ANAMCARA: A WAY FOR MARRIAGE
KENNETH R. NEILSON
B.A., University of Manitoba, 1978
B.S.L., Canadian Nazarene College, 1978
M.A., Eastern Nazarene College, 1994
Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry
Acadia Divinity College Acadia University Spring Convocation 2016
© by KENNETH R. NEILSON 2016
This thesis by Kenneth R. Neilson was defended successfully in an oral examination on 15 March 2016.
The examining committee for the thesis was:
Dr. Anna Robbins, Chair
Dr. Charles S. Pottie-Pâté, SJ, External Examiner
Dr. John Stewart, Internal Examiner
Dr. John Sumarah, Supervisor
Dr. John McNally, DMin Program Director
This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry.
ii
I, Kenneth R. Neilson, hereby grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of my thesis, upon request, on a non-profit basis.
Kenneth R. Neilson Author
Dr. John Sumarah Supervisor
15 March 2016 Date
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract vii
Acknowledgements viii
Dedication ix
Approval to Reproduce Copyright Material x
Introduction 1
Description of Ministry Context 3
Statement of the Problem, Thesis Statement and Thesis Questions 3
Chapter 1 Biblical Foundation 5
A Foundation from the Gospel of John 6
The Early Christian Communities 17
A Learning Community 19
A Loving Community 20
A Worshipping Community 22
An Evangelistic Community 25
Marriage as a Witness 27
Chapter 2 Historical and Theological Perspectives and Practices of Anamcara 35
Origins of the Celtic People and their Religion 38
Celtic Religion 41
Celtic Christianity - the Influence of the Gospel 43
St. Martin, St. Ninian, St. John Cassian 45
St. Patrick 47
iv Celtic Theology 50
Creation 50
People 53
Anamcara 57
Group Anamcara - Contributions from John Wesley 61
Chapter 3 Contributing Researchers and Practitioners regarding
Marital Friendship 69
Chapter 4 Methodology and Interviews 80
Methods 82
Description of Participants 84
Procedure 84
Interviews and Questionnaire Results 86
Couple #1 - Gerry and Donna 87
Couple #2 - Kyle and Maddie 94
Couple #3 - Ted and Jill 102
Couple #4 - Mike and Sarah 116
Chapter 5 Presentation of the Elements of a Retreat Curriculum 128
The Five Elements 129
1. Intentional Connecting 129
2. Commitment as Obedience to God 134
3. Deepening Friendship through Crisis 137
4. Spiritual Formation 140
v 5. Lack of Criticism and Negativity 146
Structure of the Elements of a Retreat/Curriculum 150
Retreat Schedule 152
Conclusion 153
Further Research and Implications for Ministry 155
Closing Thoughts 156
Appendix A Consent form for Research Participants and Letter of Invitation 159
Appendix B Interview of Marital Friendship 162
Appendix C Oral History Interview Questions, Locke-Wallace Relationship
Adjustment Test, Sound Relationship House Questionnaire 163
Oral History Interview 163
Locke-Wallace Relationship Adjustment Test 165
Sound Relationship House Questionnaire 166
Bibliography 183
vi Abstract
The aim of this thesis project is to articulate and develop a biblical model of friendship and a Celtic theology of ‘soul friend’, understanding its importance and application to marriage. The project includes qualitative research with married couples exploring their experiences and practices of being friends. Through conversations with these couples the research identifies five elements that are an important part of forming their ‘soul friendship’. These five elements: Intentional Connecting, Commitment as
Obedience to God, Deepening Friendship through Crisis, Spiritual Formation, and Lack of Criticism and Negativity, with the biblical model of friendship and the Celtic theology of ‘soul-friendship’, grounds the teaching sessions of a retreat curriculum for married couples seeking care through the ministry of ‘Inthestillness’ retreat center. This retreat curriculum has application for all leaders wishing to strengthen marriages under their care.
vii Acknowledgements
Acadia Divinity College has provided me with an opportunity to study and grow in ministry effectiveness and personal confidence. I would like to thank Dr. Bruce Fawcett for his timely phone call and belief in my potential to succeed. Thanks also to Dr. Harry
Gardner for his life and consistent witness over the years, and to Dr. Anna Robbins and her leadership team for their support and grace. My thanks and appreciation also go to Dr.
John Sumarah for his positive guidance, gentle way, and friendship through the writing journey.
Thank you to the four couples of this research project for their honesty, vulnerability and openness. The telling of your marriage story will help others.
The work of Dr. John M. Gottman, whose research has changed the way I work for and with couples, has been invaluable to this study.
To my very good friend Dr. Douglas Hardy who has consistently introduced spiritual formation practices, as well as the world of Celtic Christian spirituality, thank you. Your influence has been very much appreciated.
I want to thank my wife Fay for her support, understanding and love through my
Doctoral studies and this research project.
viii Dedication
To my wife Fay, my true Anamcara, and a wonderful witness of Jesus.
ix Approval to Reproduce Copyright Material
Permission to use the Oral History Interview and the material of the Sound Relationship House of the Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2, for this thesis project was given by Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Julie Gottman. Distributed under license by
The Gottman Relationship Institute, Inc., 2012.
x
[This page is blank on purpose.] Introduction
This project and the importance of it continues to grow from the experiences of counselling and caring for couples dealing with marital crisis. The call of God to care for people is clear: ‘Should not shepherds take care of the flock?’1... ‘You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost... .’2 The admonition of Jesus to care is also clear as expressed to leaders: ‘...you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.’3 These concerns and my ethical responsibility, as spoken by the writer of the
Ephesians, to ‘live a life worthy of the calling you have received,’4 forms the motivation for this study. The call to equip, care, and empower marriages, and those that influence marriages, by giving them the best evidence-based research on marriage and a careful and clear witness from the word of God. This will answer the call of Jesus, to ‘feed my sheep’.5
What has been consistently true for almost all marriages in crisis is the experience of loneliness and isolation. The lack of connecting and friendship with their spouse and the increase in negativity toward their marital relationship leads to what John Gottman uses
1 Ezekiel 34:2b. The Holy Bible, New International Version, (Nashville:Holman Bible Publishers, 1999) All Scripture will be from the New International Version unless otherwise stated. 2 Ezekiel 34:4a. 3 Luke 11:46. 4 Ephesians 4:1b. 5 John 21:17b.
1 to indicate a slide into divorce, the ‘distance and isolation Cascade’.6 The dilemma increases when the empowering of couples to understand the nature and process of being a ‘soul friend,’ as the insulating feature from divorce, is limited. What is true of couples who are doing well is the deep level of friendship.
My study of Celtic Christian spirituality has highlighted two concepts and practices that hold significant meaning to my life and ministry here at ‘Inthestillness’ Retreat
Center. These concepts are the role of creation in our experience of connecting with God, and the relationship of having a ‘soul friend’. The understanding, importance, and application of a ‘soul friend’ in a married relationship will be the focus of this thesis project. Through conversations with married couples the research will add to the discovery of how that happens and will articulate and develop into several elements for a retreat curriculum/guide. These elements will inform the teaching and will be used as a tool to empower couples to indeed be ‘soul friends’. The guide will also help leaders to model and shepherd their people in becoming ‘soul friends’ in marriage.
C. S. Lewis said many years ago, ‘We live, in fact, in a world starved for solitude, silence, and private; and therefore starved for meditations and true friendship.’7 This retreat guide/curriculum, embodied in experience and modeled by our practice will, in part, meet these needs for couples.
6 John M. Gottman, The Marriage Clinic (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999), 127. 7 C. S. Lewis Daily, https://twitter.com/cslewisdaily/status/532109485481803776. Accessed Nov 11, 2014.
2 Description of Ministry Context
‘Inthestillness’ Retreat Center offers a woodland retreat for people to come, be still and hear the voice of God. Couples consistently seek care for their marriages in this place.
These couples desire intimacy in their marriage. They desire a ‘soul friend.’ We wish to empower couples to find that soul friend in each other and to develop a process for leaders to teach couples under their care to experience this deep level of care. As owner/ operators of ‘Inthestillness’ Retreat Center, the expressed desire of our hearts is to model the practice of Jesus when He said to his disciples, ‘Come with me to a quiet place and rest a while.’ This practice of retreat empowered Him to continue the call placed on His life. The call in our context is to empower couples to be ‘soul friends’ and to encourage all married couples to live a life worthy of their calling as husband and wife.
‘Inthestillness’ exists to be a center for rest and renewal, offering a process of care for couples through faith-forming conversations, teaching, and training in faithful practices, through lived experiences, sustaining the soul that leads to health, wholeness, and holiness. This ministry is delivered through guided and self-guided retreats in our woodland retreat center overlooking the Bay of Fundy.
Statement of the Problem, Thesis Statement, and Thesis Questions
Too many marriages in our culture and in the faith community are ending in divorce.
Subsequently, if unhappy couples stay together, they live isolated, negative, lonely, and parallel lives.8 The availability of care and effective counsel is limited. The conversation I
8 John Gottman and Nan Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 1st ed. (Crown Archetype, 2002), 45.
3 enter with couples that come for care is, ‘how do we stay married and do well together?’.
The theoretical premise which guides my work and forms the thesis statement is as follows: Marriage is based on friendship,9 and being friends will determine the happiness, adjustment, and security of marriage. The questions we wish to answer include: Is there a biblical model and a Celtic theology of soul-friendship? How does that have application and become embodied in couples? What experiences, practices and meaning do these couples have together, and how might these help and hinder, shape and enhance being and becoming a ‘soul-friend’? Do these influence marital happiness and adjustment? This thesis project will join a conversation about marriage and with those who are in marriages to help develop a theology and praxis of marital friendship. Anamcara - A Way for
Marriage.
9 Ibid.,19.
4 Chapter 1 - Biblical Foundation
Anamcara, the Gaelic word for ‘soul-friend’ and understood as both a practice and a relationship, is the scope of this study. The term ‘soul-friend’ originates from the Celtic people and the tradition of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. The tradition of having a guide—a caring and close friend to shepherd our walk with God—came from the monks of desert communities who found their way to the Atlantic archipelago with the good news of the gospel leading spiritually aware people to Christ. These new believers formed Christian communities and established the practice of having and being a soul friend.
This chapter will explore the biblical and theological foundation of soul friendship, a friendship found throughout Scripture. We will specifically investigate Jesus’ farewell address to His disciples in John’s gospel: the example to follow, the call to love, the announcement of friendship, the links to the covenant, and the prayer for unity and oneness. The love and unity practiced in communities of believers recorded in Acts will also help establish patterns of and practices for soul friendship. This chapter will also consider the connection of these themes to marriage, specifically the parallels with the prayer of Christ in John 17:20-22 for oneness, and Matthew 19:5 where Jesus refers to the creation ideal for marriage of two—male and female—being united together as one.
5 A Foundation from the Gospel of John
Celtic spirituality can be described as a way of seeing.10
The stream of Celtic spirituality, from Pelagius in the fourth century to George MacLeod in the twentieth, is characterized by the expectation of finding God within, of hearing the voice of God speaking from the very heart of life within creation and within ourselves. It is a spirituality that recognizes the authority of St. John and reflects his way of looking and listening for God...not limited to the Celtic tradition but found in various mystical traditions in the history of the church.11
This mystical tradition is a tradition of experiencing God through His creation and through an intentional listening. The purpose is to know God and listen as to a friend.
John 17:3 suggests how important knowing God is: ‘Now this is eternal life: that they many know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.’ The ‘knowing
God’ is captured very early in John’s writing when he reflected on the Word as the creator of all things, and that resulting life comes from Him. John 1:1-5:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
John Scottus Eriugena, a Celtic theologian from the ninth century, suggested that
‘John is the example of contemplation and knowledge.’12 Peter is the example of faith
10 J. Philip Newell, Listening for the Heartbeat of God: A Celtic Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1997), 84. 11 Ibid., 94–95. 12 Oliver Davies and Thomas O’Loughlin, Celtic Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 412.
6 and action. John leads the ‘faithful souls to knowledge of what in Christ is purely eternal.’13
John’s primary purpose for his gospel, through his contemplative and intuitional thinking, was to interpret his witness of the life of Christ. This interpretation was intended to convince the world that Christ is the incarnation of God, revealing the true character of God through His life as a whole.14 ‘A mere talking Christ does not help the world; the Son therefore manifests himself (and the Father) as a worker.”15 ‘The works have for John a special importance in that they reveal the will and the might to perform what is promised in the word.’16 For John, everything the Son did was clear evidence of the Father. The Son and the Father were in essence acting together to demonstrate the character of the Father and their unity in doing so. When Philip asked ‘Lord, show us the
Father,’ Jesus replied:
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you are not just my own, rather, it is the Father living in me who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. John 14:9b-11.
This expression of the unity between Father and Son recorded through the beloved disciple who, being close to the heart of God, had ‘access to privileged conversations with the high priest’17 helped John watch, recognize, and make sense of what was happening. He reflected on ‘Jesus’s teaching or actions and Hebrew Scriptures,’ and after
13 Ibid., 413. 14 Edwin Kenneth Lee, Religious Thought of St. John, 1st ed. (London: SPCK Publishing, 1950), 28–30. 15 Ibid., 27–28. 16 Ibid., 28. 17 Jo-Ann A. Brant, John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), 6.
7 reflection would eventually share his understanding with others.18 The purpose of John’s approach was at least twofold, as Jean Vanier suggests, ‘not only to help us believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man, but also to lead all the disciples of Jesus into an experience of communion with God.’19 This is the way of seeing for the Celtic Christian.
With the perspective of seeing, experiencing, and seeking to know in mind, and with the purpose of looking and listening to God through the whole of Scripture, this research will begin exploring several meaningful conversations about friendship contained in the farewell address of the Lord in the Gospel of John. Chapters 13–17 give us the ‘inner significance of what happened in the upper room, concerned with ‘not only the original disciples, but all the future members of the Lord’s body.’ These thoughts are noteworthy given that they mark Jesus’ final commentary to his own disciples.20 They are also expressed with a sense of urgency and are charged with emotion.
The address is preceded by Jesus’ modeling of servanthood by washing each of the disciples’ feet: ‘he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.’ John 13:3b-5. This extraordinary witness of submission, performed in silence—a submission usually reserved for female servants—21 was given by Christ before asking His followers to also have this attitude towards each other. ‘It is a significant action, setting the tone for all that
18 Ibid. 19 Jean Vanier, Drawn into the Mystery of Jesus Through the Gospel of John (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2013), 11. 20 Leon Morris, The Gospel According To John The English Text With Introduction, Exposition And Notes, 1st ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 610. 21 Brant, John, 200.
8 follows. It foreshadows the cross itself: the voluntary humility of the Lord cleanses his loved ones and gives to them an example of selfless service which they must follow.’22
When finished, Jesus put on his outer clothing and returned to his place at the table, asking a penetrating question, ‘Do you understand what I have done for you?… Now that
I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you’ (John 13:12b,14-15).
This example or ‘pattern’ as noted by Brant and found in other scriptures, is consistently referring to models of humility.23 ‘In the account of his actions, Jesus makes it clear that the foot washing affects and even changes relationships.’24 Leon Morris suggests ‘No task of service was beneath our Lord’ and by extension, no task of service and action should be beneath His disciples and followers. This pattern is to be acted upon and in the spirit so challengingly demonstrated by the Lord with the attitude of humility in its execution.25
Wedged between Judas’ betrayal and the prediction of Peter’s denial is the pronouncement of a new command: ‘A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another’ (John 13:34-35). ‘Love itself is not a new commandment, but an old one (Lev. 19:18). The new thing appears to be the mutual affection that Christians have for one another because of Christ’s love for them.’26 A
22 Morris, The Gospel According To John, 612. 23 Brant, John, 202. Brant suggests that the following texts are consistently used to refer to models of humility: Hebrews 4:11; 8:6; 9:23; James 5:10; 2 Peter 2:6. 24 Brant, John, 201. 25 Morris, The Gospel According To John, 620–621. 26 Ibid., 633.
