Grace & Truth

[mkgal1]

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.

so we're pretty much saying the same thing there, as well.

When you posted this quote below, FP, I know I took that to mean something different than "focusing full force on the addiction"--that seems to be the point of our disagreement, from what I am understanding. If that is the case....no problem....we can certainly hold different views. I do completely agree with you that counseling is a second step.......but, what I believe is that is AFTER the offending spouse has repented and changed, and has also helped his or her spouse heal from the damage they have caused related to the sin.

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.

 

[FaithPrevails]

I think couples counseling can come after the repentance and change. I think the addict spouse needs counseling - most times - to help overcome the addiction and lead him/her to the repentance and change needed.

Would you agree?

 

[FaithPrevails]

p.s. If anyone in the thread thinks I mean a particular thing, please ask for clarification and I will be happy to further explain my thoughts. I would prefer that over assumptions that I mean something that I may not necessarily mean or that is coming across in a way it shouldn't because I didn't word it properly. Thanks

 

[mkgal1]

I think couples counseling can come after the repentance and change. I think the addict spouse needs counseling - most times - to help overcome the addiction and lead him/her to the repentance and change needed.

Would you agree?

To be more precise.... I would say the couples counseling HAS to come after the repentance and change...that the repentance and change is the first priority, and needs focused attention.

I do also agree that most often...counseling IS needed to overcome the addiction...but, it still needs to be seen as a "sin" issue as well...not JUST an addiction.

 

[Romanseight2005]

To be more precise.... I would say the couples counseling HAS to come after the repentance and change...that the repentance and change is the first priority, and needs focused attention.

I do also agree that most often...counseling IS needed to overcome the addiction...but, it still needs to be seen as a "sin" issue as well...not JUST an addiction.

That is a good point. I have never seen the word addiction used in scripture. The closest thing, might be a demonic possession. In the case of demonic possession, the demon must be cast out. So, prayer, fasting, and casting out would be the way that would be handled. However, in all other cases, it would looked upon as sinning, and then the goal would be to restore the sinner to repentance. It really would behoove us to see if we are handling "addiction" according to scriptural standards.

 

[mkgal1]

p.s. If anyone in the thread thinks I mean a particular thing, please ask for clarification and I will be happy to further explain my thoughts. I would prefer that over assumptions that I mean something that I may not necessarily mean or that is coming across in a way it shouldn't because I didn't word it properly. Thanks

The one thing you said that I don't understand what you mean is this:

To me, expecting to strictly focus on just the sinner and not the couple as a whole until the sinner completely repents is counterproductive

What do you mean by "counterproductive"? Or are you talking about how the one "in sin" will get defensive and angry? Are you saying that "ticking them off" is counterproductive?

 

[mkgal1]

That is a good point. I have never seen the word addiction used in scripture. The closest thing, might be a demonic possession. In the case of demonic possession, the demon must be cast out. So, prayer, fasting, and casting out would be the way that would be handled. However, in all other cases, it would looked upon as sinning, and then the goal would be to restore the sinner to repentance. It really would behoove us to see if we are handling "addiction" according to scriptural standards.

I think the beginning of understanding how to deal with addictions is to look at Romans 12:9 (my signature verse)

Something I found on the topic is that Biblical love cannot be separated from biblical righteousness. Christian love is drawn toward “right” and repulsed by “wrong.” It is attracted to and adheres to that which is “good,” abhorring and withdrawing from “evil.” Christian love is most certainly not “blind.” Biblical love distinguishes between good and evil, and then acts accordingly, cleaving to the good and avoiding the evil.

Christian love is something like a battery. There must be two poles for current to flow. There is a positive terminal and a negative terminal. In biblical thinking, “love” cannot be separated from “hate.” Love is a choice, a decision. It is a decision to choose one thing and to reject another. Jacob could not “love” both Leah and Rachel; he had to “love” one and to “hate” the other.53 So too we cannot serve two masters, for we will inevitably “love” one and “hate” the other (see Matthew 6:24).

Rebuke and discipline are not a violation of love but a manifestation of it. Love acts in accordance with righteousness.

 

[FaithPrevails]

To be more precise.... I would say the couples counseling HAS to come after the repentance and change...that the repentance and change is the first priority, and needs focused attention.

I do also agree that most often...counseling IS needed to overcome the addiction...but, it still needs to be seen as a "sin" issue as well...not JUST an addiction.

We have been using the example of addiction as the sin that is being addressed, so I have understood the two to be interchangeable in this thread. And, really, they are anyway b/c addiction is sin - no matter how you state it.

However, with recovery comes boundaries. I wouldn't say that counseling HAS to come after complete recovery b/c the spouse may need help identifying and creating healthy boundaries for both of them to adhere to if they have been an enabler for the addict spouse up to this point - which is common. If the spouse doesn't have healthy and appropriate boundaries in place - especially if they are an enabler - then the addict spouse may never fully recover. JMHO

 

[FaithPrevails]

The one thing you said that I don't understand what you mean is this:



What do you mean by "counterproductive"? Or are you talking about how the one "in sin" will get defensive and angry? Are you saying that "ticking them off" is counterproductive?

I think my post below explains it more clearly. Let me know if you still have questions.

We have been using the example of addiction as the sin that is being addressed, so I have understood the two to be interchangeable in this thread. And, really, they are anyway b/c addiction is sin - no matter how you state it.

However, with recovery comes boundaries. I wouldn't say that counseling HAS to come after complete recovery b/c the spouse may need help identifying and creating healthy boundaries for both of them to adhere to if they have been an enabler for the addict spouse up to this point - which is common. If the spouse doesn't have healthy and appropriate boundaries in place - especially if they are an enabler - then the addict spouse may never fully recover. JMHO

 

[FaithPrevails]

That is a good point. I have never seen the word addiction used in scripture. The closest thing, might be a demonic possession. In the case of demonic possession, the demon must be cast out. So, prayer, fasting, and casting out would be the way that would be handled. However, in all other cases, it would looked upon as sinning, and then the goal would be to restore the sinner to repentance. It really would behoove us to see if we are handling "addiction" according to scriptural standards.

IMO, addiction is addressed in Galations 5:19-21 (emphasis is mine on "and the like").

19The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[mkgal1]

However, with recovery comes boundaries. I wouldn't say that counseling HAS to come after complete recovery b/c the spouse may need help identifying and creating healthy boundaries for both of them to adhere to if they have been an enabler for the addict spouse up to this point - which is common. If the spouse doesn't have healthy and appropriate boundaries in place - especially if they are an enabler - then the addict spouse may never fully recover. JMHO

That is a valid point....and I am sure that comes up often in that situation. If the other spouse is enabling the sin....then, I feel they should see the counselor alone--without their spouse--to be counseled how they can change their behavior.

 

[FaithPrevails]

That is a valid point....and I am sure that comes up often in that situation. If the other spouse is enabling the sin....then, I feel they should see the counselor alone--without their spouse--to be counseled how they can change their behavior.

If *I* was struggling with a sin that needed correction, I would not want to feel as if I was isolated from my spouse during the process. People that struggle with certain sins are often also struggle with feelings of isolation and even depression. Forcing them to be isolated from their spouse - the one person who is supposed to be their main source of support - is wrong, IMO. At the time when they need their spouse the most they are essentially being abandoned. How is that going to aid in the recovery process?

It seems to me that you feel a spouse struggling with sin needs to be punished - the way you keep insisting that all of the focus needs to be on the sinning spouse and all of the responsibility of recovery falls on them to do on their own. Because isolating them like that is punitive. Am I reading you correctly or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Romanseight2005]

IMO, addiction is addressed in Galations 5:19-21 (emphasis is mine on "and the like").

19The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I just want to clarify what you are saying. Are you saying that and the like means addictions?

 

[Romanseight2005]

If *I* was struggling with a sin that needed correction, I would not want to feel as if I was isolated from my spouse during the process. People that struggle with certain sins are often also struggle with feelings of isolation and even depression. Forcing them to be isolated from their spouse - the one person who is supposed to be their main source of support - is wrong, IMO. At the time when they need their spouse the most they are essentially being abandoned. How is that going to aid in the recovery process?

It seems to me that you feel a spouse struggling with sin needs to be punished - the way you keep insisting that all of the focus needs to be on the sinning spouse and all of the responsibility of recovery falls on them to do on their own. Because isolating them like that is punitive. Am I reading you correctly or am I misunderstanding?

Okay, I see what's happening, I think. To the addict, feeling, and acknowledging the true feelings of the spouse,(hurt, anger, mistrust) may feel like punishment, but it's not. What it is, is truth. The reality is that it is punishment for the betrayed spouse to have to swallow or hide their true feelings, from his/her spouse. For the one who betrayed, it's feeling the natural consequences of the sin. The betrayed one feels those consequences as well, because of the hurt caused by the sin, but making the betrayed one, hide his/her feelings, is further punishment, and pain. This is especially true if the addiction goes on and on for years. The point is, that the world doesn't revolve around the addict. Having to bear the reality of what has happened to the spouse, is part of helping the addict to see that the world doesn't revolve around him/her. Now how this ties in to what you said is that getting into other areas that may be going on with the betrayed spouse does two things. It allows for defense mechanisms to be hidden behind, like blaming the other, and redirecting the focus. Second, it robs the betrayer from complete repentance. Not to mention the confusion that comes with trying to address too many things. If a building is on fire, you don't have one person putting the fire out, while the other puts away the clothes sitting on the dresser. It would be pointless to do anything with the clothes because, until and unless,the fire is out, the clothes, the house, and all of the people in it, will be destroyed. It is the same with destructive addictions.

 

[dallasapple]

Okay, I see what's happening, I think. To the addict, feeling, and acknowledging the true feelings of the spouse,(hurt, anger, mistrust) may feel like punishment, but it's not. What it is, is truth. The reality is that it is punishment for the betrayed spouse to have to swallow or hide their true feelings, from his/her spouse. For the one who betrayed, it's feeling the natural consequences of the sin. The betrayed one feels those consequences as well, because of the hurt caused by the sin, but making the betrayed one, hide his/her feelings, is further punishment, and pain. This is especially true if the addiction goes on and on for years. The point is, that the world doesn't revolve around the addict. Having to bear the reality of what has happened to the spouse, is part of helping the addict to see that the world doesn't revolve around him/her. Now how this ties in to what you said is that getting into other areas that may be going on with the betrayed spouse does two things. It allows for defense mechanisms to be hidden behind, like blaming the other, and redirecting the focus. Second, it robs the betrayer from complete repentance. Not to mention the confusion that comes with trying to address too many things. If a building is on fire, you don't have one person putting the fire out, while the other puts away the clothes sitting on the dresser. It would be pointless to do anything with the clothes because, until and unless,the fire is out, the clothes, the house, and all of the people in it, will be destroyed. It is the same with destructive addictions.

Exactly..you arent doing the addict any favors at all ..in fact its counter productive for them not to see and hear the full affect of how they have affected everyone else around them including the spouse.

I dont think anyone is talking about isolating them and punishing them..

As far as marital counseling just 'in general"..the marriage dynamics and issues needing resolved in "other areas"?No....You are correct Romans..Its TOO much at ONCE ..

And I am sorry..But the ultimate success for recovery DOES fall on the ADDICT.Yes they need support..But they are the ONE that has to do it.Just like they put MUCH energy and were the ones in control off the addictive behavior..Same goes for changing that behavior.

And as far as the opinion that the couple needs to be adressed as a whole?Not untill the 3rd party ..the addiction isnt consuming one of them.

Love

Dallas

 

[FaithPrevails]

I just want to clarify what you are saying. Are you saying that and the like means addictions?

Yes, that is what I interpret it to mean/include.

 

[Conservativation]

Im pretty sure I could think of a sin that, if offered as an example, would have folks rushing to backpedal. Thats what needs to be kept in mind here. This addiction example is being used, but is it a stand-in for any thing else the spouse does that may be wrong and make us unhappy? Or, is this thread actually about addiction and grace/truth?

Just curious

 

[FaithPrevails]

There is a lot of good stuff to address in your post, so I'm going to try and break it up as best I can. Bear with me.

Okay, I see what's happening, I think. To the addict, feeling, and acknowledging the true feelings of the spouse,(hurt, anger, mistrust) may feel like punishment, but it's not. What it is, is truth. The reality is that it is punishment for the betrayed spouse to have to swallow or hide their true feelings, from his/her spouse. For the one who betrayed, it's feeling the natural consequences of the sin. The betrayed one feels those consequences as well, because of the hurt caused by the sin, but making the betrayed one, hide his/her feelings, is further punishment, and pain. This is especially true if the addiction goes on and on for years.

I totally agree with this. The last comment - which I bolded - is key here. If it has gone on for years, then there has been enabling of some level going on with the spouse. Silence about a problem/addiction is considered enabling, IMO.

So, if the betraying spouse has gone on for any length of time without the issue being brought to light and them being accountable for dealing with it, then there is going to be more resistance b/c they have seen the silence or lack of firm boundaries as acceptance and are thinking, "Why is this such a big deal NOW?"

KWIM? I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it is what it is and it has to be taken into account when addressing the betraying spouse and expecting them to begin the recovery process.

The point is, that the world doesn't revolve around the addict. Having to bear the reality of what has happened to the spouse, is part of helping the addict to see that the world doesn't revolve around him/her. Now how this ties in to what you said is that getting into other areas that may be going on with the betrayed spouse does two things. It allows for defense mechanisms to be hidden behind, like blaming the other, and redirecting the focus. Second, it robs the betrayer from complete repentance. Not to mention the confusion that comes with trying to address too many things. If a building is on fire, you don't have one person putting the fire out, while the other puts away the clothes sitting on the dresser. It would be pointless to do anything with the clothes because, until and unless,the fire is out, the clothes, the house, and all of the people in it, will be destroyed. It is the same with destructive addictions.

Agreed. Which is why I have no problem with initially addressing just the betraying/addict spouse's issues. I just don't think complete recovery is possible without addressing the spouse and their boundaries that are needed in order to gain healing between the couple.

To use your burning building analogy - once the flames have been put out (betrayal/addiction has been addressed and the spouse is on the road to recovery), then damage needs to be assessed and repaired (bringing the spouse in and creating boundaries that help them both work towards healing as a couple).

 

[FaithPrevails]

I want to say, too, that I understand the need for the betraying spouse to address things separate from the spouse that has been hurt by the behavior. I separated from my ex and asked that he attend counseling alone to address the issues that caused the separation. He refused and pressed me to reconcile and "work on the problem together", which only served to further push me away b/c the damage that had been done was too great to ignore.

 

[FaithPrevails]

Im pretty sure I could think of a sin that, if offered as an example, would have folks rushing to backpedal. Thats what needs to be kept in mind here. This addiction example is being used, but is it a stand-in for any thing else the spouse does that may be wrong and make us unhappy? Or, is this thread actually about addiction and grace/truth?

Just curious

For me, the issues that I would include that I am addressing in this thread (although I have been using addiction as an example) is anything that is a dealbreaker for a person. My dealbreakers are:

addiction
infidelity
abuse

They are not grounds for immediate divorce, but they are the three main things that would need to be ceased and addressed - if they were present in my marriage - in order for me to be willing to stay in my marriage.

If something was happening that was sin, but not a dealbreaker or if I was unhappy about a dynamic in my marriage, I would be looking at myself, too, to see what I might need to change/tweak in order to help eliminate the issue from my marriage. Sometimes, things that make us unhappy are secondary to something we need to be doing differently ourselves, but we put the responsibility on our spouse to change b/c we think it's their behavior that is the primary issue.

I hope that last paragraph made sense.