Grace & Truth

[FaithPrevails]

I just don't think the confrontation needs to be "in your face" style or strictly focused on the sinner alone until they repent. To me, expecting to strictly focus on just the sinner and not the couple as a whole until the sinner completely repents is counterproductive. In their mind, they are thinking, "But my wife/husband did/said...." and the focus is lost to what they're doing wrong. They will be defensive and less open to correction and change. They will be hearing "It's all YOUR fault" from the spouse and counselor. Even if it is all their fault, nothing productive comes from stating the obvious that way.

Bringing the sin to light and presenting the expectations for addressing the sin - along with the boundaries that the spouse needs to have in place (which is what *I* see as the work the spouse needs to do) and acknowledgement of how the spouse needs to effectively respond to the sin at the same time is way more conducive to repentence and change, IMO.

 

[mkgal1]

I just don't think the confrontation needs to be "in your face" style or strictly focused on the sinner alone until they repent. To me, expecting to strictly focus on just the sinner and not the couple as a whole until the sinner completely repents is counterproductive. In their mind, they are thinking, "But my wife/husband did/said...." and the focus is lost to what they're doing wrong. They will be defensive and less open to correction and change. They will be hearing "It's all YOUR fault" from the spouse and counselor. Even if it is all their fault, nothing productive comes from stating the obvious that way.

Bringing the sin to light and presenting the expectations for addressing the sin - along with the boundaries that the spouse needs to have in place (which is what *I* see as the work the spouse needs to do) and acknowledgement of how the spouse needs to effectively respond to the sin at the same time is way more conducive to repentence and change, IMO.

Someone that has gotten into that habit, and has a sin problem, needs to change that attitude of looking to the other person and their faults instead of seeing their own blatant sin. By focusing on the sin, zeroing in on it, the therapist can say something like, "But...we aren't talking about THAT right now....we are talking about your sin of _(adultery)_________right now." Each of us is 100% responsible for our own behavior.

 

[FaithPrevails]

Someone that has gotten into that habit, and has a sin problem, needs to change that attitude of looking to the other person and their faults instead of seeing their own blatant sin. By focusing on the sin, zeroing in on it, the therapist can say something like, "But...we aren't talking about THAT right now....we are talking about your sin of _(adultery)_________right now." Each of us is 100% responsible for our own behavior.

Agreed. But, if a certain approach is what evokes that type of response, then doesn't it make sense to change the approach?

I think we are really agreeing on the issue at hand...and it's just the approach that we differ in opinion on, maybe?

 

[mkgal1]

The way I see it is, it is not the approach that needs to change....it is the response of the one in sin that needs changing.

By making the sin the focus...and not allowing the sinner to deflect the blame (which they had been able to do in the past) there HAS been a change in the dynamics of the scenario.

As laid out in Matthew 18:15....if the one confronted does not respond to this step....they are to be confronted with the church leaders....if they still refuse...both the church and the spouse are to separate themselves from them.

 

[FaithPrevails]

If the person was capable of changing their response, then I doubt confrontation about the sin would be needed. lol

I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one, mk.

 

[mkgal1]

If the person was capable of changing their response, then I doubt confrontation about the sin would be needed. lol

I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one, mk.

Most likely, it isn't a matter of not being "capable"...but, a matter of being "unwilling".

That is fine....we can certainly agree to disagree...no problem

 

[FaithPrevails]

Most likely, it isn't a matter of not being "capable"...but, a matter of being "unwilling".

That is fine....we can certainly agree to disagree...no problem

Capable = it is within their control

If it is a matter of addiction, then it is not easily within their control. So, I think context matters.

Not trying to contradict you or drag this out if you don't agree. Just the thoughts that popped into my head when I read your post.

 

[mkgal1]

Capable = it is within their control

If it is a matter of addiction, then it is not easily within their control. So, I think context matters.

Not trying to contradict you or drag this out if you don't agree. Just the thoughts that popped into my head when I read your post.

I think that is one of the points he made in the article....that instead of calling sin, "sin"....we use terms like dysfunction, addiction, etc. Then...there is a different treatment for it because of that term, but the core issue gets missed...and treatment is only superficial and short-lived.

Considering that an addiction is something not easily within another person's control--athough there IS some truth in that--allows the addiction to run the marriage and family. The general attitude is, "I just can't help it." That leaves the entire family stuck in this addiction.

It clearly cannot be done alone....God and professional help is normally required...but, the addicted spouse needs to be the one to make that commitment that they are willing to reach out and accept the help. That has to start with first seeing their sin and how it is destroying them & their marriage.

To me....the article seems to be saying, "It is about first things first." I believe God will always equip those to do HIS will.

 

[JanniGirl]

I'm with MK on this one, tiptoeing around the issue isn't going to address it to someone who is tryig to protect their sin. They already have highly developed skills to protect it -- deflection, minimizing, blaming, . . . . feeding into these by actually refusing to address the problem head-on is only going to add fuel to their denial/protection -- So if the spouse goes into the counseling session and they spend half their hour talking about her issues, and then skim over his "addiction" -- he's going to go home and tell her that she's a sinner too and that its no big deal, and she needs to start working on herself rather than pointing fingers at him. He might return to counseling for more soft-touch fuel he can use to protect his addiction.

 

[Created2Write]

Capable = it is within their control

If it is a matter of addiction, then it is not easily within their control. So, I think context matters.

Not trying to contradict you or drag this out if you don't agree. Just the thoughts that popped into my head when I read your post.

This bears repeating. I agree entirely. I also agree with what you've said, Faith, about how to approach sin within a counciling session. I think your thoughts are very wise.

 

[dallasapple]

The general attitude is, "I just can't help it."

Thats the problem ..that is the general attitude and its bull.

And it not being "easily" in their control?Doesnt change the fact it is 100% in their control and they are 100% capable.

And NO one else is responsible for it but you..And if you put another human being especially your spouse it the position of you "make it or break it"...then you are giving your self an endless out to continue CHOOSING to "relapse" and not be 100% responsible.

Oh and "shes/he's" a sinner too" has nothing to do with you being 100% capable and 100% responsible.Everyones a sinner whats the point?


Love

Dallas

 

[FaithPrevails]

I'm with MK on this one, tiptoeing around the issue isn't going to address it to someone who is tryig to protect their sin. They already have highly developed skills to protect it -- deflection, minimizing, blaming, . . . . feeding into these by actually refusing to address the problem head-on is only going to add fuel to their denial/protection -- So if the spouse goes into the counseling session and they spend half their hour talking about her issues, and then skim over his "addiction" -- he's going to go home and tell her that she's a sinner too and that its no big deal, and she needs to start working on herself rather than pointing fingers at him. He might return to counseling for more soft-touch fuel he can use to protect his addiction.

Can you show me where anyone suggested the bolded in this thread? I totally agree with it, btw. It played out several times in my marriage to my first husband. If not enough emphasis was put on what he was doing that landed us in counseling, we left with him feeling triumphant and gladly pointing out all that I needed to "fix" and ignoring what he was doing to create the problems in the first place. If too much emphasis was put on him and the sin he was committing, then he disliked the counselor and we never went back.

I know from personal experience how both approaches play out.

The opposite of tip-toeing around an issue - aka avoidance - should not be playing the role of a blame-layer. Neither tactic is effective.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Here is the thing though. First, I get being gentle, and easing into full confrontation, but there needs to be a precise plan with that. It can't turn into never having the full truth confrontation. Second, I think one thing at a time needs to be dealt with. I lived with a raging alcoholic. He was not functional. Right before the end, I was paying all of the bills, and one morning I used information to make a phone call. This person threw a fit because I was spending money. In reality, he wasn't paying any bills, so he had no right to say anything at all about it. But, in his mind, he had this problem, and I had problems too, like spending a dollar once. My point is that, until the addict is seeing clearly, there is no point in working out other issues with him/her. That is why the first order of business needs to be the addiction. I think it may even be wise to do individual counseling at least at first. Each person in the counseling then focuses on their own perspective, etc. But the addict can't start looking at other things because they have no ability to see it with any kind of clarity.

 

[FaithPrevails]

I don't see what you said as any different than what I've said, Romans.

 

[Created2Write]

I still agree with your view, FP. I think a little too much nitpicking is going on here. I see that there is so much worrying about what could potentially "justify" or "minimize" sin, that the actual points of your posts are going by unseen, and it's too bad because your points are incredibly good ones to make. Unfortunately, they're being seen as something they're not, and it's all just turned into some grandios argument, when really there isn't much disagreement at all.

It's sad, really.

 

[Romanseight2005]

The main differences though, are that I believe that it is extremely important for the addict t focus full force on his/her addiction. That includes taking into account his/her spouses hurts. Counseling is a separate subject, and in counseling, at first, he/she should see the counselor alone so that he/she doesn't get sidetracked into focusing on pointing any fingers at anyone else. This isn't the same in any way as saying that the addict doesn't face the pain the addiction has caused the spouse. And putting specific time limits, meaning weeks, not years, on certain things as well.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

I still agree with your view, FP. I think a little too much nitpicking is going on here. I see that there is so much worrying about what could potentially "justify" or "minimize" sin, that the actual points of your posts are going by unseen, and it's too bad because your points are incredibly good ones to make. Unfortunately, they're being seen as something they're not, and it's all just turned into some grandios argument, when really there isn't much disagreement at all.

It's sad, really.

I've noticed that a lot of this forum goes just like this. It's just like the blind men and the elephant, proverb.

Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[pobodysnerfect]

I still agree with your view, FP. I think a little too much nitpicking is going on here. I see that there is so much worrying about what could potentially "justify" or "minimize" sin, that the actual points of your posts are going by unseen, and it's too bad because your points are incredibly good ones to make. Unfortunately, they're being seen as something they're not, and it's all just turned into some grandios argument, when really there isn't much disagreement at all.

It's sad, really.

Me too...I agree!

 

[FaithPrevails]

The main differences though, are that I believe that it is extremely important for the addict t focus full force on his/her addiction. That includes taking into account his/her spouses hurts. Counseling is a separate subject, and in counseling, at first, he/she should see the counselor alone so that he/she doesn't get sidetracked into focusing on pointing any fingers at anyone else. This isn't the same in any way as saying that the addict doesn't face the pain the addiction has caused the spouse. And putting specific time limits, meaning weeks, not years, on certain things as well.

I fully agree that the addict needs to focus full force on the addiction and the ripple effect it creates. I never said it didn't.

Counseling is a second step, IMO, if the couple can't address the addiction themselves. I highly recommend outpatient rehab/counseling independent of couple counseling to address the addiction.

With regards to time limits, I would include that in the boundaries that I keep talking about - so we're pretty much saying the same thing there, as well.

 

[FaithPrevails]

The concern that some are expressing for specific details of the conversation is valid, if not misguided here in this environment. The scariest thing for someone who is married to an addict or a person committing a sin/sins that are harmful or hurtful to their spouse is that the issue won't get addressed and resolved.

It sounds easy to lay out the steps and make the statements that I have here in this thread. But, as with most plans - things don't usually go smoothly.

I won't go into detail here for privacy reasons, but suffice it to say that I rode the emotional roller coaster of trying to get my ex to "fix" our marriage - which was broken due to certain sins he was committing. It is exhausting and is very easy for a person to become jaded or wary of anyone that says, "All you have to do to fix it is ________." He had addictive behaviors that infiltrated every aspect of our life. A spouse reaches a point where the fail to see hope, they are defensive (b/c they are in self-protect mode), and they are usually thinking/feeling - What about ME? b/c the behavior or addiction has become the primary focus of the relationship.

I don't fault anyone here who might be wary of accepting what I have to say. Especially since no one knows what I went through in my first marriage.