who gaze at and touch each other so generously, greedily? The young woman speaks. “Will my mouth always be like this?” she asks. “Yes,” I say, “it will. It is because the nerve was cut.” She nods, and is silent. But the young man smiles. “I like it,” he says. “It is kind of cute.” All at once I know who he is. I understand, and I lower my gaze. One is not bold in an encounter with a god. Unmindful, he bends to kiss her crooked mouth, and I am so close I can see how he twists his own lips to accommodate to hers, to show her that their kiss still works. (pp. 45-46) » See also: Conflict Resolution » See also: Divorce » See also: Love » See also: Sexuality References and Resources

References and Resources H. Clinebell and C. Clinebell, The Intimate Marriage (New York: Harper & Row, 1970); B. Farrel et al., Pure Pleasure: Making Your Marriage a Great Affair (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994); M. Mason, The Mystery of Marriage (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1985); J. H. Olthius, I Pledge You My Troth: A Christian View of Marriage, Family, Friendship (New York: Harper & Row, 1975); R. Selzer, Mortal Lessons: Notes on the Art of Surgery (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976); R. P. Stevens, Married for Good (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986); R. P. Stevens, Marriage Spirituality (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1989); E. Wheat, Love Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980); N. Wright, Communication: Key to Your Marriage (Glendale, Calif.: Gospel Light, 1979). —Paddy Ducklow MASS MEDIA MEDIA, MASS —Complete Book of Everyday Christianity, TheElrapham (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

DIVORCE

»Front Matter »Indexes DIVORCE Contents: Approaching the Divorce Question The Textual/Legal Approach The Dispensational Approach Biblical Theology Divorce and the Spirituality of the Church References and Resources Divorce is a tragic dimension of everyday life. With a significant percentage of marriages ending in divorce in the Western world, many people are skipping marriage altogether and are simply cohabiting. Others want to get married “until death us do part,” as the vows state, but enter marriage with a deep fear that they may become a statistic. Still others, influenced by a culture of “throwaway” relationships, enter marriage with an emotional loophole, thinking (often unconsciously), If it doesn’t work out we can always get a divorce. Rather than being a covenant for lifelong companionship, marriage today is frequently reduced to a contract for the mutual meeting of needs. “So long as we both shall live” has become “so long as we both shall love.” Taken in its best light, divorce is regarded by many as part of the process of personal growth. But the negative consequences for children, families, society, morality, mental health and education are documented over and over again in both popular and scholarly works. Approaching the Divorce Question

Approaching the Divorce Question It is not the purpose of this article to consider all aspects of divorce including the emotional stages of divorce that precede legal divorce, preparation for a divorceless covenant (Stevens 1990), strategies for turning a for-worse into a for-better marriage (Stevens 1986; Weiner-Davis), or the recovery process when one has been divorced (Wallerstein and Blakeslee; Weiss). Rather it is concerned with the theology and spirituality of divorce: how we are to think about it, how divorce affects our relationship with God, and how we are to relate to this phenomenon in the world today. It must be said at the outset that nobody likes divorce (except a few who profit financially from it) and almost nobody wants to get divorced. Further, those people who have been divorced have not committed the unforgivable sin and are in deep need of love and acceptance. The fundamental assumption of this article is that a theology and spirituality of divorce must rest on the Bible rather than on statistics, social mores or expediency. When it comes to divorce, taking the Bible as authority is a complicated matter. The church has tried to understand the divorce question in at least three ways: (1) through a legal-like interpretation of Scripture to find the permissible grounds, (2) by interpreting Scripture through the lens of dispensational thinking to find out whether the hard passages are really for today or some other age and (3) through biblical theology that considers two realities—Scripture and contemporary culture. We will consider each of these in turn and then offer a spiritual reflection. It is difficult to speak of divorce and marriage at the same time. That seems to have been Jesus’ dilemma when he was pressed with questions about the legality of divorce by his contemporaries (Matthew 19:3-4). In effect, he said, “I can’t speak about divorce until I have brought you back to God’s intention in Genesis, which takes us beyond culture into the paradise of God. When two are united by God, and have become one, you would be tearing apart a God-given unity if you divorced them.” To quote Jesus’ actual words, “What God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). While Jesus does not say that divorce causes polygamy (or polyandry), he implies this by stating that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9). Simply put, someone who already belongs to someone should not, perhaps cannot, also belong to another. Whether the practice results in multiple wives simultaneously (as in some cultures) or multiple wives sequentially (as in our culture), the effect is the same. Modern practice and biblical truth require treating the divorce question as a case study in serial polygamy and polyandry, as unpopular as this might be. The Textual/Legal Approach

The Textual/Legal Approach Those who approach the subject of divorce from a legal perspective are concerned to find the correct grounds for permissible divorce. This necessitates dealing with the absolute statements against divorce in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. These must be considered in light of the clause “except for marital unfaithfulness” found in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. On the assumption that Mark and Luke knew of this clause, some argue that a person can be divorced if he or she is the innocent party of a marriage that has been destroyed by adultery. If death permits the physical survivor to remarry (Romans 7:3), adultery may permit the “moral survivor” to remarry. Peter Davids argues, however, that when Jesus was asked for a rabbinic interpretation of Deut. 24, Jesus rejected this passage as a permission for divorce. Davids’s point centers on the argument that one cannot really divorce; that is, the divorce decree is a legal fiction. The parties involved have sinned, but they have not ended the marriage. The relationship can be negative, distant and cold, but it has not been annulled. These two cannot be as they were before marriage. The Deuteronomy passage ceases to have relevance for us in Christ except in the case of a woman or man desiring to return to a former spouse after a remarriage to a second spouse had terminated, for that is what Deut. 24 deals with. Even then, the full light of forgiveness in Christ might make us reconsider this as legislation applying to the Christian today. A further problem Davids explores concerns the language found in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9: the Greek word porneia is used rather than the usual term for adultery, moicheia. This suggests that Jesus is dealing not with marital adultery but with premarital sexual sin. While the Old Testament called for stoning to death one who committed such sexual sin (porneia), divorce would have been more likely in the New Testament period. Joseph’s predicament with Mary, and his intended righteous action, is a case in point. Frequently, those who try to uncover the legal grounds for divorce in the New Testament fail to notice that in the Gospels adultery is grounds for forgiveness, not divorce. They also fail to note that according to Jesus, the lustful eye—intending adultery—is as evil as the deed. This makes almost everyone divorceable. What about the second ground for divorce in the Bible, that is, the case of desertion by an unbelieving partner: “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances” (1 Cor. 7:15)? In this case one partner has become a Christian, and the other demands either renunciation of faith or the end of the marriage. Where one must make such a soul-wounding choice, Paul advises that the believer is not bound to his or her partner. But, he is careful to note, the believer does not deny his Lord (or defile the marriage) by remaining married to an unbeliever, if this is possible. In fact, no sooner has Paul said that the believer need not restrain the unbeliever from leaving (though the believer is not to take the initiative) than he reminds the believer that a believing husband may even save the wife (1 Cor. 7:16). Previously Paul had said that an unbelieving husband is already sanctified through his believing wife (1 Cor. 7:14). The use of the term “not bound” in 1 Cor. 7:15 emphasizes the freedom of the Christian spouse, and it is possible that Paul would give cautious permission for remarriage of the believer in those cases where the unbeliever has contracted another marital union. But it is highly unlikely that Paul is counseling divorce and remarriage for the believer when the unbelieving spouse remains unconnected with another marital partner. One aspect is seldom noted by those who legislate on the matter of a marriage between a believing and an unbelieving spouse: the Christian spouse should not be such a nuisance to his or her partner, such an unpleasant believer, perhaps even a superspiritual believer no longer interested in sex, that the unbeliever simply can no longer tolerate living under the same roof. Just as it is difficult to locate absolutely the “innocent” party in the case of marital unfaithfulness, so it is difficult to locate the innocent party in the case of a deserting unbeliever. In both cases believers are not to end their marriages. There is no New Testament legislation concerning persons divorced and remarried before becoming Christians. The gospel covers that possibility, and every other one as well, by proclaiming a new start in Christ. The New Testament simply does not deal with the situation of an abused woman (or man). Presumably Paul, if he had ruled on this in the spirit of Jesus, would have said that a woman should not submit to abuse even if her husband, by not getting his own way, leaves her. But Paul would also say that while they may separate for peace, or even for personal emotional survival (assuming that all other means of dealing with it have temporarily failed), they are not thereby granted the right to divorce and find another partner. Grace holds out the hope of reconciliation and never gives up hope that the fractured covenant could be healed. It is difficult to believe that Paul was more lenient than Jesus on the matter of divorce, even though Paul had to legislate whereas Jesus did not. The burden of Paul’s teaching, as it was for Jesus, is the divorceless covenant, not the grounds for permissible divorce. As a realist within the grace of God, Paul dealt with the difficulties in which believers found themselves, but he refused to reduce marriage to a contract with terms that, through being violated, would annul it. It is impossible to legislate for every possible situation in extremely strained marriages by appealing to the teaching of either Jesus or Paul. Does “sexual impurity” (porneia) in Matthew refer only to heterosexual intercourse? Does it include homosexual acts? Would one homosexual act require divorce? Would porneia include the demand of a husband for sexual variations that are repulsive to his wife? or sexual abuse? or rape within the marriage? Would a wife or husband’s unwillingness to consummate the relationship except to conceive children constitute sexual unfaithfulness? And what happens if the partner is unwilling to have intercourse because she finds her husband overbearing, demanding and manipulative, rather than loving? Anyone wishing to approach divorce from the legal point of view is well advised to read the postbiblical Mishnah. That document prescribes in the most minute detail the conditions and variations that should guide a decision on the legality of divorce in almost every situation. The problem is that there will always be a situation for which the rule does not apply! The Dispensational Approach

The Dispensational Approach This view takes seriously the existence of different stages in the story of God’s dealing with the human race. Christ taught the ethics of the kingdom and, as the King-in-person, introduced God’s reign into this age. The new age of the kingdom overlaps with the old. And the ethic of the kingdom, it is argued, is too high to be lived out in a partially saved world. According to this view when Jesus spoke about divorceless marriage, he was speaking about life in his ideal kingdom, not about life in this mixed reality we now have of kingdom and flesh. So, for example, Dwight Small argues that we must balance Jesus’ ideal teachings with the realities of the overlapping kingdoms (this age and the next age). While he does not call this dispensational thinking (different parts of the Bible deal with different seasons of God’s saving activity), the effect is the same. It divides the New Testament into parts that apply now and parts that do not. The problem with Small’s approach is that Jesus says it is the foolish person who does not build his life on obedience to his teaching now (Matthew 7:24-27). P. T. Forsyth takes a slightly different approach worth considering, arguing that the legislation for divorce regarding “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8) is not a concession to individual weakness and human nature but a reflection on the incomplete development of God’s society on earth. Even if we must recognize divorce as a reality, and perhaps even a gracious reality in the case of an innocent victim, we should never lose sight of God’s intention. God’s design is a divorceless covenant, and no marriage should be conceived on any other foundation. Forsyth notes, however, that a move from basing marriage on covenant to consent would change the very idea of marriage. This has now happened. What we are losing today are not marriages but marriage itself—the whole covenant idea. While we must be realists, we must never accept divorce in a way that erodes the idea of a divorceless covenant. The Christian community is deeply challenged to do this in such a way that the divorced people among us are not made to feel like second-class citizens or marital lepers. Biblical Theology

Biblical Theology A third approach emphasizes the teaching of Jesus that “what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). Until now I have assumed that God is normally pleased to join together those who will enter into a covenant, “as God’s Word doth allow” (as the old marriage service stated), with all its dimensions: leaving, cleaving and one flesh (Genesis 2:24) (see Marriage). But we must ask now whether God joins everyone who gets married. Are there people whose marriage is neither blessed nor founded in God (whether they believe in God or not), and for these people is divorce right, if not necessary? Perhaps no one has thought more comprehensively on this subject than Karl Barth in his work Church Dogmatics. The following discussion summarizes Barth’s theology on the subject. Marriage (covenant) is an indissoluble union. According to Barth, “the marriage which rests upon the command of God and therefore upon his calling cannot be dissolved by man even if he wishes” (Barth 1968, p. 34). Such a marriage, he argues, makes the indicatives “I am yours” and “you are mine” into imperatives. We must accept this until death us do part. The little key to the exit door is lost. Whoever would enter marriage must renounce the thought of ever leaving it. Even a well-married couple should not presume on God’s grace. Such a couple, he says, should not rely on the encouraging indications of their marriage but “can only hold fast the mercy of God without any merit of their own” (Barth 1968, p. 35). Beware if they think they stand by their own effort! This is an important corrective to the pragmatic approach today that if you go to enough marriage-enrichment seminars, you can guarantee a good marriage. It is God’s gift! Can you know for sure your marriage is not blessed by God? Barth says no. Even though there may be many indications of an unsuccessful marriage and people suspect that their marriage lacks God’s blessing, this blessing may simply be hidden from them for the moment. Barth calls them to consider “whether there may not be indications that its malady can finally be healed and its union given permanence” (1968, p. 36). No matter what, we are to cling to God’s yes. Covenant marriage is based not on external indications but on the call and provision of God. Therefore, since the Word of God is primarily a word of promise and only secondarily a word of judgment, a believer is called to cling to God’s yes rather than his no. For “no negative indications, however bad, can engender the certainty that a particular marriage is without promise and stands finally under the judgment of God because [it is] not . . .‘made in heaven’ ” (Barth 1968, p. 38). But in an extreme case we may painfully conclude that a couple should not remain married. We must be cautious and unassuming in thinking that we can discern whether or not a marriage is blessed by God. The saying of Jesus cannot be reversed to say “what God has not joined together, let man separate.” Divorce may be permitted where God has evidently condemned the marriage as a noncovenant. Divorce applies only to the legal institution of marriage and not the divine covenant, which is indissoluble. Therefore the covenant is not dissolved, because there never was one. The church must show compassion to the divorced. Barth asks rhetorically, “May it not be that those who are joined in a ‘good’ marriage are supremely characterized by the fact that they can manifest toward those to whom this boon has not been granted something of the divine mercy which they themselves may enjoy in this respect?” (1968, p. 36). In passing it is worthy of note that often couples with “good marriages” tend to flock together and avoid those with “bad marriages,” each group developing its own support network. Divorced persons must not be refused remarriage. In Barth’s view, divorced persons know themselves as judged by God in their (noncovenant) marriages, but the church “will not regard them as polluted, or scandalously . . . refuse them the church’s benediction in the case of a second marriage” (1968, p. 41) if they turn in repentance to Christ and the gospel. After all, the ministry of the gospel is to create a new beginning, whether in a single life or to be married again. The big question is not divorce but marriage. “Legal divorce,” according to Barth, “is not part of the divine command concerning marriage; for this proclaims and requires its indissolubility. It belongs only to the institution of marriage. The human institution takes into account the possibility of marriages which have no divine foundation and constitution . . . and which therefore can be dissolved” (1968, p. 40). In other words, marriage is dissoluble (that is, marriage as a human institution), but the covenant is indissoluble. Divorce and the Spirituality of the Church

Divorce and the Spirituality of the Church Barth’s reasoning is an attempt to explore God’s Word about divorce. But equally important is the question of what divorce does to our hearing (see Listening) of God’s voice in Scripture and our knowing God’s presence in everyday life. The pastoral approach to divorce has more than one dimension. There is the obvious pastoral concern of how to prevent divorce if possible and care for those going through a divorce. But what does easy and widespread divorce do to our spirituality? First, the marriage covenant takes us to the heart of God, who is a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. Second, if we cannot believe that God will work a miracle in our hearts to keep covenant with our spouse, even in a difficult marriage (indeed, what marriage is not?), how can we believe that God could work the greater miracle of raising Jesus from the dead? Like Hosea in the Old Testament, we may seek a solution to a difficult marriage beyond the institution of marriage itself. Hosea called his wife Gomer into court and spoke of her as divorced (and perhaps would have gone through a legal divorce) in order to win her back! Third, the essence of being a child of God—contrary to popular psychology—is obedience. If we obey what we already have from God, we can be given more. As we do the truth, God reveals more. Finally, a hard heart is both the cause and usual consequence of divorce (Matthew 19:8). If we harden our heart to our nearest and dearest neighbor, our spouse, we will be dead to the voice of God. A church where couples can exchange partners freely, where divorce is accepted as a normal growth experience, and where marriage is entered thoughtlessly and lightly as something less than a lifelong covenant is a church that will soon have no real spiritual power and vitality. Love without truth is deadening, but truth without love is deadly. When a church does not stand beside divorced people and offer grace and hope if they turn in repentance to Christ and the gospel but instead offers judgment, condemnation and exclusion, the church will soon not hear the voice of God. Of the three Christian virtues that should be offered by the people of God today, especially in relation to marriage, the one most urgently needed is hope. And hope is what the gospel of Jesus brings. » See also: Cohabiting » See also: Conflict Resolution » See also: Family Problems » See also: Forgiveness » See also: Marriage » See also: Promises References and Resources

References and Resources K. Barth, Church Dogmatics 3 / 4, The Doctrine of Creation, trans. A. T. Mackay et al. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961); K. Barth, On Marriage (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968); P. Davids, “Divorce: The Biblical Data” (Vancouver: Equippers, 1985, unpublished); P. T. Forsyth, Marriage: Its Ethic and Religion (London: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.); D. H. Small, The Right to Remarry (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1975); J. H. Olthius, I Pledge You My Troth: A Christian View of Marriage, Family, Friendship (New York: Harper & Row, 1975); R. P. Stevens, Getting Ready for a Great Marriage (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1990); R. P. Stevens, Married for Good: The Lost Art of Remaining Happily Married (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986); J. S. Wallerstein and S. Blakeslee, Second Chances (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1989); M. Weiner-Davis, Divorce-Busting (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992); R. Weiss, Marital Separation (New York: Basic Books, 1976). —R. Paul Stevens DOWNSIZING —Complete Book of Everyday Christianity, The

FAMILY PROBLEMS

»Front Matter »Indexes FAMILY PROBLEMS Contents: Loving That Is Conditional Shaming One Another Using Power to Control Others Keeping Emotional Distance Finding Solutions References and Resources All families have problems! Living together through the thick and thin of everyday life, family members will encounter struggles and stressors all along the way. Whether it is a major problem like substance abuse, serious illness, natural disaster or economic failure, or a minor difficulty like sibling rivalry, unhealthy coalitions in the family or personal conflicts between family members, it will take a toll on family relationships. Since the external problems are usually beyond the control of the family, this article will focus on relational problems that family members can change. Four common problems that lead to internal family disharmony are conditional love, shame, control and distance. If a family is to function effectively, members must first recognize and then learn to change these disruptive patterns. With that intention in mind, I will present each of these problems, highlighting their damaging impact on family relationships. Then I will offer four antithetical healing principles that can bring harmony between family members. These healing principles are covenant (commitment and faithfulness), grace (acceptance and forgiveness), empowerment (competence and growth) and intimacy (closeness and communication). Knowing the difference between harmful and healing relationship dynamics will point families in the direction of health. And, embracing these healing principles, family members will be able to combat the relational problems that cripple their functioning. Healing relationship principles will move family members toward well-being, whereas repeating the hurting patterns will move them toward further strife. Loving That Is Conditional

Loving That Is Conditional Each member of a family needs to be loved for who they are! Conditional love, however, says a person is loved if, because or when he or she behaves a certain way. Love that depends on external behavior places an enormous burden on a family member to earn love rather than to be loved. In fact, conditional love becomes a leverage: love is withheld or withdrawn when a member’s behavior is “unacceptable.” This perpetuates the “try harder” compulsion to please others in order to feel acceptable. Family members who live under the dominating influence of conditional love begin to believe they have an internal flaw that makes them unworthy of being loved. Without the assurance that their family will “love them forever,” even when they make mistakes, they become insecure. Conditional love leads to a pattern of distrust and untrustworthiness that spirals in a negative direction. The exact opposite of conditional love is unconditional love. A compelling picture of God in the Bible is that of One who faithfully initiates and persistently pursues people through unconditional covenant love, even when they pull away and turn their back on him. Jehovah God of the Old Testament is the model parent who loves the children of Israel with a love that will not let go. A family that can keep on loving, even when members behave in unlovable ways, provides a basic trust and security for its members. Because it is inevitable that family members will disappoint and fail each other, it is absolutely essential that they experience the security of unconditional love. Trust is the foundation that makes connection and growth possible. Just as God’s unconditional love is demonstrated through grace that accepts us “just as we are,” so family life needs to be lived in an atmosphere of grace. Shaming One Another

Shaming One Another To forgive and be forgiven is the hallmark of the Christian family. Unfortunately, families often live under the cloud of shame rather than grace. In shaming homes, family members set up a standard of perfection that is impossible to achieve. The strong focus on external behavior impedes that person’s internal development. Members not only fear making mistakes but they believe they are a mistake, thinking they can never be good enough. In the innermost part of their being, they are ashamed of who they are. Totally discouraged by failing to live up to unreasonable standards, they give up! Though it may be their only defense, blaming themselves or others for their predicament leads only to further problems and irresponsible behavior. The discouragement incurred in a shaming home defeats the hopeful message of God’s grace! For God so loved and cherished each unique created person that he gave his only Son for them. The intent was to restore and reconcile. Likewise, a family of grace will embrace each member as a unique, cherished creation of God. While they acknowledge human failure, they also take hope in people’s capacity to learn from mistakes and recover from imperfections. Repentance and forgiveness become the ways to reconciliation, hope and life. It is only when family members are loved, accepted and forgiven that they have the courage to begin anew. Using Power to Control Others

Using Power to Control Others Parents who control and coerce their children give the message that “might equals right.” With this perspective, one inevitably tries to get more power in order to lord it over others. This interpretation of power leads to serious problems of physical and emotional abuse. Mostly it is the people who have very little power who resort to physical and mental punishment. In controlling families, members respond out of fear rather than respect, cowering under the more powerful members. Dejected, they fail to develop an internal locus of control as they continually succumb to the demands of the controller. The question of what they do in the controller’s absence (“out of sight is out of mind”) is another serious problem. They may rebel and strike out in destructive ways. This “law and punishment” model keeps abusive systems perpetuating themselves from one generation to the next. We can take a great deal of hope in the fact that Jesus radically redefined the notion of power. The model in the New Testament is one of empowerment or of using power for others. Just as the Holy Spirit empowers Christians to live out the life of faith, family members are called to nurture, equip, instruct, confront, encourage and assist one other in personal growth. Jesus announced that he came to serve and not to be served. The idea of laying down one’s life for another family member is the extraordinary way of the cross. It is possible to turn the other cheek or go the second mile only if there is the strength of character to do it. When parents come alongside their children as moral and loving leaders who affirm their children’s strengths and build up their potential, they empower them to become responsible members of society. Keeping Emotional Distance

Keeping Emotional Distance Families today are besieged by activities and conditions that keep them removed and distanced from each other. In a world that offers instant everything, it is difficult to take the time that is required to develop close relationships. It is easier to hide behind fake masks rather than to reveal oneself in open, honest ways. If the family is a place where members experience rejection, the best way for family members to protect themselves from that kind of pain is to pretend they are okay when they are not. In addition, if members are loved only when they do acceptable things, or shamed when they make mistakes, or harshly punished when they fail, they will look for ways to anesthetize themselves from these condemnations. Addictive behaviors, such as drinking, eating, overwork and so on, promise relief by taking one’s mind off the self-defeating messages, but they only intensify the problem. These addictive substitutes are not only self-destructive but are destructive to relationships within the family. For when denial and cover-up become a way of life, they keep family members emotionally distanced from each other and are a barrier to intimacy, which is the healing force in family relationships. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were described as being “naked and not ashamed” when they encountered each other. It would appear that they were completely open and vulnerable in their relationship. The psalms give a similar picture of intimacy when they express the psalmist’s deepest thoughts and emotions of pain, joy, anguish, anger, victory and love to God in prayer. The scriptural truth that “there is no fear in love . . . perfect love drives out fear” (1 John 4:18) is a compelling reason to come before God, naked and not ashamed. There is safety in being loved unconditionally, being gracefully accepted and empowering others. In healing families, there is no need to hide or deny what one feels because all thoughts and feelings are honorable and listened to with compassion. When one is validated for being congruent (matching feelings and words), there is no need to cover up the truth, even when it is negative. In fact, conflicts offer us an exhilarating capacity for constructive growth when family members are able to hear and respond with appropriate understanding. Resolutions are sought in order to bring harmony and closeness between members. Intimacy is the fruit of vulnerable sharing and working through family problems together. It is the time a family spends together that deepens their level of interaction and emotional connection. Finding Solutions

Finding Solutions Once problems are recognized, the family has a great opportunity to deal effectively with them. The goal is to find a solution that can dissipate the negative energy that has piled up through past hurtful patterns of interaction. If your family is operating under the four disruptive relationship patterns, it is necessary to reverse these patterns. The family must do something different to break the old, hurting patterns and add something new in order to put the healing relationship principles in place. Here are some ideas for moving toward solutions. First, one must declare the problem and commit to the solution. Admitting the inadequate past way and then indicating the desire to replace it with a more effective way is illustrated in the following statements: “I withhold my affection when you don’t do what I say, and I scold and shame you when you do something I don’t like, but I’d like to extend grace and acceptance instead!”; “I’ve been trying to force you into my way of doing things, but I know your way is equally good, and I will affirm you rather than criticize you”; “I realize I keep my distance by blaming you, and I will accept responsibility for my actions. It’s important to me to find good ways to connect.” The confession initiates the process. The vulnerable, “about-face” change of attitude opens others up in a way that will make a real difference. It is important to give some idea of what family relationships are when members are operating according to the four healing principles. It is crucial to pay attention to the things family members already do that contribute to the four healing principles. You may want to ask all members to talk about the specific times when they have felt loved, accepted, empowered and emotionally close. Recognizing family strengths and particular activities that contribute to positive interaction provides specific behaviors to emulate. Discovering what the family is doing right is an important clue as to how the problem will be solved. By fostering positive behaviors, the family will be able to eliminate negative ones. The motto becomes: Keep doing those things that heal and quit doing the things that hurt! Choosing to empower rather than to control, or deciding to accept rather than to shame, automatically reverses the negative trends. Eliminating unrealistic expectations means a person is free to discover what he or she can do well and to learn what’s appropriate for their particular age and situation. Being vulnerable in relationships invites others to come toward us rather than pushes them away. Honest expression keeps one from hiding behind masks. It is especially helpful for family members to make a list of all the behaviors they can think of that lead to the four healing principles. Then every member has the chance to make a conscious decision to incorporate these specific actions to get things rolling in the right direction. Repeating these patterns of positive relating becomes a way of life that continues to accentuate the positive. An approach that focuses on solutions brings hope. Sometimes, however, a family cannot get to future solutions until they have paid sufficient attention to past hurts. In this case, repentance is a necessary part of the solution. Painful past events can continue to have a powerful negative influence unless members admit the wrongs so they can begin to reestablish trust. After reconciliation, they can put forth the remedial effort to make the desired changes. A problem solved is a point of growth and celebration for the family. The solutions lead to a deeper level of intimacy in the family, which brings about more capacity for unconditional loving, acceptance and empowerment. Round and round it goes, one positive relationship principle contributing to another in an ongoing cycle of family unity. » See also: Family » See also: Family Communication » See also: Forgiveness » See also: Love References and Resources

References and Resources J. O. Balswick and J. K. Balswick, The Family: A Christian Perspective on the Contemporary Home (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989); R. Campbell, How to Really Love Your Child (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1978); R. Campbell, How to Really Love Your Teenager (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1980); N. Stinnett et al., eds., Family Strengths: Positive Models for Family Life (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979). —Judith K. Balswick FAMILY SYSTEMS —Complete Book of Everyday Christianity, The

FORGIVENESS

»Front Matter »Indexes FORGIVENESS Contents: Some Misconceptions Forgiveness in Scripture Forgiving Oneself Intercommunity Forgiveness Interpersonal Forgiveness The Practice of Forgiveness The Power of Forgiveness References and Resources Forgiveness is excruciatingly difficult. There are a hundred reasons why one cannot forgive and a thousand easier, more appealing alternatives. Many of these alternatives will accomplish something worthwhile. Some will enable us to forget the pain, others will help us to understand our feelings, and still others will enable us to transfer our hurt or anger onto something or someone else. But none of them will totally heal or restore the broken relationship. Whether or not such healing or restoration is even necessary has been questioned by some. Why should a Jew forgive a Nazi or a woman her rapist? Do their enemies not deserve to die unforgiven? Would it make any difference to them if forgiveness were offered? Can the value or success of forgiveness be measured? Are there not some cases where traveling the road of forgiveness simply raises more problems and opens more wounds than if the journey had never begun? Before examining the dynamics of forgiveness, it is important to establish what forgiveness is not. Some Misconceptions

Some Misconceptions Understanding. To understand all is not to forgive all. Forgiveness is not dependent on our understanding everything about the person or the situation, nor is greater understanding a guarantee of forgiveness. We are being unrealistic if we expect to understand everything before we forgive. Situations and people are so complex and their depths are so unfathomable that we cannot afford the luxury of waiting until we understand before we forgive. On the other hand, people may understand all about a situation but still remain unforgiving. Greater understanding may facilitate forgiveness and may flow from forgiveness, but forgiveness is not dependent on it. Forgetting. Similarly, forgiving is not forgetting—for three reasons. First, if hurts can be easily forgotten, no forgiveness is necessary. The hurts in question are no more than mere annoyances, here today, gone tomorrow. Second, forgetting may be no more than avoidance or suppression, a defense mechanism to avoid the demands of real forgiveness. Third, where true forgiveness is needed, and even after it has been achieved and experienced, forgetting does not happen automatically. We cannot forget on demand. Forgiving can still be sincere even if we remember. Forgetting must happen naturally as part of the longer forgiving process. Avoidance. Forgiveness is not a way of avoidance. It is an alternative to revenge and retaliation, but it is not a way of opting out. On the contrary, because it gets to the root of the problem and refuses to exacerbate the hostility by multiplying the hurts, it is the only way of truly dealing with all aspects of the conflict situation. Toleration. To forgive is not simply to accept or tolerate. Acceptance can be selective: it can be a way of looking at the good that is in each one of us, no matter how evil many of our actions may be, but it does not deal with the bad. It concentrates on the sober generosity of the drunkard, the family commitment of the terrorist or the conscientiousness of the adulterer. But it is the bad—the drunkenness, the murder, the adultery—which is unacceptable. That is what forgiveness tackles. Getting Away with It. Finally, to forgive is not the same as saying that “it doesn’t matter.” Those who have wronged will still have to pay and bear the consequences of their actions—legally, socially or personally. A wrongdoer can be truly and completely forgiven, yet prosecuted. Forgiveness complements justice; it does not replace it. Forgiveness in Scripture

Forgiveness in Scripture The Old Testament deals, in the main, with divine forgiveness. From the very beginning of salvation history God has been active in forgiveness. The promise of Genesis 3:15, Noah’s ark (Genesis 6:13-9:17), the subsequent covenant (Genesis 8:21-22) and the story of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-25:10) are all early examples of God’s determination to save and restore people into fellowship. There is no single word for forgiveness in Hebrew, but rather a series of images. There is the image of paying a ransom price (kipper; Exodus 30:15-16; Numbers 5:8; Isaiah 6:7); taking away (na’; Exodus 32:32; Job 7:21; Micah 7:18); pardoning (selach; 1 Kings 8:30-39; Jeremiah 31:34); and even passing over, overlooking (‘ab̠ar; Micah 7:18; Proverbs 19:11). These are powerful and significant images. Initially, through the old covenant provisions of the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:20-22) and the general sacrificial system, God illustrated his willingness to overlook the sins of his people because they had been paid for, borne away, by someone or something else. God therefore has no call to remember their sins, for they are irrelevant (Psalm 25:7; Psalm 103:9-12; Micah 7:19). Isaiah uses identical language as he looks forward to the ultimate scapegoat sacrifice who will bear the sins of the people (Isaiah 53:8-12). The New Testament makes it clear that this was Christ and that his sacrifice was sufficient for all time (Acts 8:32-33; Hebrews 10:10). It is in the light of Christ’s sacrifice and our hope of eternal reconciliation with God that the New Testament writers employed the image of letting go (aphiēmi) to describe divine and therefore Christian forgiveness. As God has taken leave of our sins in Christ, so too we should let go of the sins committed against us (Matthew 6:12; Ephes. 4:29-32). This is brought out most powerfully by the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:21-35), where an unforgiving spirit is portrayed starkly as nothing less than blasphemous. One of the reasons we find forgiveness so difficult is that we are offended by God’s love, which can forgive those who have so spitefully abused us. We are like the elder brother (Luke 15:28-32), resenting the grace of God and living unfree lives, bound by our own self-righteousness and prejudice. The key to forgiveness is to understand how much we ourselves have been forgiven by God. Like the woman in Luke 7:36-50, those who truly understand the depth of God’s forgiveness are driven to love, not judgment (see also Matthew 7:1-5). Forgiving Oneself

Forgiving Oneself Forgiveness is usually regarded as an interpersonal affair, but there is an intrapersonal aspect which is often overlooked. If we need to forgive ourselves and are unwilling to do so, this will hinder our forgiving others. Often the greater the sin, the less we are able to forgive ourselves: “Sin and self-forgiveness assume inverse proportions in our minds” (Stanley, p. 141). This is fundamentally a theological problem. We have not really understood or experienced the forgiveness of God, which is free, unmerited and unconditional. By refusing to forgive ourselves we betray a self-centered obsession that undermines the completeness of Christ’s atoning work. We claim we don’t forgive ourselves because we are unworthy, yet that is the whole point of the cross. Christ died because we were unworthy. We claim we have disappointed God, yet in reality it is only ourselves we have disappointed. How can God be disappointed when he knows us exactly as we are and yet forgives us? Sometimes, as an alternative to self-forgiveness, we will engage in self-deprivation or penance in the mistaken belief that we know something bad about our sin that God does not already know. Alternatively, we will become compulsive activists, burying ourselves in good works in order to impress God and thereby “atone” for our wrongdoing. The two main pillars of the early church had to learn what it was to forgive themselves. Peter, because of his denial of Christ, had possibly counted himself no longer a disciple (Mark 16:7; John 21:15-17), and Paul had to come to terms with atrocities he had personally inflicted on Christians before his conversion (1 Cor. 15:9-10). Once we have grasped the extent and manner of God’s forgiveness, we are without excuse in withholding forgiveness from anyone, and that includes ourselves. Intercommunity Forgiveness

Intercommunity Forgiveness New factors are brought into the equation when one considers the area of intercommunity or international conflict. Often when peace is being negotiated it is asked: Can, or should, leaders ask for forgiveness on behalf of the whole nation for atrocities committed in their name? Is it possible for the wronged community to grant that forgiveness on behalf of all of its citizens? If so, will the members of the “guilty” community feel the power of the forgiveness in any meaningful way? Such questions have recently been raised in relation to the Northern Ireland conflict, post-apartheid South Africa, the Middle East, Rwanda and Bosnia. Anniversaries have also tended to raise these questions in terms of unresolved hurts from past conflicts. The five-hundredth anniversary of Columbus’s arrival in North America (1992) sparked calls for apologies to be made to the native peoples, just as the fiftieth anniversary of the ending of the World War II in the Pacific (1995) prompted calls for Japanese apologies, and the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Irish famine (1996) led to similar demands on the British. The difficulty here is that in order to be effective, forgiveness requires the dynamics of human relationship. This presupposes a level of personal interaction. Forgiveness cannot take place by proxy or by means of words alone. It is virtually impossible for leaders to speak on behalf of all their citizens, much less on behalf of the citizens of previous centuries. It is similarly unrealistic, unhelpful, indeed prejudicial, of the citizens of a conquered nation to transfer their anger onto all the citizens of the conquering nation. Two things, however, can be done. First, where possible, individuals who have been wronged can begin the task of forgiving those individuals who have wronged them: the terrorist who planted the bomb, the soldier who fired the shot, the informer who pointed the finger or the witness who lied. Second, where the state has engaged in institutional injustice, it can ensure that those wrongs are righted and not allowed to recur. Land can be restored and protected, prisoners of conscience released and economic restitution made for the ravaging of property. Forgiveness is too serious and deep to be cheapened by pressurized apologies or cosmetic gestures that do nothing to ensure future justice and ongoing reconciliation (see Conflict Resolution). Interpersonal Forgiveness

Interpersonal Forgiveness Lewis Smedes has correctly pointed out that while many things may hurt us—nature, circumstances, unjust systems—we can forgive only people (Smedes, 1984, pp. 5-6). Forgiveness is intensely relational and personal. So how does forgiveness actually work in the area of interpersonal relationships? The main problem with forgiveness is that on the surface it appears to ignore or take lightly an incident of gross personal injustice. An injury has been inflicted, physically or emotionally, and someone has been hurt. The automatic human tendency is to hate and desire to get even. Forgiveness demands that we come to terms with such desires and gradually seek to be released from the power that the wound (and therefore the other person) has over us. Forgiveness is not about ignoring the injury. On the contrary, the forgiver acknowledges it and confronts it openly. Nor is the injury treated lightly. Rather, the forgiver treats it differently by freeing himself or herself from the endless consuming cycle of bitterness, hatred and retribution. The divine model is worth remembering here. God did not ignore our sin or treat it lightly. The death of Christ both dealt with the problem and made forgiveness possible. Another problem with forgiveness is that it may remain forever incomplete. The other party may not accept or experience the forgiveness because of circumstances such as death or the continued hardness of their own heart. However, this does not mean that the forgiveness is any less real. As far as the forgiver is concerned, the act of forgiveness has achieved its purpose in freeing them from the hurt of the incident, even though full mutual reconciliation requires the cooperation of the other party. It is a temptation to shirk the task of forgiveness on the grounds that the other person does not wish to be forgiven. This is to misunderstand the purpose of forgiveness: forgiveness is not an offer and not dependent on another’s repentance. While reconciliation consummates the act of forgiveness, the self-imposed alienation of the guilty party does not cheapen the release and joy of forgiveness any more than our continued rebellion against God undermines perfect divine forgiveness. The Practice of Forgiveness

The Practice of Forgiveness David Augsburger (1981) has highlighted the five stages of forgiveness: realizing the wrongdoing, reaffirming love, releasing the past, renewing repentance and rediscovering community. Smedes (1984) approaches the subject from the “inside,” highlighting the four possible experiences of the forgiver: hurt, hatred, healing and reconciliation. Hurts must be differentiated from forgettable oversights, insensitivities or mere disappointments. Hurts penetrate deeply and involve betrayal, disloyalty or personal injury. “Hatred is a compliment” (Smedes, p. 24), for we are not treating the perpetrator as robotic or irredeemable but as a free, rational person who has behaved unacceptably. They should have known better. It is on the unacceptability of their actions that our hatred is focused. These, however, are stages we must pass through. We cannot hate forever, or it will consume us and forgiveness will never take place. Alongside these two approaches to the practice of forgiveness, I offer a third that deals with past, present and future. 1. A new attitude. This concerns how we deal with the past. We make a choice to deal with festering hurts and to embark on the journey of forgiveness. We decide neither to perpetuate the hostility nor to suppress the hurts and allow them to eat away inside us. A refusal to forgive binds us eternally to the past. Our personality becomes frozen, we cannot move on from the moment of the offense, and we are incapable of living fully in the present. As injured people, we too require soul surgery. In some cases we need to admit our contribution to the breakdown in relationship. In other cases where we have been passive victims, we need to confess that we have allowed the event to hinder our spiritual growth and that righteous anger has become self-righteous bitterness. By choosing the way of forgiveness we are prepared to change our attitude toward those who have hurt us. We are prepared to forget and to acknowledge that someday we may be able to love them. Loving Christians, if they are to model God, must keep no record of wrongs (1 Cor. 13:5; Psalm 103:3-4). 2. A new perspective. This concerns how we cope with the present. We begin by viewing people differently. We attempt to get outside the hurts and ragings of our present brokenness and see our enemy as God sees them (2 Cor. 5:16). The temptation will be to view those who have injured us in a reductionist manner, seeing them totally in terms of their sin, when in reality they are normal people, a mixture of the image of God and sinful humanity. We are blinded to their true identity because of the sin they have committed against us. Real forgiveness cannot take place unless we are prepared to see them as they truly are, and not as the demons we have perceived them to be in the midst of our hurt and anguish. A test of whether our anger is righteous and directed against the sin, or unrighteous and directed against the sinner, would be to ask ourselves whether we would find greater pleasure in the conversion or restoration of the sinner than in their destruction (ECONI, p. 10). Or can we imagine a situation where we would actively wish the person well (Smedes, 1984, p. 29)? This takes time, but a new perspective will enable us to work to that end. 3. A new determination. This deals with the possibilities of the future. Forgiveness opens the door to new possibilities in relationship which would have been unthought of at the start of the journey. That is why forgiveness must be unconditional. If we lay down conditions, it means we are choosing the future and seeking to manipulate the other person into satisfying our unrealistic demands. If our demands are truly just, then the God of justice will see to it that they are met in the context of dialogue, growing trust and reconciliation. Reconciliation is not a return to old ways, a turning of the clock back to the exact moment of the offense. This is a new world. Circumstances have changed: the injured body may be irreparably damaged, or the marriage may be irretrievably lost because of new relationships. “We make our new beginnings, not where we used to be or where we wish we could be, but only where we are and with what we have at hand” (Smedes, p. 37). We can only forgive today with today’s circumstances. “Forgiveness is letting what was, be gone; what will be, come; what is now, be” (Augsburger, 1981, p. 52). Forgiveness naturally involves risks. We open the door not only to a bright new future but to the possibility of repeated injury. But where there is no risk, there is no need of forgiveness. Forgiveness does not deal with contracts and guarantees but with covenant and trust. That is God’s way with us, and it must be our way with each other (Deut. 4:30-31). The Power of Forgiveness

The Power of Forgiveness No one can force us to forgive, and all the pressures of personality and culture are against it. Yet in spite of our culture’s preoccupation with strength, machismo and getting even, to choose to forgive is to exhibit the greatest strength of all. Self-deception, avoidance and grudge-bearing are all easier options than loving confrontation, realism and forgiveness. When we forgive we are acting as free persons and treating others as such. The strength of the love that inspires forgiveness derives from respect and commitment. We see the other person as worth the respect and are prepared for the energy, time and disappointment that may come. “Hate gives a temporary power for surviving today’s brutality and it has a short-term power to move us into tough action for tomorrow. But hate lacks the staying-power to create a fairer future beyond revenge. . . . For long distance, forgiving is stronger than hate” (Smedes, 1984, p. 146). No greater example is needed than that of Christ himself, the embodiment of the kingdom of God, a kingdom of hope, forgiveness and reconciliation. It was he who, as he bore the physical agony of crucifixion, the emotional torture of the taunts and insults of passersby, and the spiritual weight of the sins of the world, found the strength to say: “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34). » See also: Church Conflict » See also: Conflict Resolution » See also: Hatred » See also: Justice » See also: Love References and Resources

References and Resources D. Augsburger, Caring Enough to Forgive (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1981); D. Augsburger, The Freedom of Forgiveness (Chicago: Moody, 1988); Evangelical Contribution on Northern Ireland, Forgiveness (Belfast: ECONI, 1992); L. G. Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995); J. Patton, Is Human Forgiveness Possible? A Pastoral Care Perspective (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985); L. B. Smedes, Caring and Commitment: Learning to Live the Love We Promise (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); L. B. Smedes, Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don’t Deserve (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984); C. Stanley, Forgiveness (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987). —David J. Montgomery FREEDOM —Complete Book of Everyday Christianity, TheElrapham (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

CONFLICT RESOLUTION Contents: Popular Christian Attitudes Toward Personal Conflict God’s Interest in Conflict Resolution Resolving Conflict as Believers References and Resources Conflict is a natural part of life. Although many people think conflict means open controversy, a truer definition might be the absence of peace—which can be obtained in its most complete sense only from God. Whenever people interact with one another, there is a potential for a difference in opinion or purpose. Most people are able to deal with minor differences. When major conflicts arise, however, many people do not know what to do. They fear conflict, react defensively or have difficulty negotiating just agreements. As a result, valuable relationships are damaged or destroyed, time and money are wasted, and promising businesses and careers fail. In American culture today, litigation in civil court has become a common substitute for direct personal interaction. As a result, conflicts may be resolved as to substantive issues but are almost never resolved as to personal relationships. A focus on satisfying individual rights has supplanted concern for the good of the whole community. In some other cultures there continues to be reliance on the judges at the gate (Ruth 4:1-12), but in America’s increasingly anonymous society the perceived cost-benefit of resolving conflict between individuals amicably has been skewed in favor of keeping the conflict unresolved. Popular Christian Attitudes Toward Personal Conflict

Popular Christian Attitudes Toward Personal Conflict Some Christians are more vulnerable than other people to conflict, this vulnerability arising from a misunderstanding about what it means to be Christlike. For example, some Christians believe they always should “turn the other cheek,” without realizing that unless one does so freely, without resentment, this is no true reflection of Christ’s peacemaking character. Such actions are like the Pharisees’ carrying out the letter rather than the spirit of the law. Further, giving in may be inconsistent with God’s Word, which includes also the concepts of justice, restitution and personal accountability. Others imagine that they should carry out God’s justice. They may appoint themselves as God’s avenging angel, even though Jesus instructed us not to do so (Matthew 7:1-2). Such an attitude is precisely the opposite of how God approaches discipline, which is with a loving and expectant heart (Hebrews 12:1-13). Finally, some Christians spend a great deal of energy on broader matters of peace and justice. Although these are important, such people sometimes pay scant attention to resolving their own interpersonal conflicts, failing to recognize the broader community implications of individual discord. All these attitudes can lead to confusion, abuse or pent-up anger. In contrast, to seek resolution of disputes according to biblical principles means seeking both personal reconciliation and the just settlement of substantive issues, not only for the purpose of human unity but also to bring praise and honor to God (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus specifically urged peacemaking among his followers as a personal attitude that brings blessing (Matthew 5:9). God’s Interest in Conflict Resolution

God’s Interest in Conflict Resolution As well as giving us the ultimate model of reconciliation—Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:10)—the Old and New Testaments are full of direction and action from God on the reconciliation of persons to himself. There are many pictures of unilateral forgiveness and provision for sacrifice as a substitute for judgment. It is obvious that complete, direct, personal reconciliation is one of God’s major preoccupations (Hebrews 2:1-4). God’s method of resolving conflict serves both as a model for our own behavior and as a reminder of our own utter dependence on God as the source of all good we hope to achieve. By studying the ultimate conciliator at work, certain guidelines emerge for dealing with conflict in our daily lives: 1. Conflict allows us to grow to be more like Christ (2 Cor. 12:7-10). 2. Peacemaking starts with our own personal attitude, which in turn comes from a focus not on the conflict but on God (1 Peter 3:13-15). 3. It is possible to reconcile oneself unilaterally, but only if the past is forgiven completely (Phil. 4:2-9). 4. Resolving conflict may require different methods at different times and places (1 Samuel 25:26-35; Esther 7:1-6; Proverbs 6:1-5; Acts 16:22-24; Acts 22:22-23, 29). 5. Differences of opinion are inevitable and usually are acceptable (1 Cor. 12). 6. Reconciliation does not necessarily require giving up or giving in, especially when someone is being hurt by ongoing conflict; loving confrontation may be preferable (Galatians 6:1-5). 7. God reconciled all to himself through sacrifice and forgiveness, but we must pass this gift on to others to realize its full benefits (Ephes. 4:29-32). 8. Resolving conflict God’s way may require us to accept consequences and to alter our behavior (Ephes. 4:22-32). 9. Justice is God’s, not ours (Luke 6:27-39). Biblical peacemaking involves an active commitment to restore damaged relationships and develop agreements that are just and satisfactory to everyone involved (1 John 3:18). A spirit of forgiveness, open communication and cooperative negotiation clear away the hardness of hearts left by conflict and make possible reconciliation and genuine personal peace. True biblical vulnerability, honesty and forgiveness can restore a person’s usefulness, both to God and to others, and lead to complete restoration of relationships (Galatians 6:1-3; Ephes. 4:1-3, 24). Resolving Conflict as Believers

Resolving Conflict as Believers The Bible contains two basic messages about how believers should seek to resolve conflict in their daily lives. First, as with most things in life, God’s Word contains promises, principles and practical steps needed for resolving conflict and reconciling people. Second, it is clear that peacemaking is an essential discipling ministry of the local church, not a task reserved for professional counselors or lawyers. See it as an opportunity for obedience and witness. Sometimes we wonder why God has allowed a certain conflict to come into our lives. Instead of viewing conflict as a painful burden, Christians can learn to see it as an opportunity to please God and to draw attention to God’s wisdom, power and love (1 Cor. 10:31-33). God has promised to use even our conflicts for good (Genesis 50:19-20; Romans 8:28). This perspective allows for a positive and confident response to conflict as we ally ourselves with the most powerful peacemaker in the world. Examine your own part in the conflict first. This includes not only your actions but also your attitudes, motives, acts and omissions. Because it reveals our sinful attitudes and habits and helps us to see where we need to change, conflict provides an opportunity for us to grow to be more like Christ (Psalm 32:3-5; Psalm 139:23-24; 1 John 1:8-10). This growth takes place when we follow Jesus’ command to accept responsibility for our own contributions to a problem before pointing out what others have done wrong (Matthew 7:5). Look for steps you personally can take. Few things in the Bible are as clear as the steps we are to follow when seeking to resolve conflict, particularly within the body of believers. Each of us is commanded to make the first move when in disagreement with another (Matthew 5:24). One opportunity provided by conflict is to serve others. Sometimes this can be done through acts of kindness and mercy (Proverbs 19:11), but at other times it requires constructive confrontation (Matthew 18:15). Recall that Jesus confronted people not simply by declaring their sins to them but by engaging them in conversation designed to make them arrive at the same conclusion on their own (Matthew 7:12; Luke 5:27-28; John 4:7-26). Accordingly, if someone is angry with you, go to them immediately (Matthew 5:23-24), even if you believe the other’s anger is unjustified. If you are angry with someone else, first ask yourself if the issue really is worth fighting about and check your attitude—are you actually looking forward to the confrontation? If an offense cannot be overlooked, go privately and express your concerns. But do not assume that the other knows or understands your feelings; explain what you are concerned about but also why (Matthew 18:15). Be sure to affirm the relationship and your desire to work things out lovingly before launching into a discussion of the issues (2 Cor. 2:5-8). Making the first move does not mean that someone else has done something wrong or bad. An otherwise innocent word or act can cause an unexpected negative reaction in another, leading to serious disagreement (James 3:5-7). One can apologize for the trouble such miscommunication has caused simply because one regrets the result. Too often, however, our own sins have played a part either in creating the conflict or in escalating it (James 4:1-3). Call on the church for help if necessary. Private confrontation is a preferable first step, so long as we can speak the truth in love (Ephes. 4:15). But if after sincere good-faith efforts to work things out you are unable to resolve the issue or mutually forgive each other (Proverbs 19:11; 1 John 3:16-20), then seek out the assistance of a few “witnesses” (Matthew 18:16). These are present not to provide evidence or accuse the parties but to act as supportive advisers to both sides and help restore peace (Phil. 4:3). This can be done informally with a respected relative, friend or other adviser trusted by both parties or more formally with a pastor, church-appointed committee or trained conciliator. If someone will not listen to you and the witnesses, then, as we are instructed, “tell it to the church” and allow it to decide the matter for the parties (Matthew 18:17) as a matter of church discipline. This is preferable to filing lawsuits in civil court (1 Cor. 6:1-8). Today, as in Paul’s time, our churches (and most believers) have abdicated this authority to the legal system, yet the courts do not focus on restoration of personal relationships, only on the disposition of tangible assets and liabilities. The church should model God’s view that discipline is an act of love and shepherding (Hebrews 12:6). Going to court is a possible last resort. Finally, if a party will not listen to the church, then we are commanded to treat the other as an unbeliever (Matthew 18:17). Does this mean that now we are free to sue in court? Yes, but our decision to do so should depend on the nature of the dispute and the consequences to us or others in our care if we do not pursue our claims (Phil. 2:3-4). Even though Paul’s admonition about lawsuits is directed at believers suing believers, it only makes sense to tie God’s conflict-resolution principles back to witness through reflection of Christ’s character. Christ’s approach was to be merciful even while directly confronting a harmful attitude or act. Whatever the choice, our attitude needs to remain one of obedience to and reliance on God, and the aim should be peace with others, even unbelievers (Romans 12:17-18; 1 Cor. 10:31-11:1). Because Jesus loved and sought out unbelievers even as he tried to both correct and heal them, we can at least attempt to work out differences with unbelievers using the same progression of steps as we would with believers (1 Peter 2:12). Serving an angry lawsuit on an unbeliever, before trying to work out things another way, may not be the defendant’s best introduction to God’s redemptive plan! Some believers use the steps in Matthew 18:15-20 as a substitute for civil legal processes but demonstrate the same vengeful zeal and advocacy as if in court. The key to effective use of Matthew 18 is to appreciate it as God’s detailed direction to us on how to keep peace on earth—our attitude should be one of caution, prayerfulness and thanksgiving. » See also: Church Discipline » See also: Compromise » See also: Conflict, Workplace » See also: Forgiveness » See also: Justice » See also: Listening » See also: Negotiating References and Resources

References and Resources E. Dobson et al., Mastering Conflict and Controversy (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1992); R. Fisher and W. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2nd ed.; New York: Penguin, 1991); J. Hocker and W. Wilmot, Interpersonal Conflict (3rd ed.; Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1991); Institute for Christian Conciliation, 1537 Avenue D, Suite 352, Billings, MT 59102, (406) 256-1583; B. Johnson, Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems (Amherst, Mass.: HRD Press, 1992); S. Leonard, Mediation: The Book—A Step-by-Step Guide for Dispute Resolvers (Evanston, Ill.: Evanston Publishing, 1994); G. Parsons and S. Leas, Understanding Your Congregation as a System (Washington, D.C.: Alban Institute, 1993); K. Sande, The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). —David Augsburger CONFLICT, CHURCH —Complete Book of Everyday Christianity, The

Elrapham (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)