9 selfless love was introduced by Christ, a love that had no guarantee of receiving a human response in return. A love with a new word introduced by John as agape love—a love that would distinguish the followers of Christ from others.27 Again Christ is calling His disciples to something new. His love is demonstrated through the work that has been accomplished throughout His life and the work to come—that of laying down His life.
‘Jesus uses repetition to reinforce the need for reciprocation or imitation of divine love...Jesus repeatedly returns to the implications and fulfillment of this commandment as he proceeds through his speech.’28
Jean Vanier points out that this call to love is ‘not only to love others as they love themselves but to love as He—Jesus—loves them. That is what is new. He is creating a holy, sacred covenant between them’.29 This covenant is sealed by the act of loving and refers to the initial covenant with God and His people. ‘The fulfillment of commandments as an expression of love evokes the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9). Covenantal fidelity or the notion of being God’s people, is in view.’30
In an essay on the covenant theology of Johannes Cocceius,31 Willem J. van Asselt described the covenant relationship between God and humankind with ‘friendship with
God’ (amicitia cum Deo) and suggests,
...the covenant as a one-sided initiative of God, a full free arrangement on God’s part and purely an act of grace and mercy towards humanity. The covenant is
27 Joseph H. Mayfeld and Ralph Earl, Beacon Bible Commentary in Ten Volumes, Vol. VII: John, Acts (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1965),162. 28 Brant, John, 212. Jesus repeats this theme or variation of it in John 14:21; 15:12-14; 16:27. 29 Vanier, Drawn into the Mystery of Jesus, 251. 30 Ibid., 214. 31 Willem J. van Asselt, Covenant Theology: An Invitation to Friendship (Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 64, 2010), 1–15.
10 ‘nothing other than a divine declaration of the way of perceiving the love of God and obtaining union and communion or friendship with Him.’ He [Johannes Cocceius] emphasized therefore that the covenant was unilateral or monopleuric in origin but once established, it was bilateral or dipleuric.32
Van Asselt further believes that God’s relationship with us always begins with an experience of ‘covenantal relationship between God and his covenant partner. The biblical notion of covenant, therefore, is a very strong expression of God’s actual involvement in history. This is a living relationship of friendship with his covenant partner.’33
John Wesley believed in this active God working in each person’s heart, calling them to a relationship with Him. He called this ‘prevenient grace’ or grace that goes before and
‘proclaimed that God’s grace is at work in all persons who then, through God’s grace, have a choice about their response to that grace.’34
This covenant relationship that God established through Christ is based on love, which is a distinguishing feature of the relationship as it moves us from the role of a servant to a friend. This unique declaration of Christ to His disciples, and by extension to all followers, is a very personal and intimate connection. ‘My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command’ (John 15:13-14).
32 Ibid., 5. 33 Ibid., 10. 34 Sondra Higgins Matthaei, Making Disciples: Faith Formation in the Wesleyan Tradition (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000), 46.
11 The friendship to which Jesus was referring, in context of the Greco-Roman world, was a friendship with ‘a series of complex obligations, duties and claims,’35 including
‘speaking boldly, sharing worries and all your thoughts...even about death’36 which Jesus does with his disciples in the farewell address. 37
In the covenant-making ceremony with Israel and God in Exodus 24:3 there was an active choice to obey and secure the relationship: ‘Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh, and all the ordinances. Then all the people, answering with one voice, said: “All the words that Yahweh has spoken we will do.”’38 Likewise, Jesus also required a response to His new declaration of friendship. The response necessary was to love as He loves, which includes laying down your life for another.
Here the sacrifice of one’s own life for one’s friends is the highest form of love. But love manifests itself here as friendship. When he cites friendship as the motive for Jesus sacrificing his life, John means a love that sees, that is faithful unto death. He means a knowing sacrifice for the sake of friends’ lives. Through Jesus’ death in friendship the disciples become friends forever, and they remain in his friendship if they follow his commandments and become friendship to others.39
35 Brant, John, 218. Brant suggests the following are used consistently to refer to models of humanity: Hebrews 4:11; 8:6; 9:23; James 5:10; 2 Peter 2:6. 36 Brant, John, 219. 37 Gail R. O’Day, “Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John,” Interpretation 58, no. 2 (2004): 144-57. O’Day highlights further the meaning of Jesus’ statement of friendship in relation to Greek and Roman antiquity specifically speaking of two primary motifs of friends in death and boldness in speech and action. 38 Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson, 1986), 95. 39 Jurgen Moltmann, “Open Friendship: Aristotelian and Christian Concepts of Friendship,” in The Changing Face of Friendship, ed. Leroy S. Rouner (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 35.
12 Jesus continues to state this friendship connection: ‘I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you’ (John 15:15).
A slave ‘simply does what he is told. But that is not the pattern of relationships between Jesus and his disciples. He has called them “friends” for he has held nothing back and revealed to them all that the Father has made known to Him.’40 Friendship, as
Jesus is revealing, is a friendship where ‘nothing is hidden or secret. Jesus has shared everything He has heard from the Father: all is given. The barriers that separated the finite from the infinite, the temporal from the eternal, the human from the divine, have disappeared.’41
Jurgen Moltmann further suggests:
In the fellowship of Jesus they no longer experience God as Lord, nor only as Father; rather they experience him in his innermost nature as friend. For this reason open friendship becomes the bond in their fellowship with one another.42
The idea of being and becoming a friend with God is one that has been considered through time. Ancients believed it was not possible to be a friend with any god as there needs to be equality to have a friendship.43 This aspect of friendship and equality was addressed by God himself when He chose to make man in His image, so that man shared
‘likenesses and resemblances’ with God. ‘The most famous examples include Man as a
40 Morris, The Gospel According To John, 675. 41 Vanier, Drawn into the Mystery of Jesus, 275. 42 Moltmann, “Open Friendship”, 35. 43 Jan Dietrich, “Friendship with God, Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Perspectives,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 28, no. 2 (2014): 161. In this article the author looks at the ancient and near eastern texts and gives perspectives on friendship with the gods and with the God of Israel.
13 living statue and image of God (Gen. 1, 26-28) Man being created only slightly lower than God himself and crowned as a king with glory and honour (Psalms 8:8).’44 In Isaiah
41:8, God chose Abraham as a friend, ‘But you, O Israel my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, descendants of Abraham my friend,’ while 2 Chronicles 20:7 states, ‘O our God, did you not drive out the inhabitants of this land before to the descendants of Abraham your friend?’ The Lord also considered Moses a friend and met with him when Moses would ‘take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away...Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke to Moses’ (Exodus 33:7-9). At Exodus 33:11a, the reader is told, ‘The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.’ According to Dietrich, ‘The
Hebrew word used to describe this friendship with God is an active participle of “to love”. It is Abraham who loves God and who can be regarded as a friend of God.’45
The friendship that Jesus invites us into, based on an active love, a face to face connection, is one that He introduces as agape, and is the definition for defining community: to love.
The verb agapao appears frequently within Jesus farewell address, but it is used either as a synonym for philia or as an expression of concern or affection. Jesus makes clear that both forms of love require obedience to his command and to God (14:15, 23, 31; 15:14).46
In Isaiah 40:13 we read, ‘Who has understood the mind of the Lord, or instructed him as his counselor?’ In Christ we have a measure of knowing the very mind of God as He
44 Dietrich, “Friendship with God, Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Perspectives,”166. 45 Ibid., 167. 46 Brant, John, 229.
14 has revealed it to us. Knowing the thoughts and plans of someone—having a knowledge of their reality—leads to an understanding and connection that brings closeness. This closeness leads to oneness and unity with one another. Jesus through His prayer, acknowledges the oneness of Father and Son and prays this reality for His disciples and then for all His followers. John 17:9-11 reads:
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them, I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me - so that they may be one as we are one.
The prayer for unity that is a ‘common basic attitude, that of abiding in Him and having Him abide in them...a unity of heart and mind and will,’47 is the prayer of Christ.
The protection is most likely a prayer from disunity.48 Christ continues to pray for those that will believe in Him in the future in John 17:20-23:
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and loved them even as you have loved me.
This oneness modeled between Father and Son does not take away from the personal identity of either but instead completes it; we are made complete and effective as we show unity. ‘In other words, the unity for which He prays is to lead to a fuller experience
47 Morris, The Gospel According To John, 727–728. 48 Ibid., 727.
15 of the Father and the Son. And this in turn will have the further consequences, “that the world may believe”.’ 49
Christ has declared the relationship that man shares with Him as being like the complete unity that he shares with his Father. This unity is ultimately completed through others. As Christ was in community with His Father demonstrating a deep friendship, we have that same level of friendship and unity expressed through and with the community of believers. Cocceius believes that to know this friendship with God we have to be in relationship with others.
The blessing of friendship brought about by the operation of the Holy Spirit was first of all experienced in the personal faith of the individual believer but...the experience of friendship was most prominently present in the community of believers...the church is a community existing precisely in order to enjoy friendship with Christ, and consequently, friendship with one another. On their own believers are only creatures and servants, but in Christ and through the Spirit’s gift of friendship and charity they have become friends of God and reflect none other than the friendship and love of God himself.50
This friendship with Christ experienced in community with believers through, for example, having unity of heart and mind and demonstrating selfless Christ-like love, was the prayer of Christ for all His followers. The purpose was to demonstrate the embodied reality of God so others would believe in Christ as the Son and revealer of God. This experience of friendship with Christ models the very purpose of marriage and represents the marriage ideal ordained by God.
We will look now at the communities recorded in the book of Acts to see how the extension of the life of Christ was actioned. They were the witnesses and the incarnation
49 Ibid., 734. 50 van Asselt, “Covenant Theology: An Invitation to Friendship,” 8.
16 of Christ. They were soul-friends in the community. Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 4:32-37 give an explanation into the vibrant reality of obedience to love one another.
The Early Christian Communities
The thrust of the book of Acts was to give an accurate and orderly account or witness of the ministry of Christ as it continued through His living church. The ‘witness’ was to testify to ‘the message of salvation in Jesus proclaimed by the church, and is in direct continuity with the ministry and teaching of Jesus.’51 The ‘witness’ was of the healing, saving, and reconciliation work of God through the apostles who proclaimed the message of salvation to both the Jews and to the Gentiles. This witness was of a new people who lived together as the church. Within this church,
Spiritual qualities find expression in patterns of living. The early church’s unity and grace are seen in the fellowship it practiced, especially the breaking of bread. They took meals together regularly, even daily, which probably also included the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.52
This description of the work of Christ was carried out through those who believed, who lived together in community and became the incarnation of the friendship covenant established by Christ. The request to ‘love one another’ was put into practice.
The two passages from Acts will be the focus on the remaining pages of this chapter, and the immediate focus will be specifically on Acts 2:42-47 which describes the life and practices of early believers who were the witnesses of the living Christ:
51 Richard N. Longenecker, Acts: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 14. 52 Allison A. Trites, and William J. Larkin. Luke, Acts. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Tyndale House Publishers, 2006. 370
17 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
In this brief yet meaningful passage, much is given towards our understanding of how the early communities of faith loved each other as Christ asked. It describes the community, the ‘sharing together,’ the ‘koinos,’53 that resulted from the moving of the
Spirit at Pentecost onto the believers in the upper room. As Jesus had promised in his farewell address in John, the ‘spirit of truth, the counsellor’ had come to those gathered.
John Stott suggests that Luke shows us ‘the effects of Pentecost by giving us a beautiful little cameo of the Spirit-filled church.’54 Longenecker suggests that Acts 2:42-47 is a thesis paragraph ‘on the state of the church in its earliest days in Jerusalem’.55 Acts
4:32-35 also describes a community in action, seeing and knowing the practice of friendship with God and with others:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
53 Ibid., 392. 54 John R. Stott, The Message of Acts. Reprint ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1994), 81. 55 Longenecker, Acts, 84.
18 There are several messages contained in these two passages. John Stott frames the message and meaning into transferable principles for community and for marital friendship. The passage suggests that the new believers were a learning community, a loving community, a worshipping community, and an evangelical community.
A Learning Community
Acts 2:42a begins with the description of the community learning together: ‘They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching.’
As the new believers gathered together they committed to learn. ‘Devotions to the apostles’ teaching probably included learning an account of Jesus’ life and ministry, a collection of his ethical and practical teachings, the Christocentric Old Testament hermeneutic, and above all, Jesus’ gospel.’56 The apostles’ teaching had credibility as they were part of the ‘witness’ of the risen Lord and gained authority because it was the direct message proclaimed by Jesus.57 The importance of teaching doctrine and the importance of learning by the new Christians is highlighted by Luke. The apostles were necessary teachers and, with the Holy Spirit, became very important to the community.
Their importance was not dismissed. ‘On the contrary, they sat at the apostles’ feet, hungry to receive instruction, and they persevered in it.’58 The verb pros-kar-ter-eh'-o used to describe the earnest, perseverance and constant diligence, describes the
56 Allison A. Trites, and William J. Larkin. Luke, Acts. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Tyndale House Publishers, 2006. 397 57 Longenecker, Acts, 85. 58 Stott, The Message of Acts, 82.
19 community’s attitude toward their teaching. 59 This was an active learning community who studied and were very committed to what the apostles heard, saw, and then passed on to them. They were also learning established teaching, especially a ‘summarized’ body of respected teaching, viewed as reliable, time-honored.60
Lawson says that, ‘First and foremost, the apostles taught. More specifically, they taught doctrine. Their teaching ministry brought life to the other aspects of the first church. It is no accident that teaching came first. It must always come first.’61 This passage clearly reinforces this. The apostles taught doctrine, and the committed, dedicated, and focused response from the new believers was to learn. This is a practice that remains a necessity for marriages too; to teach the well-established way of marriage, ordained by God, and for intimate connection and unity, as a witness of Christ who lives in us. Of relevance here are passages from John: ‘I in them and you in me,’ (17:23a) and
‘I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them’ (17:26).
A Loving Community
Acts 2:42b describes the action of this loving community as they devoted themselves,
‘...to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.’
59 “Acts 2:42,” accessed July 8, 2014, http://biblehub.com/lexicon/acts/2-42.htm. 60 Ibid. 61 Steven J. Lawson, “The Priority of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Acts 2:42-47,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158, no. 630 (2001): 200.
20 We are introduced, in verse 42b, to the ‘fellowship of believers’ or koinonia.
This word has several meanings: what is shared in common as the basis of fellowship, partnership and community and sharing in communion in a spiritual fellowship, and with fellowship in the Spirit.62 Polhill confirms this use and meaning of koinonia, but suggests that this is the only time it is used in Luke-Acts, referring not only to shared material possessions but also the sharing of things of the Spirit.63
Larkin clarifies the meaning in his commentary: ‘Luke was referring primarily to sharing in material things that flow from a community fellowship grounded in a common acceptance of the apostles’ message and a oneness in the Spirit.’64 This is reinforced in
Act 4:32, ‘All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.’ Stott suggests, ‘koinonia is the word Paul used for the collection he was organizing among the Greek churches.’65
This was a loving church that not only looked after the needs of all in their group as they gave to anyone who had need—‘clearly a practical expression of the new relationship experienced together through a common faith in Christ’66—but it also cared for others who were in need and who were outside of their group. Polhill further explains that the
62 “Acts 2:42-47,” accessed July 9, 2014, http://biblehub.com/lexicon/acts/2-42.htm. 63 John B. Polhill, Acts Vol. 26. The New American Commentary, An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, General Editor David S. Docery. Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1992, Kindle edition. 64 Allison A. Trites, and William J. Larkin. Luke, Acts. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Tyndale House Publishers, 2006. 392 65 Stott, The Message of Acts, 83. 66 I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson, eds., Witness To The Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 391.
21 word for “together” in Luke 2:44 was not the word koinonia, but rather ‘epi to auto’ which, though difficult to translate, means the gathered community with the strong sense of unity. He also says that this gathered community had ‘no claim on their own possessions’ and ‘they shared everything they had,’67 suggesting that their giving to others was not restricted to those in the gathered group and that they had a strong sense of responsibility to themselves and to others.68 In its widest interpretation of 2:42, koinonia includes ‘contributions, table fellowship, and the general friendship and unity which characterized the community.’ 69
The early church was a loving and connected spiritual community who lived in unity and cared for each other’s material needs—a model for the culture of the day considering their progressive isolation from unbelieving Israel.70 The early church continued to give and model the servant heart of Christ and is an example of soul-friendship working in practice which can be emulated in marriage. Soul-friendship includes the necessary spiritual connection and clear spiritual purpose which the early church implemented.
A Worshipping Community
The early communities worshiped together and included the home as a place of worship.
In Acts 2:46 we read, ‘Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising
God and enjoying the favor of all the people.’
67 Polhill, Acts, Kindle Edition. 68 Marshall and Peterson, Witness To The Gospel, 391. 69 Ibid., 391. 70 Ibid.
22 As they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, they also devoted themselves to fellowship, which included breaking of bread, and to prayer. Here, the breaking of bread
‘suggests a reference to the Lord’s Supper on one hand and as part of the larger meal and prayer services or meetings, rather than private prayer, on the other.’71 Paterson suggests that the breaking of bread was simply the act of eating together, as ‘the adoption of the
Lord’s supper is not formally attested until the second century,’72 and that fellowship was in terms of eating together. Polhill suggested it was probably both.73 Their new faith and the connection they found in living life together in community, and how each time they eat together they were reminded of the teaching they received from the apostles and how
Jesus shared meals in fellowship with many. The Last Supper would be brought to mind as a time to remember, to worship, and to be thankful.
They also prayed. The word for prayer is proseuché, defined both as prayer to God and or a place for prayer.74 ‘Prayer pointed to a patterned practice of prayer by the assembly...it provides the key link between the exalted Lord in heaven and his body on earth, for by it he guides and strengthens his people, especially in mission.’75Longenecker suggests that the pattern of praying was indeed part of the formal prayers of their past
Judaism and were attempts to find new meaning. Furthermore, extemporaneous forms of praying built on past models were enthusiastically discovered and practiced.76 Members
71 Stott, The Message of Acts, 85 72 Marshall and Peterson, Witness To The Gospel, 392. 73 Polhill, Acts, Kindle edition. 74 “Acts 2:42-47,” accessed July 9, 2014, http://biblehub.com/lexicon/acts/2-42.htm. 75 Allison A. Trites, and William J. Larkin. Luke, Acts. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Tyndale House Publishers, 2006. 397 76 Longenecker, Acts, 86.
23 of the early church worshiped through prayer. They also worshiped both formally and informally, and prayed in the temple. ‘They did not immediately abandon what might be called the institutional church...they do seem to have attended the prayer services of the temple.’77 Stott does not believe they continued to make sacrifices as had occurred under the old covenant but that they did continue to pray in the temple courts. Longenecker writes:
The favorite meeting place of the early believers was in the temple at the eastern edge of the outer court called Solomon’s Colonnade...they carried out their discussions and offered praise to God…(they) sought to retain their hold on the religious forms they had inherited and to express their new faith through the categories of the old.78
They also prayed informally in their homes, not just at the times of temple prayer:
‘...their eating together in households involved “praising God” and must also have involved prayer in the strict sense of petition.’79 They had ‘glad and sincere hearts’. This was a wonderful time of connection and beginning of this early church. Polhill calls this time the ‘age of innocence,’ an ideal and blissful time.80
Prayer as a vehicle for connecting to God and each other as a way for soul-friendship is also important. Eating together, remembering Christ, listening to His heart and praying together are all models for marriage to follow. ‘Created to be in relationship, two unique spouses form an interdependent union in which they also develop meaning as a couple.’81
77 Stott, The Message of Acts, 85. 78 Longenecker, Acts, 87. 79 Marshall and Peterson, Witness To The Gospel, 394. 80 Polhill, Acts, Kindle edition. 81 Jack O. Balswick and Judith K. Balswick, A Model for Marriage: Covenant, Grace, Empowerment and Intimacy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 96.
24 An Evangelistic Community
The important practice of learning, caring, and worshiping together was a witness of unity which was the expressed desire of Christ for His followers when he prayed in John
17:23b: ‘…may they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.’ This prayer of Christ being practiced by the early Christian community became a compelling witness for the world to believe.
In Acts 2:43 we read, ‘Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles...praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the
Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.’
The early church was a witness to the reality of the risen Christ, demonstrating in ways the continued ministry of Jesus. The apostles’ performance of signs and wonders and the community’s closeness and care for one another resulted in more people accepting the reality of the risen Lord and joining the fellowship.
Luke picks up the phraseology of Joel’s prophecy (cf 2:19) and of Peter’s characterization of Jesus’ ministry (cf.2.22). Luke probably used it to suggest that the miracles the apostles did should be taken as evidences of the presence of God with his people, just as throughout the ministry of Jesus the miracles he did showed that God was with him.82
The community also found themselves, ‘praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people’ (Acts 2:47a). They modeled a way of living that was appealing to many. They shared life together, food, and belongings; in short, no one had any material needs. They worshiped together; in study, in public and private prayers, and in praising God together over meals always being thankful remembering
82 Longenecker, Acts, 87.
25 Christ as he had instructed. This led to favour with people. They could see, as people do, if something is real or not, beneficial or not. In this case of the early church and its practices, they indeed connected with it and as a result the early church found favour. This led naturally to telling the ‘good news’ of Jesus Christ.
This community became a witness to the world and prepared people’s hearts for the gospel.83 The greatest was undoubtedly the unity of the believers and the sharing of what they had with each other. The result was that ‘the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved’ (Luke 2:47b). ‘Those first Jerusalem Christians were not so preoccupied with learning, sharing and worshipping, that they forgot about witnessing.
For the Holy Spirit is a missionary Spirit who created a missionary church.’84 It also required a change of focus from times of worship in the temple to ‘patterns of daily obediences to the exalted Lord...and to a worship that was a pattern of life with Jesus at its centre.’85 These soul-friends in community lived a life that was natural, and became a pattern of living that became part of their lives. This pattern also fits for adopting a way for marriage because marriage is something that you live: ‘...our actions are determined by obedience to Christ rather than defined by culture, family or even one’s spouse. We are accountable to God for our actions and strive to live according to God’s word to the best of our ability.’86
The theological significance of the message of Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 4:32-35, can be described simply as a forming community who learned, loved, worshiped and
83 Polhill, Acts, Kindle edition. 84 Stott, The Message of Acts, 86. 85 Marshall and Peterson, Witness To The Gospel, 386–387. 86 Balswick and Balswick, A Model for Marriage, 97.
26 evangelized.87 They did this by being the witnesses of the living Christ through unity, community and love. They were disciplined to study the apostles’ doctrine, shared everything they had with each other, and fellowshipped as they lived together. These descriptions and practices are living examples of the character of God: who calls us to come to Him and learn of Him, who calls us to love as He loves, to look after the mutual needs, who calls us to worship in spirit and in truth, who calls us to go and make disciples of all nations, and who calls us to live in unity with followers of Christ. This also compels us to do the same today. ‘Lukes’ summaries present an ideal for the Christian community which it must always strive for, constantly return to, and to discover anew if it is to have that spirit of unity and purpose essential for effective witness.’88 The summaries are also an ideal for marital friendship. These practices modeled by the early
Christian communities have meaning for marital friendship as they are the real essence of what Christ taught us about being a friend. ‘Friendship, not brotherhood, should be the normative Christian relationship.’89 Friendship can also be normative for marriages.
Marriage as Witness
As we have reflected on the farewell address of Jesus in the Gospel of John and the continued incarnation of Christ through the forming Christian communities of the book of
Acts, we have much material to apply to a ‘Way for Marriage’ to become an ‘Anamcara’ to each other, or true soul-friends. Jesus names His disciples as His friend and gives the
87 Stott, The Message of Acts, 82–87. 88 Polhill, Acts, Kindle edition. 89 van Asselt, Covenant Theology, 9.
27 contingency of love as the witness of this friendship. The example of serving, the call to love, the declaration of Christ to his disciples of being friends and ‘telling them everything’, and His prayer for relationships of oneness and unity, as lived by Father and
Son, and for His disciples with God, lived out in community, were given for the purpose of being a convincing witness of the reality of Christ and as a sacrament to His Grace for our world. This model forms the way for marriage as well. In marriage ‘oneness’ is the call and the ideal. In the same way Jesus prays for oneness for His disciples and unity as the very witness of His incarnation, so marriage becomes a sacrament or witness of this soul-friendship. Jesus expresses the call to oneness in Matt. 19:6 as a reference to Genesis
1:27 and 2:24:
Haven’t you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.
Jesus was suggesting a way for marriage based on the creation ideal of Genesis.
Males and females are created in the image of God as “a power equal”90 to one another, and for “a relationship characterized by harmony and intimacy between partners.”91 In other words, men and women are called to unity and oneness. The need for such a relationship was based on loneliness or the aloneness of Adam and it was not good: ‘The
Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Genesis 2:18). God provided, ‘literally, a helper corresponding to him, one who
90 Alex R. G. Deasley, Marriage and Divorce in the Bible and the Church (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 2000). 14. 91 Deasley, Marriage and Divorce, 16.
28 was equal and adequate for him...completing him.’92 This requires an exclusive relationship ‘divinely instituted inasmuch as it was God who made the woman and brought her to the man.’93 The leaving of a man from his parents and the entering into a covenant with his wife ‘implies not only that the awareness of complementarity is the basis of marriage but also that marriage is more than a temporary or makeshift agreement, it takes the form of a solemn covenant.’94 Marriage was ‘ordained by God to transcend all other human ties and relationships.’95
Jesus emphasized God’s act of creation, male and female, in and for community for the covenant of love. He emphasized their unique equality and oneness in the marriage covenant, for a man leaves his parental line and forms a new union with his wife and the two become one flesh. Recognizing God’s act of making two into one man is not to sever what God has joined.96
‘To unite’ or ‘oneness’ has profound implications for marriage as we reflect on its meaning and understanding. The word used here is kolláō or ‘glue’ which means to bond, adhere to, literally, ‘glued together’. It also means to cleave or join to, and
figuratively, intimately connected in a soul-knit friendship.97
Jean Vanier brings together the prayer of Christ for oneness and the similar call for oneness in marriage in a meaningful way and asks,
What analogy can we find that might help us understand this wondrous unity, this oneness? First, this oneness is not the fusion of two people totally dependent on
92 G. Herbert Livingston et al., Beacon Bible Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis through Deuteronomy (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1969), 41. 93 Deasley, Marriage and Divorce, 19. 94 Ibid., 17. 95 Ibid. 96 Myron S. Augsburger, The Communicator’s Commentary Series: Matthew, ed. Lloyd J. Ogilvie (Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1982), 226. 97 “Strong’s Greek: 2853. Κολλάω (kollaó) -- to Glue, Unite,” accessed July 7, 2015, http:// biblehub.com/greek/2853.htm.
29 each other, not knowing the frontiers of their being, one wrapped up in the other and closed up in each other, fearful of losing the other, neither one nor the other knowing who they are. No, it is the friendship of lovers, their wedding feast of love giving themselves to one another and together giving themselves to God and to others. … Each one is different and each one is needed for the completion of humanity in God.98
Balswick describes this as ‘differentiated unity’ which ‘describes a person who has a clear sense of self and the maturity to form an effective interdependent relationship.’99
Stanley Hauerwas quoted Paul Wadell about Aristotle's view of the necessity of friendship and their importance for forming character:
From Aristotle, friendship is not just a necessity for living well, but necessary if we are to be people of practical wisdom. Through character friendships, we actually acquire the wisdom necessary, and in particular the self-knowledge, to be people of virtue. We literally cannot do good without our friends, not simply because we need friends to do good for but because the self-knowing necessary to be good comes from seeing ourselves through friendships.100
This is particularly true of marriage. The process of being one in Christ and the process of joining and being one with each other is the reflection of each other to each other. Proverbs 27:17 suggests a similar process, ‘As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.’
The activity of friendship - and it is crucial that we understand it as an activity - is what trains us to be virtuous. ... Friendship is not just a relationship, it is a moral enterprise. People spend their lives together doing good because that is what they see their lives to be.101
One very important aspect of being a soul-friend is to see ourselves through the other’s reflection. Change can happen only after something is seen to be wanting. In
98 Vanier, Drawn into the Mystery of Jesus, 298–99. 99 Balswick and Balswick, A Model for Marriage, 96. 100 Stanley Hauerwas, “Virtue, Description and Friendship: A Thought Experiment in Catholic Moral Theology,” Irish Theological Quarterly 62, no. 2–3 (1996): 179. 101 Ibid.
30 Ephesians 5:21ff, Paul refers to this process in that we are to, ‘Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.’ This mutual submission leads to the attitude that Paul speaks about preceding this directive in Ephesians 4:31–5:2:
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as Christ God forgave you. Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loves us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Paul also refers to both marriage and the relationship between Christ and the church as a ‘profound mystery.’ In his very mention of this link between marriage partners and the relationship between Christ and His church, he is placing significant value on marriage.102
His value is based on two ideals being made about marriage, quoting Geisler, first marriage ‘is a God-ordained institution for all people, not just Christians. … He is the witness of all weddings, whether invited or not. Marriage is a sacred occasion, whether the couple recognizes it or not.’ 103And second, supported by Stassen and Gushee is that
‘Marriage is a male female covenant partnership established by God for God’s purpose…
Through marriage and family God enables human beings to participate in his creative activity and redemptive purposes.’104 The supporting words of Genesis 1:26, ‘Then God said, “Let us make people in our image,” So God created people in His own image; God patterned them after himself; vs 27b, ‘male and female he created them.’ and Christ’s affirmation of this in Matthew 19:4-6a:
102 Deasley, Marriage and Divorce, 38. 103 Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues & Options, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 301. 104 Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 275.
31 Haven’t you read…that at the beginning the Creator, “made them male and female,” and for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ so they are no longer two but one… 105 show these two ideals as the target for best practices of being the witness of God in marriage.
God purposes marriage as ‘a divine ordinance; it is an exclusive union; it is binding and permanent.’106 God intended marriage to be first a Covenant relationship.
[A]s scripture understands it, it is a sacred, God-witnessed, public, mutually binding, irrevocable relationship between two parties who willingly promise and undertake to live by its terms…building and preserving joyful, companionable, just, faithful, permanent partnerships committed to fulfilling God’s purposes… 107
‘The heart of the biblical ideal is partnership.’108 This partnership settles to a deep friendship that connects and solidifies the marriage. God also commits to the Covenant by promising to be a ‘source of unity, a source of strength, and a source of hope.’109
Second, marriage is intended by God to be a vocation or a call. Ephesians 4:1 says,
‘Therefore I, a prisoner for serving the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of your calling, for you have been called by God.’110 Marriage as a call is viewed as a ‘primary way in which we embody and live out Christ’s command to love God and love our neighbour
105 The Holy Bible, New International Version, (Nashville:Holman Bible Publishers, 1999) 106 Deasley, Marriage and Divorce, 27. 107 Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 277. 108 Deasley, Marriage and Divorce,14. 109 Paul T. Ceasar, and Darryl Ducote, Partners on the Journey: A Christian Marriage Enrichment Series, Catholic Edition, Participant’s Booklet. (Seattle:The Gottman Institute, and Baton Rouge: Marriage Ministry Resources, 2012), 41. 110 This passage was taken from the New Living Translation.
32 and thus brings about the reign of God in our daily lives.’111 I like how Ceasar and
Ducote frame this call in the following passage:
The first element is a call to union, since the creation story, the man and women are told to “leave father and mother...cling to each other...and become one body.” Thus, spouses are challenged to move from “I” to “We.” The second...is a call to holiness, or intimacy with God. Marriage...becomes a path or means of holiness. The third...is the call to wholeness,...husbands and wives assist each other to become their most authentic selves. The fourth element is a call to generativity...The love of the spouses spills over to create new life through the birth of children.112
Third, marriage is a ‘means of grace’ or a ‘sacramental’ relationship. ‘The union of a married couple is seen as a means by which, in smaller figure, the salvation brought by the incarnation of Christ and his continual indwelling of the church by the Spirit, is realized in particular human lives.’113 This means of grace is for two people, ‘their sharing of matrimony becomes a symbol to us all of “Christ’s union with his church”.’114
The marriage as a sacrament is the ‘visible sign or symbol of an invisible encounter with
God…God’s love is made visible and is experienced through the love of spouses.’ 115
My paradigm of a Christian marriage is contained in these three foundational understandings of God’s intentions for marriage. As we, as ministry leaders, lead our couples into this understanding and experience of God for marriage, we lead them to a new understanding of God’s empowering for marriage.
111 Linda Grenz and Delbert Glover, The Marriage Journey, Preparation and Provision for Life Together (Boston: Cowley Publications, 1996), 7. 112 Ceasar and Ducote. Partners on the Journey, 14. 113 Edmund Newey, “Jeremey Taylor and the theology of marriage”, Anglican Theological Review 84.2 (2002): 276. 114 Grenz and Glover, The Marriage Journey, 1. 115 Ceasar and Ducote. Partners on the Journey, 68.
33 These qualities also capture and truly represent soul-friendship and become the way for marriage—a relationship of friendship which is, as Edna McDonagh wishes to recover, ‘specifically for a more comprehensive understanding of marriage.’116 He suggests that in Christian theology we have dismissed the notion of human philia for agape and have seen friendship as unimportant. In the John 15 account of Jesus addressing his disciples as friends, the idea of friendship is very important, especially in marriage as both philia with agape need our attention to bring about oneness and unity.
Anamcara, being a soul-friend in marriage, continues to be a ‘mystery’, but one to understand.
The idea of Anamcara as a practice and a relationship has a long and deep history rooted in the tradition and theology of the Celts and the Desert Fathers and Mothers. Let us look now at the history of this tradition, and the similar practice and contributions of
John Wesley.
116 Thomas M. Kelly, “Toward an Integrated Phenomenology of Married Love,” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 5, no. 1 (2002): 89–90.
34 Chapter 2 Historical and Theological Perspectives and Practices of Anamcara
In the last chapter we explored and developed a biblical foundation of friendship. This friendship declared and modeled by Christ as a witness to the connection of Father and
Son was the basis for our application to a marriage theology of friendship. ‘Friendship is the nature of God. The Christian concept of God as Trinity is the most sublime articulation of otherness and intimacy, an eternal interflow of friendship.’117 Exploring the world of Celtic Christian spirituality gives us a rich theology and helps us identify the practice of friendship, what the ancients called Anamcara, a Gaelic word meaning ‘soul- friend’.118 This discovery of ‘soul-friend’ is seen as a necessary and wonderful opportunity to know and be known. A level of friendship showing how to live out His image - the Imago Dei, is to be the witness of incarnational and covenantal love.
The necessity of having other friends journey with you as you grow in faith is seen in the history of Celtic Christianity, and through its influence from the Desert Mothers and
Fathers, the monks that followed, and the rise of monastic communities of living, learning, and evangelism, and in more recent times through the group structure and process of John Wesley.
117 John O’Donohue, Anam Cara: A Book of Celtic Wisdom, 1st ed. (New York: Harper Perennial, 1998), 15. 118 Tracy Balzer, Thin Places: An Evangelical Journey into Celtic Christianity (Abilene, TX: Leafwood, 2007).
35 The concept of deep friendship is also realized in the most recent research of John M.
Gottman, who suggests that friendship is the most important piece of a lasting marriage.119
Through the study of Celtic Christianity and its roots of people, place and theology, we find an integrated theology, one that pays attention to God in all things. It is also an embodied theology, one that is lived out in every experience, finding God in everything we do and in every aspect of our lives. This theology includes the importance of a very
Celtic notion that our experience with all of creation, including our relationships with each other as soul-friends—humanity being the prize of God’s creation—is a necessary part of our journey of faith and very much an act of worship. This view is in contrast to a dualistic or compartmentalized faith that sees life as either sacred or secular and measures faithfulness primarily by Sunday-morning attendance and worship for an hour a week.
Celtic Christian spirituality sees the role of creation and our connection with it and with each other as fitting together as a complete whole; an integrated holiness. Phillip
LeMasters gives this observation and explanation:
As children of the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment, we often view nature as simply raw material to be manipulated as we see fit. Thus we become estranged from God's good creation, closing ourselves off from a myriad of witnesses to God’s glory and forgetting our place in God’s created order. At the same time, we tend to identify Christianity with certain actions performed in a building on Sunday mornings, forgetting God’s presence in and claim on all life.120
119 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 19. 120 Philip LeMasters, “Celtic Christianity : Its Call to Discipleship,” Encounter 60, no. 4 (1999): 463–464. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000909120&site=ehost-live.
36 Worship is connecting and knowing God, experienced through natural and special revelation, through His living Word and through His creation, embodied through each other and modeled by the person of Christ. ‘He is the secret anam cara of every individual. In friendship with Him we enter the tender beauty and affection of the
Trinity.’121 This chapter will explore the Celtic people, their roots, their religion, their theology and the understanding of the practice of Anamcara. A theology of Anamcara must be understood through the lens of the history of the Celtic ancestors, monks, saints, and the ordinary folks.
The Celtic Christians were clear that walking a path of faith is well nigh impossible without a true friend and companion. In the Gospel of John, Jesus tells the disciples, “you are my friends if you do what I command you” (John 15:14). He has just commanded them to love one another as he has loved them. Following this stunning invitation from Jesus in the Gospel of John, the Celtic church encouraged this relationship formed in Christ.122
We must remember, the purpose of the Anamcara was to assist and guide into holiness, and model the very nature of God in and through this dynamic soul connection.
The chapter will also investigate the experiences of group soul-friendship through the structure, process and experiences of John Wesley’s renewal movement in eighteenth- century Britain, and look at how practitioners today frame the important aspects of marriage, which we will measure against the Anamcara. The research of John M.
Gottman will be our primary source, along with Jack and Judith Balswick, Diogenes
Allen, Alex Deasley, Scott Stanley, and others.
121 O’Donohue, Anam Cara: A Book of Celtic Wisdom, 15. 122 John Philip Newell and Mary C. Earle, Celtic Christian Spirituality: Essential Writings Annotated & Explained, 1st ed. (Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths, 2011).
37 The questions we wish to now explore are: Who are the people called Celts and where did they come from? What were their pre-Christian religious practices, and how did the gospel change their lives creating a Celtic Christian people? What is a specific
Celtic theology of creation and humanity, and of the practice of Anamcara? How is this practice being discovered in a similar fashion today as a necessary component of marriage? These are the guiding questions for this chapter and frame the continued discovery of the people called Celts, their religion, the gospel’s influence, the practice of
Anamcara, and what significance it has for marriage today.
Origins of the Celtic People and their Religion
The people called Celts and their artifacts and remains can be found throughout most of
Europe and as far east as Turkey, the home of the biblical Galatians.
Peoples speaking Celtic languages once covered much of Europe. The earliest traces of Celtic-language groups date from the late Urnfield culture of the first millennium BC, although the first viable expression of a grouping which has been unequivocally identified as Celtic on linguistic grounds is the Hallstatt culture, which developed in what is modern Austria in 700–500 BC. 123
Others would suggest that the idea of a Celtic people is primarily a modern idea.
Simon James suggests that:
No one in Britain or Ireland called themselves a ‘Celt or Celtic’ before 1700. A maiden living at Maiden Castle hill fort in Dorset in the fourth century BC, a pagan priest at Navan, Ireland, in the second century BC, a monk on Iona 800 years later, a child at the court of Hywel Dda in 950, or a Highland clansmen
123 Oliver Davies, Fiona Bowie, Celtic Christian Spirituality: Medieval and Modern (London: SPCK, 1995), 4.
38 driving cattle in sixth century Scotland, would all have been puzzled to hear themselves called Celts.124
He continues to state that the evidence from the Greeks and Romans used in antiquity, of people called Celts, were of a people of a ‘barbarian’ nature and described a continental people. The people of the island had a different name.125 A BBC documentary manuscript noted that groups on the islands consisted of families, tribes and kinship networks that formed into societies.
Throughout prehistory there were myriad small-scale societies, and many petty 'tribal' identities, typically lasting perhaps no more than a few generations before splitting, merging or becoming obliterated. These groups were in contact and conflict with their neighbours, and sometimes with more distant groups - the appearance of exotic imported objects attest exchanges, alliance and kinship links, and wars.126
This clarification of the origins of the people called Celts continues to this day with the additional insight and research of Dr. Barry Cunliffe, who suggests that the peoples of the islands had been present long before the generally accepted time.
The last Ice Age, which came to an end about 12,000 years ago, swept the bands of hunter gatherers from the face of the land that was to become Britain and Ireland, but as the ice sheets retreated and the climate improved so human groups spread slowly northwards, re-colonizing the land that had been laid waste. From that time onwards Britain and Ireland have been continuously inhabited and the resident population has increased from a few hundreds to more than 60 million.127
124 Simon James, The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People Or Modern Invention? (Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1999), 17. 125 Ibid.,17 . 126 “BBC - History - Ancient History in Depth: Peoples of Britain.” 2014. Accessed February 26. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/peoples_01.shtml#three. 127 Barry W. Cunliffe, Britain Begins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), Abstract. https://books.google.ca/books?id=d-EPlgEACAAJ. The ebook version of this work was referenced and the abstract taken from the above url.
39 We have two distinct descriptions of the origins of the people called Celts. First, a people occupying most of the continent of Europe during the 1000 years before Christ.
Originating in the east, they were both invaders, and invaded, eventually migrating to the
Atlantic islands or pushed to the outer limits of the continent by the Romans as they occupied the European continent. The second explanation, one with more recent and reliable archeology to support it, is that they were an indigenous peoples connected by the Atlantic waters and archipelagos that were occupiers of the islands as soon as they were inhabitable after the Ice Age. The peoples were not pushed there, but were prehistoric peoples scattered throughout the lands.128 The origin of the language, rooted in this Atlantic zone of neighbors that were highly connected and very similar, became the founding people called the Celts. This explanation gives more of a valid understanding of why we find pockets of Celts scattered around Europe and eastwards to
Galatia. The Atlantic system developed the Celtic language.129 Furthermore, the art and materials of the Celts from the East found its way to the islands on the trade routes and from the invading forces. The term ‘Celts’ was a name given to non-Roman people who occupied most of Europe. They came from the West to the East and then returned to the
West again, consolidating over time on the island of western Europe.130 These people connected through a common language and through family and kinship networks, developing a strong social system. ‘Early Celtic societies, with their characteristic
128 Iain Zaczek and David C. Lyons, Sacred Celtic Places (London: Collins & Brown, 2002), 11. 129 “Barry Cunliffe: Who Were the Celts?,” YouTube video, from a lecture given at BYU on March 17, 2008, posted by ‘BYU Department of Anthropology,’ February 4, 2014, http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FM9nMFbfI&feature=youtube_gdata_player. 130 Davies and Bowie, Celtic Christian Spirituality: Medieval and Modern, Map beginning of introduction of book.
40 division into king, druidic class, bardic class, law-giving and artisans, seem also to have found their common focus in religion.’131 As the eastern Celts made it back to the islands, their religion and practice was influenced by what they saw, from ‘the imposing stone circles and forts, to massive tombs decorated with mysterious carvings, these relics from a bygone age made a deep impression upon the newcomers.’132 The use of ancestral sites and places became part of their religious practices. ‘There is no doubt that the Celts made extensive use of many sites created by their predecessors...at Jorlshop for instance, there is concrete proof that the place was inhabited by many different groups of settlers, from the Bronze Age right through to Viking times.’133
Celtic Religion
Davies and Bowie suggest the Romans saw the Celts as a very religious people and ‘there was no part of life that was not in some way touched by intricate webs of ritual and belief that gave life and meaning to the Celtic world.’134
The people had a common religion, bringing their pagan rituals and gods with them to the islands and joining and adapting the legacy of their practices with the ancestral past that they encountered when they arrived. They either used or reinvented the various tombs, prehistoric remains, rocks, caves, and the gods that related to these sites, incorporating them into their own myths and structures.135
131 Ibid., 5. 132 Ibid., 11. 133 Zaczek and Lyons, Sacred Celtic Places (London: Collins & Brown, 2002), 21. 134 Davies and Bowie, Celtic Christian Spirituality: Medieval and Modern, 5. 135 Zaczek and Lyons, Sacred Celtic Places, 12–20.
41 While recognizing the importance of Celtic primal religion at the earliest and most formative stage of the evangelization of the Celtic-speaking cultures, it must be recognized that the surviving evidence for Celtic religion is sparse, and often comes from widely differing places and times.136
What we do know is that the Celts had many gods. ‘Every grove and stream was inhabited—indeed animated—by its own deity.’137 These gods were gods of place. The earth contained the female gods who occupied sacred springs, rivers, lakes, oceans and the dark forests. Caves and wells were portals to the world of the gods. The sky contained the male gods, the sun, moon, and the stars. ‘The ancient deposits of weapons and treasure that have been discovered in lakes, rivers and springs almost certainly reflect a desire to placate or reward a divinity of place.’138 These gods could only be communicated with through the Druids: the priests, teachers of wisdom and keepers of the oral traditions.139
Power was invested in the druidic class, who protected traditional knowledge ranging from cosmology to genealogy and law, by an oral system of learning which was based, as such systems are, on simple and repetitive poetic forms in order to facilitate the tasks of memory.140
They had a very influential place in the culture. ‘They functioned as mediators, taught that a supernatural presence pervades every aspect of life, valued their families and
136 Oliver Davies and Thomas O’Loughlin, Celtic Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 13. 137 Ann Trousdale, “Embodied Spirituality,” International Journal of Children’s Spirituality 18, no. 1 (2013): 19. 138 Davies and O’Loughlin, Celtic Spirituality, 13. 139 Barry Cunliffe: Who Were the Celts?,” YouTube video, from a lecture given at BYU on March 17, 2008, posted by ‘BYU Department of Anthropology,’ February 4, 2014, http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FM9nMFbfI&feature=youtube_gdata_player. 140 Davies and Bowie, Celtic Christian Spirituality: Medieval and Modern, 6.
42 friends, and considered women to have many of the same rights as men.’141 These spiritual leaders of the ancient Celts passed on their wisdom through a type of spiritual mentoring beginning the practice of having an Anamcara.142
Davies suggests an important point of the religion of the Celts:
God, or the transcendent, did not speak to the human community outside and beyond its natural environment. Rather, God spoke to humanity precisely within the natural world...nature...formed part of the dialogue between human beings and God.143
‘The mystical bent of the Celts was especially evident in the great love of creation and all nature…(and) is central to Celtic Christianity.’144 This very clear and active attention to the gods of place and nature begins to inform our understanding of their theology. Everything, the ancient Celts believed, connected to their gods. In our current understanding a Christian Celtic theology is really a theology of God as seen in all things, all of His creation, including human kind.
Celtic Christianity - the Influence of the Gospel
In moving from pagan spirituality of an ancient people to the creation of Celtic
Christianity, we see the brilliance of the missionaries, saints, and leaders. They had a way of integrating the gospel into commonly known ideas and practices. Muirchi wrote the
Life of Patrick and in this work he has developed a sense of the relationship between
Christian revelation and the pagan religion of his ancestors. ‘The religion was not simply
141 Edward Cletus Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend: A Trusted Guide for Today (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2002), 23. 142 Ibid. 143 Davies and Bowie, Celtic Christian Spirituality: Medieval and Modern, 6. 144 Balzer, Thin Places, 26.
43 a darkness, but a preparation for the gospel, and hence his people were always in some relationship with the true God and under the protection of his Providence.’145 The
‘prevenient grace’ of God was at work in the lives of these indigenous peoples and was indeed protecting them for the gospel message. How did the gospel come to the Celtic people? Let us explore this rich history.
All the Atlantic islands were inhabited by Celts. Once Julius Caesar invaded Britain and successfully conquered the island, he gradually built roads and strongholds for his occupying forces through the territory. The exception to this was that the people of
Ireland and the northern highlands of Scotland, known as the ‘Picts’,146 were never conquered.147 They remained strongly connected through their kinship, family networks and with their form of religion and its practices. In consideration of the Picts, Caesar built Hadrian’s wall to keep these savages out of the new Romanized Britain. As a network of Roman roads were being built, ordered by Julius Caesar, the Roman system of governance, law, education, and town planning, including a Roman system of worship of Roman gods was also introduced. Christianity was not introduced officially until the
Edict of Milan148 by Emperor Constantine, marking a new period of liberation and security for the Christian Church. Rome introduced organized Christianity and brought its particular structures and hierarchies of power and influence to the conquered Celts of
Britannia. To understand how Christianity influenced Ireland and Scotland, and
145 Davies and O’Loughlin, Celtic Spirituality, 30. 146 Picts were the painted Celts of the highlands. They would paint pictures on their naked bodies as part of their warfare strategy. 147 Davies and Bowie, Celtic Christian Spirituality: Medieval and Modern, 8. 148 Ibid., 9.
44 eventually Wales, we need to look at another model. The wisdom of the desert, came into
Celtic Ireland and Britain showing “how one should pray and how the ship of the Church and of the individual soul, might be steered to the Land of Promise.”149 The Wisdom of the Desert Fathers and Mothers and a form of monasticism of St. Martin and St. Ninian, were the primary influences of Christian Evangelism to the Celts. The Anamcara, as well as the ancient practice of mentoring passed down from the Druids, came from the Desert
Fathers and Mothers.
St. Martin, St. Ninian, St. John Cassian
These monks with influence in monasticism of the East and of the Desert Fathers and
Mothers, proved to be the successful model for evangelism for Ireland and Scotland. St.
Martin of Tours proved to be key to the introduction of the Christian faith to the Celts. He was a disciple of St. Anthony the desert monk. Gilbert Hunter Doble suggests that the
Celtic church was most characterised by the its preference for the monastic and eremitic life and that:
the history of the Celtic Church is largely a history of monks and monasteries. Monasticism, like Christianity, has its origin in the East and quickly spread through Palestine, Egypt, and Syria to the West. In the fourth century, monasticism reached Gaul, through the efforts of St. Martin of Tours (ca. 315-397). He founded a semi-eremitical community, the first monastery in Gaul. In 370 or 371, he was consecrated Bishop of Tours. He lived in a solitary place nearby, where another monastery was soon founded, Marmoutier. His example led to the establishment of other monastic communities elsewhere.150
149 Daphne D. C. Pochin Mould, The Celtic Saints, 1st ed. (New York: MacMillan,1956), 26. 150 "Celtic Christian Spirituality - Orthodox Christian Information Center," accessed 25 February, 2014,
45 This model of living simply, the establishing of monastic communities and the acts of going out to teach and preach and offer the gospel became the accepted practice for reaching the rural world.
Martin himself is generally regarded as both the father of western monasticism and as the apostle of Gaul. As Bishop of Tours, he set out on missionary journeys across the surrounding country, preaching, converting the pagan population and destroying their heathen temples.151
St. Ninian was also a key influence in early Celtic faith. He was a Romanized Briton sent to complete his education in Rome. After he completed his education he stopped to visit Martin and like ‘everyone else’152 fell under his spell. He returned home and founded churches. He combined the life of contemplation with the life of preaching and traveling: ‘He and his monks went far, right up the east coast of Scotland, leaving a trail of churches at sites which still today bear Ninian’s name.’153
The influence of St. John Cassian, in Gaul also proved to be very important.
St. John spent a number of years as a monk in Bethlehem and Egypt, and was thus familiar with the life and teachings of the Desert Fathers. His writings on monastic life were studied by the Celtic monks on the British Isles.154
He had much to say about the role of the Anamcara and believed that ‘the greatest gift and grace of the Holy Spirit’ was considered an experienced guide and that ‘God’s guidance and wisdom come most often through human mediation, especially...of these
151 Mould, The Celtic Saints, 39. 152 Ibid., 40. 153 Ibid. 154 “Celtic Christian Spirituality - Orthodox Christian Information Center," accessed 25 February, 2014,
46 desert elders.’155 Cassian focused on the ‘healing effects of self-disclosure and the important contributions of spiritual guides...the man who synthesized what he saw in the
Egyptian desert and laid it out as a model pathway for those with the strength to pursue virtue.’156
Cassian, and the model of St. Martin and St. Ninian of establishing monasteries, influenced the forming Celtic Christianity and directly influenced St. Patrick, who became the greatest apostle for the gospel to the Celts. ‘Knowledge of Christianity filtered slowly into Ireland, and there were already a number of Christians and saints, more specifically in the south of the country, before St. Patrick mounted his great mission in 432.’157 St. Patrick was the most influential missionary to the island.
St. Patrick
While St. Martin and St. Ninian were believers and followers of Christ from an early period of their lives, St. Patrick represented a quite different approach to God. He lacked book learning, which was unlike the development of many Irish Celtic saints. He also had different path to God. Patrick was a nominal Christian, and was captured by raiders from
Ireland and became a slave. ‘He only began to turn to God in the solitude and loneliness of the hillside where he herded his master’s swine.’158 This experience, ‘of stillness, whether in the woods or on the mountain or in the morning before dawn,’ became the
155 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend: A Trusted Guide for Today, 75. 156 Ibid., 78. 157 Mould, The Celtic Saints, 40. 158 Mould, The Celtic Saints. 40
47 backdrop to his own inner reflections and understanding, realizing they became secondary to the presence of God.159 Several years later he was able to escape and returned to his home with no intention of returning to Ireland until compelled through a vivid dream. He returned as the great missionary to the pagan Celts. Patrick would use the natural world to communicate the gospel and challenge the Druids.
St. Patrick bends down and holds up a common plant, and so presents to his people a truth that is to be received not only as an act of intellectual assent but as an act of love. The trinity thus becomes something close at hand to be known and accepted and in all simplicity.160
St. Patrick would, as Balzer says, ‘fill in the gaps’161between what was interpreted in a pagan way and seeing the true God as the creator. ‘The gospel was seen as fulfilling rather than destroying the old mythologies.’162
Patrick would also use the reality of the communities preceding him; large landowners, chieftains, living in self-supporting rath communities with fortified homesteads inside the circling walls. He would ‘get the assistance of each small chieftain who would give the Celtic clergy land for a foundation, sometimes an old rath that would be adapted into a new monastic settlement.’163 These communities were an ideal footprint for a monastic settlement in the St. Martin model as this model was the organizational structure used to spread the gospel.
159 Balzer, Thin Places, 28. 160 Esther de Waal, Every Earthly Blessing: Rediscovering the Celtic Tradition (Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing,1999), loc. l.2076. 161 Balzer, Thin Places, 29. 162 J. Philip Newell, Listening for the Heartbeat of God: A Celtic Spirituality. (New York: Paulist Press, 1997), 27. 163 Mould, The Celtic Saints, 42.
48 Celtic Christianity was entirely monastic in organization, but it was not monasticism in the sense of the desert monks, but of the monasticism that St. Martin’s had been forced to become and that Ninian’s had been from the beginning...deeply involved in apostolic activity; he used his monastery as a base from which to travel Ireland, and to adventure across the seas to Europe and to the British islands.164
The particular shape of monasticism established with the early Celts was not so different from what they were used to living.
Many parts of the early Celtic Christian world may have reflected the role of extended kinship units in early Celtic society. It has been argued that monastic settlements took root quickly and firmly in Ireland because they offered a Christianization of the social status quo.165
Ester de Waal suggests:
A rural world without large towns but ruled by kings who were close to their subjects, often indeed treated as kin, brings with it a certain approach to religion. It is essentially an appreciation of what relationships means. It involves not only the members of the family or kingdom, but extends outward to include all beings, the world creatures, the elements, the whole universe, nothing exists in isolation.166
This established order and the fundamental value of relationships was the soil in which the gospel and Anamcara grew. The tradition of the desert, ‘with its emphasis on spiritual mentoring and disclosing the secrets of the heart,’167 were well known to the
Celts. These interdependent communities understood the importance of friendship.
From the evangelical success of St. Patrick to the next wave of saints including St.
Columba, who took his monks to the island of Iona which he used as home base to witness, to the king of the Picts and to other parts of Scotland, to St. Columbanus who set
164 Mould, The Celtic Saints, 41. 165 Davies and O’Loughlin, Celtic Spirituality, 14. 166 de Waal, Every Earthly Blessing: Rediscovering the Celtic Tradition, 2076. 167 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend: A Trusted Guide for Today, 49.
49 out to preach to all of Europe, the integration of orthodox faith belief with the understanding of the role of the natural world was evident. Not only did they live in a very rough physical world that required them to live in creation with the necessity of depending on each other, the moments of meeting with God in and through all things including their soul-friend became an experienced reality of their faith, forming a convincing Celtic theology.
Celtic Theology
Creation
In the theology of creation, or ‘the study of religious faith, practice, and experience: the study of God and his relation to the world,’168 and in this particular inquiry of God in creation for the Celts, we see a deep faith, practice and experience of God in and through the natural. Understanding the Celtic theology of creation is to understand the links of the pagan religious beliefs and practices and how they were integrated into a form of
Christianity. It seems to ‘contain perspectives that must have originated in the religious disposition of tribal peoples virtually untouched by the classical tradition.’169 The tribal beliefs and practices of the gods in the natural world, and giving worship and respect to them, would seem to be a much smaller gap to cross in regard to the Christian God of creation than if there were no beliefs about nature at all. The creation story of Genesis 1 clearly outlines a God who created through His essence and His character, and His
168 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Markham, ON: Thomas Allen & Son, 1987), 1223. 169 Davies and O’Loughlin, Celtic Spirituality, 23.
50 imprint is seen in all that He has made, down to every specific detail. This passage clearly speaks of a reality we do not hear much, that God created the world and everything in it
—an idea easily relating to the pagan view of nature. ‘A sixth century bard claimed that
Christ had always been the Celts’ teacher, but they had not known him by name.’170 The creation account would have been easy to explain as a bridge to the pagan ideas of nature, as they developed an understanding of faith that was interwoven and combined with the
God of creation. This became not only a foundational theology but a reality of Celtic spirituality, not an aspect of it. Nature (including animals) and humankind were created to be very good. Daphne Mould says it this way:
The Christian attitude to beauty and to nature and material things goes back to the creation of the world, to the statement in Genesis that God created the world and saw that it was good. Evil was not created, evil and sin came from the rebellion of angel and man created good, and neither evil nor sin are to be found, therefore, located in matter as such.171
Creation is seen as good and not evil, nor has it fallen. It still remains, apart from the rebellion, evil and sin of man. The Psalmist proclaims: ‘I lift up my eyes to the hills— where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth,’ (Psalm 121:1-2).172 This verse is captured through the prayer called the
‘breastplate’ prayer of St. Patrick—a prayer of the Celtic church for protection and courage:
170 Newell, Listening for the Heartbeat of God: a Celtic Spirituality, 27. 171 Mould, The Celtic Saints, 104. 172 Psalm 121:1-2.
51 I arise today Through the strength of heaven: Light of sun, Radiance of moon, Splendor of fire, Speed of lighting, Swiftness of wind, Depth of sea, Stability of earth, Firmness of rock.173
The connection with creation and the important reality of God through it remains interwoven as the very Celtic knots symbolize. J. Philip Newell suggests that through
Patrick and his great missionary endeavor to Ireland emerge some of the main distinguishing features of Celtic spirituality. These include: an awareness of the goodness of creation; a sense of the company of heaven’s presence among us on earth; the intertwining of the spiritual and the material; heaven and earth; time and eternity; [and] all created things carry within them the grace and goodness of God.174 ‘It is a startling experience to see the world for the first time as something that God has created, and it brings about a sudden and deep reverence for everything.’175
One of the leading ninth-century philosophers of the early Celts was John Scotus
Eriugena, who gives us a very interesting perspective on this inter connection.
Christ moves among us in two shoes, as it were, one shoe being that of creation, the other that of the Scriptures, and stressed the need to be alert and attentive to Christ moving among us in creation as we are to the voice of Christ in the Scriptures.176
173 William John Fitzgerald, A Contemporary Celtic Prayer Book (Chicago, IL: Acta Publications, 1998), 34. 174 Newell, Listening for the Heartbeat of God, 24. 175 Mould, The Celtic Saints, 106. 176 Newell, Listening for the Heartbeat of God, 34.
52 He further suggests that ‘God has not created everything out of nothing, but out of his own essence, out of his very life...the world then is a manifestation of God.’177 This captures the Celtic theology of creation and cannot be said any better. From Eriugena and his view of the world as a ‘theophany’178 came the teachings of the first prominent theologian of the Celtic world, Pelagius. He was born in the latter half of the fourth century to a Welsh bard.179 His most typical mark of the spirituality of the Celtic traditions found in the work of Pelagius is:
his strong sense of the goodness of creation, in which the life of God can be glimpsed. Everywhere, he says, ‘narrow shafts of divine light pierce the veil that separates heaven from earth.’…animals roaming the forest: God’s spirit dwells within them. Look at the birds flying across the sky: God’s spirit dwells within them...There is no creature on earth in whom God is absent...When God pronounced that his creation was good, it was not only that his hand had fashioned every creature; it was his breath had brought every creature to life...180
The goodness of God’s creation also included people, male and female, created in His image. Let us next consider the Celtic view of people.
People
Pelagius also believed the image of God is found in every person, both male and female, and the goodness of that image is nurtured and freed largely through the grace of wisdom.181 Gen. 1:27, 31 states, ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of
177 Ibid., 35. 178 Ibid. 179 Ibid., 9. 180 Ibid., 10. 181 Ibid., 13.
53 God created he him; male and female created he them.’182 ‘And God saw everything that he made, and behold, it was very good.’ Pelagius believed that this goodness was seen in living a life of wisdom and becoming like Christ rather than in religious beliefs and doctrines of the church.183 He also believed in the free grace of God to man. ‘He believed strongly that God's offer of grace was universal and unconditional and that the choice lay entirely with individuals as to whether they accepted it or not.’184
This was in contrast to the orthodox beliefs of Augustine who believed that ‘from conception and birth we lack the image of God until it is restored through the sacrament of baptism and that conception involves us in the sinfulness of nature, sexual intercourse being associated with lustful desire.’185 Pelagius believed that looking at the face of a newborn child was to look at the image of God. He also maintained that ‘creation is essentially good and that the sexual dimension of procreation is God-given.’186
Pelagius did not deny that there is evil and it had power over humans, but suggested that in the heart of humanity is the goodness of God. Deeper than any wrong is the light of God in everyone and that the ‘occupying army’ of evil is what the redemptive reality of Christ sets us free from, releasing the goodness that is within.187 He also suggests that the more we do evil by choice, the more our natural goodness is buried and like a fog,
182 Kings James Bible online. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-27, 31. (Accessed December 20, 2015.) 183 Newell, Listening for the Heartbeat of God, 11. 184 LeMasters, “Celtic Christianity: Its Call to Discipleship,” Encounter 60, no. 4 (1999): 491. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000909120&site=ehost-live. 185 Newell, Listening for the Heartbeat of God, 14. 186 Ibid. 187 Ibid.
54 blinding us from our true selves.188 This reminds me of Galatians 5:1: ‘It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.’As discussed earlier, the suggestions was that the Celts lived in
Galatia, and this letter from Paul could have been written to these very Celts. I find the probability of this idea very interesting.
The embodied reality of God in and through humankind—a reality made in His image and seen again through the incarnation of the second Adam, the person of Jesus Christ,
‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us’ (John 1:14)—is a uniquely
Christian worldview.
Of the dominant worldwide spiritual and religious traditions, Christianity holds the highest “theology of the body.” Christianity’s roots lie in the soil of Judaism, which itself places high value on the human being, created in the image of God and animated by the very breath or spirit—the ruah—of God.’189
These fundamental teachings of Pelagius, established through the creation story—the goodness and light of God within all men, and the nature and essence of God seen in and through all creation—became the oral tradition of the Celtic Christian. These views were very threatening to the church which took a more Augustinian view of the broken, fallen, depraved nature of man, and of creation. This caused Pelagius to be found guilty of
‘trouble making’ by the state of Rome and then by the Church, and he was excommunicated from it. He withdrew to the Celt Islands and as the Romans were leaving Britannia to return to fight the raiding Germanic peoples, Pelagius was returning home.
188 Ibid., 17. 189 Ann Trousdale, “Embodied Spirituality, ”International Journal of Children’s Spirituality 18, no. 1 (2013): 20.
55 The views of Pelagius and of Eriugena, the Celtic theologian and philosopher, were threatening to the Roman Church. Newell suggests we lost a rich piece of our Christian heritage by so quickly forgetting our created likeness and the views of a very concerned and caring monk: Pelagius. ‘The Church was poorer for forcing Celtic spirituality underground, so that for centuries it survived primarily on the Celtic fringes of Britain in people unsupported in their spirituality by the clergy.’190
God became human flesh, incarnate. Thus, the dividing line between humanity and the divine was erased. Not only had God looked at creation and seen it as good, not only had God created humankind in God’s own image, God had taken up residence in humankind, identified with humankind totally. Jesus was the ‘second Adam’, come to redeem Adam and Eve’s fall from grace.191
Jesus said, as he ended his sermon on the mount, that wisdom is the man who puts these words into action. As Pelagius suggests, the goal of a Christian is to become like
Christ, not merely believe a doctrine or a church. The debate over the differences between Pelagius and Augustine on the necessity of grace is far more nuanced than the scope of this presentation of Celtic theology. More study and exploration of theologians of the early centuries of the church is being done.
The value placed on people, and the reality of being created in the image of God as expressed in Celtic theology, formed an understanding of being and becoming an
Anamcara. Let us consider this theology and practice in the next section.
190 Newell, Listening for the Heartbeat of God, 106. 191 Trousdale, “Embodied Spirituality,” 20.
56 Anamcara
The term ‘soul-friend’ ‘referred to an intimate spiritual friendship which involved the exercise of spiritual direction and mentorship in a mutual relationship of trust and love.’192 The Celtic tradition formed this very personal description and meaning:
In the Celtic tradition, there is a beautiful understanding of love and friendship. One of the fascinating ideas here is the idea of soul-love; the old Gaelic term for this is anam cara. Anam is the Gaelic word for soul; cara is the word for friend. So anam cara in the Celtic world was the “soul friend.” In the early Celtic church, a person who acted as a teacher, companion, or spiritual guide was called an anam cara...With the anam cara you could share your inner-most self, your mind, and your heart. This friendship was an act of recognition and belonging.193
This practice of directing and mentoring comes from two primary sources: the ancient
Celtic philosophers and mystics known as the Druids and from the Desert Fathers and
Mothers of the Christian faith. The Desert Fathers (abba) and Mothers (amma) lived as hermits or together in various types of communities as ordinary people. Learning from
Anthony, Pachomius,194 these desert Christians were the ‘spirit-bearer who acts as a kind of parent or midwife of souls.’195 They were also considered very valuable to have as a friend and guide and taught that:
[I]t is essential for everyone to speak directly from the heart to another person, and that this self-disclosure is good for the soul. They practiced a form of therapy that consisted of exagoreusis, “opening one’s heart, that lead to hesychia, or “peace of heart. These spiritual practices of these desert guides, united with that of the ancient Celt’s druidic mentors, contributed significantly to the rise of the ministry of the soul friend in the early Celtic church.196
192 Timothy J. Joyce, Celtic Christianity (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2011), 44. 193 O’Donohue, Anam Cara: A Book of Celtic Wisdom, 1st ed. (New York: Harper Perennial, 1998), 13. 194 Edward C. Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend, A Trusted Guide for Today, (Notre Dame: Ave Marie Press, 2002), 58. 195 Ibid., 55. 196 Ibid.
57 The roles of a soul-friend were varied, playing guide, mentor, teacher, companion, leader and helper, but the over-arching purpose, for the most part, was to be a healer. The soul friend’s work was:
to apply the appropriate cure to the soul’s disease…curing the wounds of the soul, restoring what is weak to a complete state of health. Christ himself is, of course the physician, but it is the soul-friend who has to impose an appropriate penance after the confession of sins.197
Ester deWall suggests, ‘What the Celtic world knew was the totality of healing. Body cannot be healed apart from the soul, and neither can be healed apart from God.’198
Sellner writes:
The role of the soul friend was many but John Cassian, among all the desert writers, was the one who most fully explored the human need for disclosing sicknesses and secrets which lie in the heart in order to be free of them—a belief eventually linked with the Celtic soul friend.199
Cassian also suggested that the remedies ‘cannot be found by concentrating on the spiritual illness to be eradicated, but on its opposite...one seeks to develop its opposite virtue.’200 Confession begins the process of freedom but equally important is the need to develop an alternative action that aligns with the ‘heavenly virtues’ and a kingdom ethic.
Pelagius insists that we need a soul-friend to do this: ‘[W]e need companions in the
Way, soul-friends who will guide us along right pathways and help us recognize our God
197 Balzer, Thin Places, 53. 198 de Waal, Every Earthly Blessing, loc, 1520. 199 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend, 74. 200 Ibid., 188.
58 given capacity to live compassionately and generously. Trying to live in this way without a soul friend is foolhardy.’201
Besides the roles, the personal attributes and characteristics of such a close relationship remain significant. Edward C. Sellner, from his book The Celtic Soul Friend, summarizes these.202 First, friendship is synonymous with great affection, intimacy, and depth. ‘Friendship awakens affection...In Celtic tradition, the anam cara was not merely a metaphor or ideal. It was a soul-bond that existed as a recognized and admired social construct.’203 Second, a soul-friend relationship is characterized by great mutuality, a profound respect for each other’s wisdom despite any age or gender differences. Thirdly,
Sellner suggests that soul-friends share common values, a common vision of reality.
Fourth, soul-friendship includes not only affirmation, but the ability to challenge each other when it is necessary to do so. ‘The one you love, your anam cara, your soul friend, is the truest mirror to reflect your soul. The honesty and clarity of true friendship also brings out the real contour of your spirit.’204 The fifth characteristic of soul-friendship is that it survives geographical separation, the passage of time, and death itself. The sixth aspect of Anamcara is that they are centered on God. True soul-friends do not depend upon each other alone, but root their relationship in God. Finally, Anamcara’s appreciate both friendship and solitude as resources for ‘soul making’.
201 Earle and Newell, Celtic Christian Spirituality, 104. 202 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend, 205–209. 203 O’Donohue, Anam Cara: A Book of Celtic Wisdom, 16. 204 Ibid., 26.
59 John O’Donohue suggests:
In everyone’s life, there is great need for an anam cara, a soul-friend. In this love, you are understood as you are without mask or pretension...When you are understood, you are at home. Understanding nourishes belonging. When you really feel understood, you feel free to release yourself into the trust and shelter of the other person’s soul.205
This captures the essence of the soul-friend relationship and really describes the longing of our heart.
As indicated previously, the beginning for the Christian Anamcara came from the
Desert Fathers and Mothers and the process of Anamcara was practiced in two ways.
Most common was the one-on-one relationship of mentoring where an older, experienced person would lead, teach, and counsel a younger person. The second was carried out in a group experience.
In upper Egypt, there were those who, inspired by the leadership of Pachomius, lived in large communities, following a cenobitic or communal lifestyle. Spiritual guidance among them had more of a communal dimension in which the entire community offered its assistance. Here small groups lived with spiritual father or mothers...206
This practice of group guidance and friendship was developed into a method by John
Wesley and the characteristics of the Celtic soul-friend are clearly seen in his process. I wish to explore this process as it relates to the practice of Anamcara.
205 Ibid., 14. 206 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend, 58.
60 Group Anamcara - Contributions from John Wesley’s Groups
John Wesley, like John Cassian, believed that a ‘personal inventory and confession to a reliable guide on a regular basis is good for the body and soul.’207 John Wesley formed groups for this very purpose. His earliest influence came from his mother, Suzanna. She had clear structure and purpose in raising her children that was ‘disciplined, methodical, and graciously austere.’208 They were taught to submit their wills and through a very structured time of family and individual one-on-one teaching, they learned their faith.
‘The emphasis on personal discipline and spiritual submission became an essential component of John Wesley’s educational strategy as he applied it…to the urban masses who crowded into England’s industrial centers.’209 ‘Puritan Zeal for the “care and cure of souls”, the Wesley’s concentrated their energies on encouraging personal spiritual growth in themselves and others.’210
The French Nobleman of the seventeenth century, Monsieur de Renty, started and modeled a clear group purpose of ‘small, intensely personal, and highly effective groups’211 which interested John Wesley. Renty’s practice of ‘dedicating his life to caring for the poor and encouraging his countrymen to a devout and holy life,’212 was adopted by Wesley.
207 Ibid., 77. 208 D. Michael Henderson, A Model for Making Disciples: John Wesley’s Class Meeting (Anderson, IN: Francis Asbury Press, 1997), 35. 209 Ibid., 37. 210 Ibid. 211 Henderson, A Model for Making Disciples, 48. 212 Ibid.
61 The Oxford club, with its roots in his Anglican tradition, was a movement of young
Methodists who met in college rooms for devotions and conversation. They organized their lives in the pursuit of personal holiness. Influenced by the early Anglican religious societies of Anthony Horneck,213 they served the poor, visited the sick, elderly and imprisoned and provided clothing as they could. They became known as the ‘Bible
Moths,’ or the ‘Methodists’214 and had significant impact on Wesley’s overall method.
Wesley was also influenced by the Moravians, not only for their structure of groups that Count Zinndendorf at the community of Herrnhut lead, in which they arranged their community into compact cells, or “bands” for spiritual oversight and community administration,215 but also for their understanding of ‘instantaneous salvation and the witness of the Spirit to that salvation.’216 A new ‘faith alone’ and ‘instantaneous’ experience and understanding of salvation met John while he attended a meeting lead by
Peter Bohler at Aldersgate. This conversion experience became the ‘stock and trade of
Methodism, its primary and fundamental method, upon which an elaborate instructional system would be built.’217
Wesley formed and required all Methodists to be part of a group. This group continued to change and adapt into what is known as the ‘class meeting.’ This structure became the major faith formation gathering of Methodism.
213 Rupert E. Davies,ed. The Works of John Wesley. Volume 9, The Methodist Societies, History, Nature and Design, (Nashville: Abingdon Press), 1989. 214 Henderson, A Model for Making Disciples, 42-43. 215 Ibid., 59. 216 Ibid., 53. 217 Henderson, A Model for Making Disciples, 58.
62 Wesley’s small group meeting, which began as a prudent necessity to pay down a personal debt Wesley incurred for the purchase of the foundry (the first official meeting place of the new Society), became an ‘opportunity for pastoral oversight.’218 From the members of the general ‘society’ at the foundry, Wesley personally selected leaders for each class and they were given a very important role: ‘the leaders are the persons who may not only receive the contributions, but also watch over the souls of their brethren.’219
This was the power of the Wesley structure; everyone had personal contact and pastoral care. Wesley learned and gained consensus that it would be an excellent means of coming to ‘a sure thorough knowledge of each person.’220 As the practice grew they agreed to meet together once a week, ‘not only to collect the weekly contributions, but also to give advice, reproof, or encouragement as members began to, “bear one another’s burdens,” and to “care for each other”.’221 This process and structure was very much like the style of group that came from the desert communities and formed monastic communities in the
Celtic lands. John Wesley groups formed Anamcara friendship with the purpose of cure and care of each soul.
The class meeting was open to all regardless of where people were on their faith journey.
[I]n a class of twelve members, each person will be different, ranging from one who has only “some faint desire to be religious” to one who is “rejoicing in that perfect love which casteth out fear” to say nothing of the one who is “dull and
218 David Lowes Watson, The Early Methodist Class Meeting: Its Origin and Significance (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002), 93. 219 Ibid. 220 Ibid., 94. 221 Ibid.
63 suspicious.” The task of the leader, therefore, is to vary the advice and instruction given to each.222
The influence of being discipled by his mother, and being equipped with his research and experience of various groups, led Wesley to choose to use a method of questions to enquire of each member the condition of their soul. These questions and the subsequent answers would help the class leaders give tailored advice, and these rules were established.
It is therefore expected of all who continue therein that they should continue to evidence their desire for salvation. […] 1. By doing no harm, by avoiding evil in every kind especially that which is most generally practiced. […] 2. By doing good, by being in every kind merciful after their power, as they have opportunity [of] doing food of every possible sort and as far as is possible to all men. […] 3 By attending upon all the ordinances of God. Such are: The public worship of God, The ministry of the Word, The Supper of the Lord, Family and private prayer, Searching the Scriptures, and Fasting or abstinence. 223
The group of twelve, open to all to account for their journey to salvation, became the organizing structure and purpose for the weekly meetings for all people called
Methodists.
This was the background and structure of Wesley’s ‘care and cure of the soul’ but the experience of this process is captured by those in these groups. In what follows are some entries from the journals and dairies that reveal this care and friendship. William Holden of Painswick of Gloucestershire writes:
Thursday Oct 13, 1768. “…in the evening I met my class, was very much refreshed after I spent time with a friend from beyond London, Mr. Walton he was very gracious person indeed, being brought through much tribulation he could from experience declare the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin.”
222 Watson, The Early Methodist Class Meeting, 110. 223 John Wesley and Albert Cook Outler, The Works of John Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984), 70-73.
64 Friday Oct 14, “this day we spent about two hours in class fellowship together, we found great freedom to speak our mind to each other, our hearts we so knit together that each could have put (each) other in his bosom... ”224
These two entries speak of the experience of the class where visitors established new friendships. What seemed apparent was the freedom and opportunity for each to speak their minds and how the acceptance and honesty caused a very close knit bond. An experience of caring that each could have ‘put each other in his bosom.’ In a later entry from November 6, Mr. Holden records an experience from attendance of the band meeting: ‘…in the evening I met my band and was being much blessed. And afterward my mind was kept in peace.’225
On December 7 he wrote, ‘this day I felt freedom from temptation I have felt a great while past, in the evening I met in a select band...it was a sweet opportunity indeed, my soul was as a watered garden.’226 Mr. Holden expresses metaphorically a very rich and refreshing experience. The level of intimacy of his band seems consistently to refresh and strengthen him. The band was a smaller group that met to continue the most honest confession and to receive personal care. He also, in an earlier entry (May 19, 1769), spoke in a similar way of a class meeting experience: ‘I met my class in the evening I was exceedingly blessed, my soul was like a water to a garden that sweet communion with
God all the evening after my soul seemed rooted and grounded in love.’227
224 William Holden, Personal Journal and Diary, John Rylands Special Collections, University of Manchester, England. (Accessed May 2005, May 2006) 225 Ibid. 226 Ibid. 227 Ibid.
65 On January 16, 1770, Mr. Holden expressed another important part of John Wesley’s system of groups. This was the purpose of accountability and confrontation. ‘[I]n the evening I met the select Band there was a person who I believe was not walking so close with God, as he should who then I spoke to him a little opposed he objected to what I said, but the Lord enabled one to convince him that what I said was not too strict.’228
This accountability continues, as an entry on February 6 explains: ‘[W]e met together
(a few of us) this evening to speak of the state of our souls and spend some time in prayer. It was a time of refreshing from the presence of the Lord we was greatly comforted and edified together.’ Similarly, the entry from March 8 states: ‘…afterward met the bands my soul was greatly helped while I spoke my experience.’ D. Michael
Henderson speaking of this experience, states:
Wesley believes that learning comes through experience...the Methodists were telling people what they were doing. When Methodists met with their classes or bands, they shared up-to-date accounts of their experiences…experiences which resulted from obedience to the Word of God. The Bible was the starting point from which all experience was to originate and against which all experience was to be judged.229
Samuel Bardsley,230 a bottle washer at a local brewery, eventually worked his way up the leadership to class leader then to traveling preacher. As indicated from the following selection of entries, his journal writings demonstrated three key group experiences.
Sunday August 3, 1773, reads, ‘after preaching I met my class and spoke to them…
Wednesday in the evening I was at select society we had agreeable meeting there seemed
228 Ibid. 229 Henderson, A Model for Making Disciples, 131-132. 230 Samuel Bardsley, Personal Journal and Diary, John Rylands Special Collections, University of Manchester, England. (accessed May 2005, May 2006)
66 to be an openness and freedom amongst us in some measure…’ Friday’s entry reads, ‘this evening I met with my band. There were 4 of us present we had an agreeable meeting…’
On August 13 he writes, “in the evening I went to select Society they were particularly open and true for my past I found myself much humbled amongst them, my mouth was stopped and sense of my vileness overshadowed me. I came home much pressed in Spirit and found my soul disquieted within me____.’231 The select society, the leader’s group, was not always easy, as experienced by Samuel.
In summary, the journal entries of many early Methodists consistently speak of the same Wesleyan method. He understood that heart change, and that the restoration of humankind into the image of God was indeed the work of the Holy Spirit with the cooperation of the surrendered heart and the purposeful accountability of others. David
Watson says that the study of the class meeting is important in two very important ways as a link to ‘the handing on of the gospel within the ecclesial community, and the handing over of the gospel to the world.’ 232
Communities are important for formation. ‘A strong community helps people develop a sense of true self, for only in community can the self exercise and fulfill its nature: giving and taking, listening and speaking, being and doing.’233 Larry Crabb writes:
A community that heals is a community that believes the gospel provides forgiveness of all sin, a guaranteed future of perfect community forever, and the freedom now to indulge the deepest desires of our hearts, because the law of God
231 Ibid. 232 Watson, The Early Methodist Class Meeting, 144. 233 Parker J. Palmer, A Hidden Wholeness: The Journey Toward an Undivided Life, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004), 39.
67 is written within us—we have an appetite for holiness. Communities heal when they focus on releasing what’s good.234
A very Celtic notion I would say.
In summary, we have seen in the Methodist movement the importance of relationships in community for intimate soul friendships. These relationship contributed to personal care, healing and spiritual formation modeling a very similar process of
Anamcara that was practiced in Celtic monastic communities. The role of a Christian
Anamcara always included knowing God, His healing of the soul, and His purposes for community.
Our study of Anamcara, the roles, practices and experiences of a being a soul-friend, has an overall purpose of developing a praxis for caring and empowering marriages. This next chapter will look at more recent contributions of marital researchers, practitioners, and writers, and the specifics of what each suggest about marriage relationships, including, in particular, the research of John M. Gottman. The concept of deep friendship is recognized by Gottman in his research as the most important piece of a lasting marriage.235 John O’Donohue suggests that this longing for friendship is most fully realized when we are understood. ‘Where you are understood, you are at home.
Understanding nourishes belonging. When you really feel understood you feel free to
‘release yourself into the trust and shelter of the other person’s soul.’236 This connection and intimacy is indeed the experience of Anamcara.
234 Larry Crabb, Connecting, Reprinted, (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 2005), 38. 235 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 19. 236 O’Donohue, Anam Cara: A Book of Celtic Wisdom, 14.
68 Chapter 3
Contributing Researchers and Practitioners regarding Marital Friendship
In this chapter we will review leading contributors to the understanding of marriage and their particular insight into how marriages work. John M. Gottman, Jack and Judith
Balswick, Scott Stanley, and Sue Johnson will inform the process of friendship in marriage. The major researcher and the leading contributor to this research is that of John
M. Gottman. His research and method will inform the investigation of our couples in this research project.
John Gottman’s interest in marital research developed as a response to a concern of a rising divorce rate of over 50%. He also recognized that going to marital therapy actually predicted divorce.237 He suggested that marriage therapy needs a ‘major change.’ His research and data collecting began by inviting 650 couples to his apartment ‘love lab’ at the University of Washington and collecting data on day-to-day interactions. He then followed these couples for 14 years, comparing and contrasting their present situations with the data collected. Gottman observed very clear consistencies which lead to conclusions of why marriages fail and why they remain strong, and to a model for marital intervention and practice.
Gottman’s model was named the ‘The Sound Marital House,’238 and more recently changed to ‘The Sound Relationship House’.239 The model is a therapeutic intervention
237 Gottman, The Marriage Clinic, 5. 238 Ibid., 105. 239 John Gottman and Julie Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute, Inc., 2012). 13-1
69 for helping marriages succeed. This template came from his research of couples that he called the ‘Masters of Marriage’, couples who maintained satisfying marriages and fostered a deep friendship. This positive intervention followed his findings of why marriages failed. In a study published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family entitled,
‘The Timing of Divorce: Predicting When a Couple will Divorce Over a 14 year period’,
Gottman and Levenson suggested from their results the following findings:
Negative affect during conflict predicted early divorcing...the lack of positive affect in events of the day-to-day and conflict discussions predicted later divorcing…The model predicted divorce with 93% accuracy.240
This brief note summarizes the findings of studies over decades of Gottman’s research and has led to a comprehensive understanding and intervention for marriage and indicates a very clear pattern that is predictive of marriage dissolution. The negative affect during conflict is named both by Scott Stanley, another leading researcher on this topic, as Escalation, Invalidation, Withdrawal and Avoidance, and Negative
Interpretations.241 Gottman names them as ‘The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse;
Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt and Stonewalling.’242 The lack of positive affect in the day-to-day is an indication that the couple is living parallel lives which are distant, and are not connecting as friends. This disconnect leads to increase in conflict discussions. In addition, what is dysfunctional in marriage when it is failing is summarized as more negativity than positivity, the four horsemen, harsh start up in
240 John M. Gottman and Robert Wayne Levenson, “The Timing of Divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14 year period,” Journal of Marriage and the Family. Volume 62, Number 3, (2000), 737. 241 Howard Markman, Scott Stanley and Susan Blumberg, Fighting for your Marriage (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994), 1. 242 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 27–34 .
70 conversations, failure of repair, failure of husbands to take influence from their wives, negative perceptions, and flooding.243 These form the concrete identification patterns that are clearly predictive of divorce or dissolution over 90% of the time.244
The ‘Sound Relationship House’ as a positive intervention approach to change these patterns begins by teaching couples how to develop ‘Love Maps’, a process of knowing your spouse and being up to date with what is happening in their world, and being current with inner thoughts and ideas of each other. This is facilitated by the ‘quality of paying attention’ to each other’s ‘bids’. These ‘bids’ are the intended expression or overture that signals a ‘partner is bidding for an interaction. One partner is trying to engage the other in some type of communication.’245 The better the couple understands and notices these
‘bids’ the greater the opportunity to connect and deepen the friendship. In Gottman’s words: ‘At the heart of my program is the truth that happy marriages are based on a deep friendship. By this I mean mutual respect for and enjoyment of each other’s company.’246
Every structure in The Sound Marital House program builds on this principle of friendship: learning the importance of expressing fondness and admiration, turning toward the ‘bid’ instead of away, learning to manage conflict in a very clear and meaningful way, and sharing in each other’s dreams. As the construction of The Sound
Relationship House takes place, the pinnacle of Gottman’s program is to create shared
243 Ibid., 26–44. 244 Gottman, The Marriage Clinic, 40. 245 John Gottman and Julie Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute,Inc., 2012), 5-2 246 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 19.
71 meaning, a common shared purpose and shared spirituality, giving life together a connection that is indeed the soul-friend, or Anamcara.
C. S. Lewis suggests that friendship is rare, ‘few value it because few experience it,’247 and suggests that it is the ‘least natural of loves; the least instinctive, organic, biological, gregarious and necessary.’248 He suggests that in ancient and medieval times, finding this friendship, a friendship not based on eros or affection, but a friendship freely chosen that, ‘...of all loves, seemed to raise you to the level of gods or angels.’249 Like
Gottman, Lewis suggests that a shared meaning births real friendship.
[T]hey [the two friends] have a common insight or interest or even taste which the others do not share and which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure (or burden)...when whether with immense difficulties and semi- articulate fumbling or with what would seem to us amazing and elliptical speed, they share their vision - it is then that friendship is born. And instantly they stand together in an immense solitude.250
Gottman’s observation of marriages that do well, and the significance of friendship, speaks to the validity of the Anamcara for marriages. In the 1100s the Celtic Christian community had examples of men and women being soul-friends, married as husband and wife, while maintaining their celibacy.251
The contributions and research of Professors Jack and Judith Balswick add to our understanding of Anamcara. They frame their work ‘on the teleological assumption that
God has created humankind and designed marriage with an ultimate purpose and
247 C. S. Lewis, C. S. Lewis The Four Loves (New York: A Harvvest/HBJ Book, 1960), 88. 248 Ibid. 249 Ibid., 89. 250 Ibid., 96–97. 251 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend, 93.
72 meaning in mind.’252 This view contrasts the modern view of marriage based on
‘romantic attraction, self-fulfillment and ego need gratification.’253 This meaning is to reflect the very image of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who in unity and love created humankind, calling people to be the witness of that unity.
The God whose very nature is being in relationship of holy love calls us to love one another in the same way. Human relationships in general and marriage in particular have been given the purpose and privilege of reflecting the plurality, the fellowship of communion within the Trinitarian relationships.254
The Balswicks believe ‘God’s intention for marriage is that two spouses become one through a mutual, reciprocating process in which interdependence develops through the coexistence of distinction and unity in relationship.’255 This connection of friendship for the Balswicks is framed as ‘Differentiated Unity’:
Differentiation describes a person who has a clear sense of self and maturity to form an effective interdependent relationship. Paradoxically, the more spouses know themselves as distinctly different, the greater their capacity for intimate connection. 256
The concept of differentiation includes the idea of particularity and unity, a model of
Perichoresis257 in a married couple. The Balswicks describe marriage as ‘both spouses bring[ing] their distinct selves (mutual interiority) while making space for the other
252 Balswick and Balswick, A Model For Marriage, 18. 253 Ibid.,16. 254 Ibid., 27. 255 Ibid., 33. 256 Ibid., 96. 257 Perichoresis, affirming the divine essence, is shared by the three persons of the Trinity in a manner that avoids blurring the distinctions among them. By extension, this idea suggests that any essential characteristic that belongs to one of the three is shared by the others. It also affirms that the action of one of the persons of the Trinity is also fully the action of the other two persons. Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 1999), 26.
73 (mutual permeation) so they can indwell each other (interdependence) and become an entity (union) that transcends themselves.’ 258 They continue to suggest that we are created for relationship: ‘two unique spouses form an interdependent union in which they also develop meaning as a couple.’259 This ability to find meaning together is a shared
Anamcara principle and is a theme of friendship shared by Gottman. ‘To the extent that the couple can create shared meaning, the friendship is greatly enhanced, as is their ability to deal with conflict.’260
This ability for differentiation is dependent on the reality of being differentiated in
Christ. ‘[O]ur actions are determined by obedience to Christ rather than defined by culture, family or even one’s spouse. We are accountable to God for our actions and strive to live according to God’s word to the best of our ability.’261 In essence, the marriage relationship is modeling the relationship we have with God. Marriage is a sacrament.
[Marriage is] a visible sign or symbol of an invisible encounter with God, experiences made visible through the love of the spouses, it is God’s loving gift of self, which we call “grace,” [and] is symbolized and made present in the loving relationship of the spouses, marriage is the sign or symbol of an encounter with God…262
As a couple learns and grows into the image of God, they offer to each other the very relationship of God, the very character of God, full of grace and mercy. Friendship with
God is a prerequisite for giving and experiencing friendship with our spouse.
258 Balswick and Balswick, A Model For Marriage, 33. 259 Ibid., 96. 260 Gottman, The Marriage Clinic, 173. 261 Ibid., 97. 262Ceasar and Ducote. Partners on the Journey, 68
74 The research of Scott Stanley, who studied 135 couples over a twelve-year period, revealed many results. With his team at the University of Denver he discovered various factors that determined marital blessing and failure. One factor that became apparent is that friendship is an attribute most desired by couples: ‘What people seem to want most of all in a mate is a best friend for life.’263 He suggested that intimacy is an important factor in friendship.
One of the aspects of friendship that is the most powerful is that of deeper intimacy. Intimacy can take many forms. In part, this means being able to share what’s really in your heart and have it richly heard by another. That may mean revealing your hopes, fears, dreams and burdens. It’s also important to learn to hear you partner’s heart and to listen in ways that make it possible for him or her to readily share it.264
Like Gottman, Stanley noted several barriers to friendship including lack of time, reckless words, and talking only about problems. What he found also to be true was, ‘The strongest marriages we’ve seen have maintained a solid friendship over the years…(these marriages maintained) a deep respect for one another as friends, who freely share thoughts and feelings about all sorts of things in an atmosphere of deep acceptance.’265
Stanley suggests that, ‘Whether you are quiet-spoken or quite outspoken, a key to great friendship in your marriage will be in learning to share, and to listen carefully for, what’s within each other’s hearts.’266
Having deep meaningful conversations would seem to be an intuitive conclusion about being a soul-friend. Sue Johnson believes that all conversations are about
263 Scott M. Stanley et al., A Lasting Promise: A Christian Guide to Fighting for Your Marriage, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 223. 264 Ibid., 224. 265 Ibid., 226. 266 Ibid., 225.
75 attachment and security-forming deep-love relationships. These love relationships are
‘emotional bonds, just like the ones between mother and child. Just like John Bowlby said.’267 Bowlby developed the theory of attachment. Attachment theory is a
‘developmental perspective on personality that puts our emotions and our interactions with loved ones front and center in terms of who we are and how we behave.’268
Marriage for adults becomes that place of emotional bonding and a place of learning to bond to a significant loved one. ‘The marital relationship, representing as it does the primary adult emotional bond, is an area in which feelings and their communication play some of their most powerful roles. Because so much is at stake, feelings are evoked in marital relationship as in perhaps no other.’269 The content of the communication and conversations that take place between couples does not matter as much as the way couples are paying attention to this fundamental desire of all married couples to be attached and secure. This, for Johnson, forms the key to intimacy.
The content of the discussion is secondary to the often hidden meaning for closeness.270 Further, how this marriage attachment is secured in marriage as the ‘most acceptable social vehicle for human closeness’ will be the determining factor in how the couple fares in the wider context. ‘The dual psychological process of connecting and separating, joining and individuating, are central to marriage.’271 Johnson and Greenberg
267 Sue Johnson, Love Sense: The Revolutionary New Science of Romantic Relationships, (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2013), 32. 268 Ibid., 33. 269 Leslie S. Greenberg and Susan M. Johnson, Emotionally Focused Therapy for Couples, 1st ed. (New York: The Guilford Press, 2010), 3. 270 Sue Johnson, Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love, MP3 version, (Grand Haven, MI: Brilliance Audio, 2008). loc.10 min.ff 271 Greenberg and Johnson, Emotionally Focused Therapy for Couples, 18.
76 suggest that ‘Attachment needs are thus an essential aspect of adulthood and form the core of the emotional bond in close relationships.’272 Marriage partners need to be able to
‘say what they feel most deeply and what they think most profoundly without fear of rejection or fear of hurting the other. Buber has described this form of relating as the attainment of an I-thou dialogue.’273 Buber suggests that this dialogue possesses the qualities of ‘presence.’274 The experiences and practices of attachment-related emotions can create emotional bonds that have never been experienced and can also heal attachment damage from previous relationships gone bad.275
Gottman concludes from his research that there were very few deep conversations in the couples he observed and concluded that ‘Maybe it’s not the depth of intimacy in conversations that matters. Maybe it doesn’t even matter whether couples agree or disagree. Maybe that important thing is how these people pay attention to each other no matter what they’re talking about or doing.’276 What is apparent concerning connection is the need to have your spouse pay attention and give their presence which becomes more important than problem solving or having agreement. ‘In the day-to-day interactions, attachment concerns usually operate in the background of the partner’s awareness, while problem-solving concerns tend to occupy the foreground.’277 When attention and connection happen, the attachment needs are met with the consequence that
272 Ibid., 20. 273 Ibid., 20. 274 Ibid. 275 Susan M. Johnson and Leslie S. Greenberg, The Heart of the Matter: Perspectives on Emotion in Marital Therapy (New York, NY: Brunner Mazel, 1994), 5. 276 John Gottman, The Relationship Cure: A 5 Step Guide to Strengthening Your Marriage, Family, and Friendships, 1st ed. (New York: Harmony, 2002), 28. 277 Johnson and Greenberg, The Heart of the Matter, 49.
77 the foregrounded need of agreement on a problem becomes unimportant, as concluded also by Gottman. Being with, through attending and turning toward with ‘presence’ in dialogue, are the attachment and connection practices which form the principles and which make up an important piece of being a soul-friend in marriage. The quality of paying attention to each other and noticing the requests for attachment and security determines the level of connection the couple will have. Gottman calls this request for connection ‘bid’ making, which is a natural desire to feel connected.278 It is in noticing the request or bid, and turning toward the other, that connection, attachment and security begin to form a deep level of intimacy and friendship.
What has been apparent within Christian marriage resources and books is that they are, as Scott Stanley suggests, ‘based on the sound clinical and spiritual insights of their authors, not on empirical research.’ 279 Most are based on a psycho-educational approach to marriage with the premise that a good marriage is based on applying certain skills consistently and at the correct time and solving problems. Many of these approaches can work with couples who are doing well and are interested in improving their relationship, but do not hold the key to friendship. My review and/or application of many of these approaches in clinical work280 are based on methods and technique of skill-based
278 Gottman, The Relationship Cure, 29. 279 Stanley et al., A Lasting Promise, 1. 280 Tim Clinton and Julie Clinton, The Marriage You’ve Always Wanted: How to Grow a Stronger, More Intimate Relationship (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000)., Gary Chapman, The Five Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts by Gary Chapman (Chicago: Moody Publishing, 2010)., Linda L. Grenz and Glover, The Marriage Journey: Preparations and Provisions for Life Together, 2nd ed. (New York: Church Publishing, 2003)., David H. Olson and Amy K. Olson, Empowering Couples: Building on Your Strengths, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations, 2000)., Patricia Love and Steven Stosny, How to Improve Your Marriage Without Talking About It, Reprint ed. (New York: Harmony, 2008)., Howard J. Markman, Scott M. Stanley, and Susan L. Blumberg, Fighting for Your Marriage, 3rd ed. (San Franciso: Jossey- Bass, 2010).
78 intervention with couples and conversely between the couples. They focus on the foreground awareness of problem-solving which becomes the focus of marital teaching.
This does not address attachment needs and does not secure a level of connection and friendship that comes despite having problems. Gottman suggest that sixty-nine percent of all marital problems are perpetual.281 Furthermore, ‘over time most marital problems do not get solved at all,’282 with no amount of energy, time or teaching on solving difficulties bringing about marital satisfaction. These approaches do not necessarily or directly address the primary concern of attachment, security, and connection found in a soul-friendship. What this research project is building on is the work and research of John
M. Gottman and Sue Johnson, who both investigate a level of connection in couple relationships that is soul-friendship. This soul-friendship both theologically and now empirically, through the stories and experiences of five couples, will enrich our understanding of connection, attachment, and relationship of being a soul-friend in marriage. Using primarily the work of John M. Gottman, I will apply his Sound
Relationship House283 template to my interviews with couples. His Oral History
Interview and Sound Relationship House questionnaire with an additional questionnaire about marital friendship specific to this research will form the tools of our forming a profile of each couple.
281 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 130. 282 Gottman, Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically Based Marital Therapy, 16. 283 Gottman and Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute,Inc., 2012). Used with permission from John M. Gottman Ph.D and Judith Schwartz Gottman, Ph.D and the Gottman Relationship Institute, Inc.
79 Chapter 4: Methodology and Interviews
This chapter will present the research methodology, the method, the procedure, and the couples’ interview results. Tim Sensing suggested that ‘Practical Theology together as a discipline is its perspective on, and beginning-point in, human experience and its desire to reflect theologically on that experience.’284 This will be our working premise for our inquiry and with the specific theoretical principle that marriage is based on friendship,285 and being friends will determine the happiness, adjustment, connection and security of that marriage, form the foundation of this work. This research will investigate the human experience of being married and reflect psychologically and theologically on these experiences. The methodology will be primarily a qualitative study which:
...involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials - case study; personal experience; introspection; life story; interviews...that describe routine and problematic moments and meaning in individuals lives to gain a better understanding of the subject matter...286
‘The qualitative tradition recognizes the importance of the subjective human creation of meaning but does not reject outright some notion of objectivity.’287 In this research, building on the work of John Gottman, I will develop a profile of strengths and areas that need improvement288 from specific themes of each couple. The research will consider how both the subjective meaning and an objective tendency that can predict or at least
284 Tim Sensing, Qualitative Research: A Multi-Methods Approach to Projects for Doctor of Ministry Theses (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), xv. 285 Gottman, and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 19. 286 Sensing, Qualitative Research, 57. 287 Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with Practice, 1st ed. (New York: The Guilford Press, 2010), 63. 288 Gottman and Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute, Inc., 2012). 13-16
80 provide markers for teaching and helping couples to develop a level of friendship that secures their relationship going forward may be seen. ‘Individuals are perceived to be
“meaning makers” of the worlds they reside in: it is their lived reality that qualitative researcher seek to understand.’289 Qualitative research also ‘invites, encourages, and calls forth the full personal involvement and creativity of each researcher, and our analyses reflect each of us as persons doing research as they also illuminate the subject matter.’290
Years of personal clinical work with couples will inform the observation and contribute to evaluation of the themes, meaning they place on their marriage and help to design appropriate teaching and experiences as part of an intervention strategy.
Inside of the broad qualitative methodology is phenomenological research. This research methodology ‘views experience as always already meaningfully organized and therefore intrinsically intelligible without theoretical modeling, only in need of descriptive understanding and faithful conceptualization.’ Phenomenology has no desire to separate meaning from reality but rather to understand the reality of the experience alone.291 This research will be ‘phenomenological, (focusing on people’s actual lived experience/reality), interpretive, (focusing on their interpretation of acts and activities), and hermeneutic (incorporating the meaning people make of events in their lives).’292 In essence, as a researcher we enter the ‘text’ of the story to ‘comprehend the situation and
289 Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with Practice, 1st ed. (New York: The Guilford Press, 2010), 63 290 Frederick J. Wertz et al., Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry (New York: The Guilford Press, 2011), 280. 291 Tom O’Donoghue and Keith Punch, eds., Qualitative Educational Research in Action: Doing and Reflecting, 1st ed. (London: Routledge, 2003), 48. 292 Sensing, Qualitative Research, 56.
81 the person more fully, phenomenology became hermeneutical ‘when it argued that every form of human awareness is interpretive...phenomenology includes a descriptive element
(phenomenological) as well as an interpretive (hermeneutic) element.’293
Methods
This project will develop through, ‘detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships’294 of four couples, and an auto-biographical reflection of the data from the author and his marriage, for a total of five couples, a profile of elements that will be used for a marriage retreat curriculum. The methods include the following. 1. A semi-structured interview and discussion with each couple.
The ‘Oral History Interview’ was used with permission from the clinical practice and research of John and Julie Gottman. 295 ‘The main purpose of the interview is to obtain a special kind of information...we interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe…’296 2. A series of true/false inventories questionnaires from the
‘Sound Relationship House,’297 used to look at four specific areas of their relationship:
Friendship, Positive or Negative Perspectives, Regulation of Conflict, and the Ability to
Honor one another’s dreams. 3. A supplemental questionnaire with written responses
293 O’Donoghue and Punch, Qualitative Educational Research in Action, 51. 294 Sensing, Qualitative Research, 141. 295 John M. Gottman, and Julie Gottman. Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2. Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute, 2012. Used with permission, 7-1 296 Sensing, Qualitative Research, 104. 297 John M. Gottman, and Julie Gottman. Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2. Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute, 2012, 13-11
82 titled Appendix A, giving each member of the couple an opportunity to write about friendship in their marriage and the meaning of faith to it. 4.Clinical Observation and coding of the Oral History Interview. The observation of the participants during the interview will contribute to the meaning and understanding of their marriage. Specific coding and notes focused on seven areas of the relationship: Fondness and Affection,
Negativity Toward Partner, We-ness versus Separateness, Expansiveness versus
Withdrawal, Chaotic Relationships, Glorifying the Struggle, and Relationship
Disappointment or Disillusion. 5. Test results from the ‘Locke-Wallace Relationship
Adjustment Test’298 will give an objective measure of the Happiness and Adjustment of each marriage.
The summary of these experiences and practices, and the friendship it reveals, will help the research enter into the ‘layers of meaning that are present within the narratives.’299 The material these methods provide will also confirm specific aspects and themes of friendship, which we will compare to the score on the ‘Locke-Wallace
Relationship Adjustment Test,’ giving both a subjective and objective view. Further, the research will evaluate the meaning and importance of friendship and their stated importance with their relationship with God to continue to verify the link or not, to the happiness and marital adjustment. This ‘qualitative and thematic-based research from which themes are extracted from dialogue and behavior’300 will be our process. Several themes identified through the research of John M. Gottman will be our starting point. The
298 Ibid. 13-3 299 Ibid., 199. 300 Wesley R. Burr, Loren D. Marks and Randal D. Day, Sacred Matters: Religion and Spirituality in Families (New York: Routledge, 2011), 243.
83 research will also look for other specific and important meanings and themes that will contribute to the making of soul-friendship for couples. These methods as a form of qualitative research, “share a commitment to involving the people in the setting being studied as co-inquirers.” 301
Description of Participants
The participants of this study are four couples, and Fay and I. We will autobiographically reflect on the results of the other four couples. Each of these five marriages are at various stages and at various maturity levels of their faith together and are known to the researcher. Each couple is married and has an interest in the topic of friendship in marriage. This sample is considered a ‘purposive sample’ which is to ‘select people who have awareness of the situation and meet the criteria and attributes that are essential to
[the] research.’302
Procedure
This section will outline the actual procedure that was followed with each couple. Each couple was contacted and sent a letter of invitation, as well as the consent form, outlining the research project. After a positive response to participate in the research project, contact was made to set up a time and place for the interview and completion of the questionnaires. The interview began with the researcher using a template of the ‘The Oral
History Interview’. Each interview was recorded and lasted between one and a half to
301 Sensing, Qualitative Research, 59. 302 Ibid., 83.
84 two hours, and three of the four interviews took place in the couple’s home. One interview took place in the researcher’s office. Discussion flowed from the questions and responses to produce a very comfortable and fluid interview. After the interview, the researcher provided each member of the couple with a set of questions both from the
Sound Relationship House and Appendix B. Each member of the couple completed these questions without consultation with the other. As the couple was completing each questionnaire, the researcher completed the Oral History Coding Notes which themed the clinical observations of each couple. The coding and notes focused on seven areas of the relationship: Fondness and Affection, Negativity Toward Partner, We-ness versus
Separateness, Expansiveness versus Withdrawal, Chaotic Relationships, Glorifying the
Struggle, and Relationship Disappointment or Disillusion. Along with a 1–9 rating scale on each of these items, the researcher commented on each section. After the completion of the interview and questionnaires the couple was thanked and asked if there were any questions.
To summarize, this research will be phenomenological in the broadest sense of the word, interpretive and hermeneutic in its approach. These case studies and the results of the friendship of each will be complemented by using the ‘Locke Wallace Relationship
Adjustment Test.’303 This will give a quantitative evaluation of the level of happiness and relationship adjustment and will be used to compare the qualitative data collected from the questionnaires and interview. The best practices of marital friendship will be highlighted as used as the bases for our retreat curriculum.
303 Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Julie Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute,Inc., 2012) 13-3
85 We wish to answer the question: What is a biblical model and Celtic theology of friendship? This question was investigated in Chapters 1 and 2 of this project. How does this model and theology become embodied in couples? What experiences, meaning, and practices help and hinder, shape and enhance being and becoming a soul-friend? