Grace & Truth

[FaithPrevails]

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.

I completely agree. Support or lack of, the success depends on the addict.

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.

Agreed, with one tiny caveat. Addiction is lifelong. So, to say that it won't be consuming them at some point is not really realistic, IMO. In other words, even when they are no longer engaging in the behavior, it will still be a thought in their head on a regular basis. That's why groups like AA exist. I have a friend who is a recovering (I use recovering b/c it is a daily process) addict and she admits that she has cut out all things in her life that she associated with the addiction. She said it's the safest way for her to be able to remain in recovery. And, she celebrates her recovery every day (over 3 years clean now).

 

[Conservativation]

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.

I agree with you, I think probably 100% agree all the way front to back on this subject.

I confess in advance Im about to do what I say bothers me when others do it....full disclosure...
I was trying to suggest that someone could be using the dynamics of the discussion to justify/rationalize something like what you mentioned in your last paragraph. It would be quite easy to use addiction lets say as an example, agree with lots of people on whats to do, then go back loop back to the OP and feel that that approach applies equally straightforward to something very nebulous and subjective, where as you aptly said, those kinds of things are parts of a whole dynamic that involves 2 people.

 

[Conservativation]

How could someone handle a spouse that became addicted to addiction recovery?

Its a serious question about a serious problem these days

 

[FaithPrevails]

If I understand your question, then this is my response:

Addictive behavior will usually manifest itself in another way. The key is to finding a "healthy" alternative and to make sure moderation is being employed. For example, my mom quit smoking when I was 16. She gave up cigarettes for Nicorette gum and patches (yes, she needed both). She weaned herself off the patches first, but chewed the gum for about a year. She finally realized she needed to wean herself off the gum, too. So, she replaced it with regular chewing gum. She was chewing a "Plen-T-Pak" (the big packs) of gum a day. So, although she had phased out the bad for the good, she was still doing it in excess. Eventually she was able to wean herself down to just a few pieces of gum a day and now doesn't chew any at all. I think the whole process took her about 3 years.

For my mom, it was gum. For a recovering alcoholic, it could be meetings or self-help aids. The key, IMO, is recognizing when something is obsessive and consumes a major part of one's waking hours.

 

[FaithPrevails]

I agree with you, I think probably 100% agree all the way front to back on this subject.

I confess in advance Im about to do what I say bothers me when others do it....full disclosure...
I was trying to suggest that someone could be using the dynamics of the discussion to justify/rationalize something like what you mentioned in your last paragraph. It would be quite easy to use addiction lets say as an example, agree with lots of people on whats to do, then go back loop back to the OP and feel that that approach applies equally straightforward to something very nebulous and subjective, where as you aptly said, those kinds of things are parts of a whole dynamic that involves 2 people.

I understand what you're saying. I think when that happens - which it does happen - that the person doing it doesn't necessarily see that they're doing it - IF they're doing it.

It takes two to tango. So, while a real issue, such as addiction, infidelity, etc, may be present that doesn't mean the betrayed spouse does not have some responsibility in assessing their feelings/motivation/reaction, etc. and addressing those along the way while their spouse is recovering.

To use myself as an example with my first marriage, although it was ultimately my spouse's behaviors that ended our marriage (of course, he would argue differently), I still had to be able to look at myself and say without a doubt that I had tried everything I could to change/fix what I could to save our marriage. If a person can say that they have and are still at square one with a spouse, then they have to make the choice to stay and accept the circumstances or leave. JMHO

 

[Conservativation]

I understand what you're saying. I think when that happens - which it does happen - that the person doing it doesn't necessarily see that they're doing it - IF they're doing it.

It takes two to tango. So, while a real issue, such as addiction, infidelity, etc, may be present that doesn't mean the betrayed spouse does not have some responsibility in assessing their feelings/motivation/reaction, etc. and addressing those along the way while their spouse is recovering.

To use myself as an example with my first marriage, although it was ultimately my spouse's behaviors that ended our marriage (of course, he would argue differently), I still had to be able to look at myself and say without a doubt that I had tried everything I could to change/fix what I could to save our marriage. If a person can say that they have and are still at square one with a spouse, then they have to make the choice to stay and accept the circumstances or leave. JMHO

Yes agreed.

It would seem that someone who would rationalize such aggressive approaches to less than stark clear issues has already convinced themselves that they are not even part of the problem and have closed the mind to sharing the solution.

I see this posted about sometimes, and hear it talked about in small group married studies on occasion, someone says they finally realized years after a divorce that they had also a big part in the problem. Some see it in time, others not.
Its really a very elementary thing about flecks and logs in eyes basically

 

[FaithPrevails]

Yes agreed.

It would seem that someone who would rationalize such aggressive approaches to less than stark clear issues has already convinced themselves that they are not even part of the problem and have closed the mind to sharing the solution.

I see this posted about sometimes, and hear it talked about in small group married studies on occasion, someone says they finally realized years after a divorce that they had also a big part in the problem. Some see it in time, others not.
Its really a very elementary thing about flecks and logs in eyes basically

From someone who went through it myself, I can honestly say that I was coming from a place of such hurt and frustration, that I didn't realize that I had reduced it to focusing all of my energy on the things I couldn't control - and that were making me unhappy - and forgot to empower myself and create the healthy boundaries that I keep referring to and adhering to them.

It is also a reasonable fear - not a ploy or tactic - IMO to be wary to back down from focusing on the sin(s) that plague the marriage. The spouse who is doing the sinning is most likely trying to create diversion by deflecting the attention away from him/herself and putting their partner in the spotlight and making them feel like the issues are ill-perceived or shifting the blame back onto their partner.

An example would be a partner who cheats. The knee-jerk reaction might be "Well, if you would have had sex with me more often" from the cheating spouse, when the reality may very well be that the couple has a healthy/active sex life. My ex and I had a healthy/active sex life, but it did not stop him from desiring and seeking the attention of other women (yes, plural). Any time I addressed the concerns I had, it was deflected back on me that I was being "jealous" or "paranoid" or any other number of words to make me feel badly about or doubt myself. It was very upsetting to me. But, once I created a healthy boundary and adhered to it, I felt much better about myself even if the end result was not the one *I* desired.

It becomes a tug of war between the couple. One spouse is trying to spotlight the issue and gain resolution for it. The other spouse is trying to deflect the attention and avoid being in the hot seat. It turns into a power struggle and that becomes the focus rather than what really needs to be the focus.

 

[Conservativation]

From someone who went through it myself, I can honestly say that I was coming from a place of such hurt and frustration, that I didn't realize that I had reduced it to focusing all of my energy on the things I couldn't control - and that were making me unhappy - and forgot to empower myself and create the healthy boundaries that I keep referring to and adhering to them.

It is also a reasonable fear - not a ploy or tactic - IMO to be wary to back down from focusing on the sin(s) that plague the marriage. The spouse who is doing the sinning is most likely trying to create diversion by deflecting the attention away from him/herself and putting their partner in the spotlight and making them feel like the issues are ill-perceived or shifting the blame back onto their partner.

An example would be a partner who cheats. The knee-jerk reaction might be "Well, if you would have had sex with me more often" from the cheating spouse, when the reality may very well be that the couple has a healthy/active sex life. My ex and I had a healthy/active sex life, but it did not stop him from desiring and seeking the attention of other women (yes, plural). Any time I addressed the concerns I had, it was deflected back on me that I was being "jealous" or "paranoid" or any other number of words to make me feel badly about or doubt myself. It was very upsetting to me. But, once I created a healthy boundary and adhered to it, I felt much better about myself even if the end result was not the one *I* desired.

It becomes a tug of war between the couple. One spouse is trying to spotlight the issue and gain resolution for it. The other spouse is trying to deflect the attention and avoid being in the hot seat. It turns into a power struggle and that becomes the focus rather than what really needs to be the focus.

The bold is what the counselor is for.

MOST issues are 2 sided. Most issues are not addiction or abuse, and therefore require 2 sides

 

[FaithPrevails]

Yep - the counselor really should act as a mediator. They aren't the ones who "fix" the problem. They simply mediate/facilitate the discussion that brings the resolution. It could be a few sessions or it could draw out indefinitely, depending on the issue. But, they should be as neutral as Switzerland while still being able to point out obvious right or wrong to the couple.

 

[Romanseight2005]

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

Okay, I have to disagree completely with this. In the passage of scripture mentioned, a list of sins are listed. And the like would be clearly saying other sins that fit in with what was mentioned in the passage. The term addiction is simply saying, can't stop. The very meaning of the passage is that if you do the above mentioned things, or things like them, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. It's a scary and sobering passage. The idea of always having those thoughts, is saying that you will never be free. That is a contradiction to scripture, imo.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Btw, isn't the need to do something in excess showing a lack of contentment, or a lack of peace? Really compare that to scripture.

 

[dallasapple]

Okay, I have to disagree completely with this. In the passage of scripture mentioned, a list of sins are listed. And the like would be clearly saying other sins that fit in with what was mentioned in the passage. The term addiction is simply saying, can't stop. The very meaning of the passage is that if you do the above mentioned things, or things like them, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. It's a scary and sobering passage. The idea of always having those thoughts, is saying that you will never be free. That is a contradiction to scripture, imo.

Maybe Im confused..But that would sound like to me that a person whos addicted is bascially damned .

Love

Dallas

 

[FaithPrevails]

That verse includes drunkeness. Drunkeness is the same as alcoholism, yes? I don't interpret drunkeness in the Bible to mean occasionally overindulging. Do either of you?

 

[mkgal1]

Galatians 5 is really summing up the difference between "walking in the flesh" or "walking in the Spirit."

For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: Walking in the Spirit is the key, but it doesn’t always come easily. Often, it is a battle. There is a battle going on inside the Christian, and the battle is between the flesh and the Spirit. As Paul writes, these are contrary to one another – they don’t get along at all!
i. The fact of this battle should wake us up. If you don’t know you are in a battle, you will always lose. Also, the fact of the battle teaches us that effort is required to walk in the Spirit. God doesn’t just knock us over the head with it; we have to seek it, and block out the things that hinder walking in the Spirit.

How do we fight against the flesh? First, we have to be able to say “No” to the flesh and its sinful desires. Second, we have to be able to starve the flesh from bad influences. Third, we have to strengthen ourselves in the Spirit of God, and follow His influence.

Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God: To walk in these works of the flesh is to be in plain rebellion against God, and those in plain rebellion against God will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Who are the people in danger? Those who practice such things. This means more than someone who has committed adultery, or fornication, or sorcery, or drunkenness, or any of these. This speaks of those who continue on in these sins, ignoring the voice of the Holy Spirit telling them to “stop.”

“The tense of the verb (present) indicates a habitual continuation in fleshly sins rather than an isolated lapse, and the point is that those who continually practice such sins give evidence of having never received God’s Spirit.” (Boice)

 

[mkgal1]

That verse includes drunkeness. Drunkeness is the same as alcoholism, yes? I don't interpret drunkeness in the Bible to mean occasionally overindulging. Do either of you?

I don't think that is the disagreement....I think the disagreement is that you said an alchoholic will always have those thoughts and always struggle and that to say the addiction won't be consuming them at some point is unrealistic ...Rom8 said..

The idea of always having those thoughts, is saying that you will never be free

I think she is saying that is still being in bondage to the sin...even if the person isn't practicing or acting out.

 

[dallasapple]

I don't think that is the disagreement....I think the disagreement is that you said an alchoholic will always have those thoughts and always struggle and that to say the addiction won't be consuming them at some point is unrealistic ...Rom8 said..



I think she is saying that is still being in bondage to the sin...even if the person isn't practicing or acting out.

If drunkeness in that verse is meaning alcoholism...as in not "occasional" over indulgence..But full blown addiction..And if further an addict is never at some point not 'consumed" by their addiction(by definition) even if they are not induling in the behavior..And that is just to be expected because its an addiction ..then to me it sounds as if they are damned.At the very least damned to a life here on earth imprisoned in the mind by the addiction.

Love

Dallas

 

[mkgal1]

God's kingdom is righeousness.....someone that is characterized by any of those sins listed (which is not an exhaustive list....IMO) is choosing to live in the flesh, and that is contrary to the Spirit.

1 John 1:9 has a promise....

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9 NIV)

To me, that says that our confession and willingness to follow after God's ways will rescue us from that damnation. But, we have to be willing to do the battle. (Just to be clear....our salvation doesn't rely on works...but, there is fruit of our faith).

 

[mkgal1]

If drunkeness in that verse is meaning alcoholism...as in not "occasional" over indulgence..But full blown addiction..And if further an addict is never at some point not 'consumed" by their addiction even if they are not induling in the behavior..And that is just to be expected because its an addiction ..then to me it sounds as if they are damned.At the very least damned to a life here on earth imprisoned in the mind by the addiction.

Love

Dallas

I believe it is meaning someone that can be characterized by drunkenness--not an occasional over indulgence.

I disagree that an alchoholic can never be expected to reach the point of not being "consumed" by their addiction. To me...that is contrary to what 1 John says....it reads' ALL unrighteousness."

I agree, that at the very least, they are imprisoned in their mind by their addiction. I believe that God provides restoration on earth...not just in heaven, though.

 

[dallasapple]

I believe it is meaning someone that can be characterized by drunkenness--not an occasional over indulgence.

I disagree that an alchoholic can never be expected to reach the point of not being "consumed" by their addiction. To me...that is contrary to what 1 John says....it reads' ALL unrighteousness."

I agree, that at the very least, they are imprisoned in their mind by their addiction. I believe that God provides restoration on earth...not just in heaven, though.

Because wouldnt it be unrighteous to be "consumed" I suppose meaning in the mind since its not in an action ..therefore you would be purified in the mind as well i.e "not" consumed?

Love

Dallas

 

[Romanseight2005]

2 verses comes to mind. Be ye transformed by the renewing of the mind....
and
Take every thought captive....

How could either of those be possible if they weren't talking about having the power of God working in you, so that you can do those things? And yes,we are told to crucify the flesh. This can only be done by the power of God, but His power is available to work in us, as believers.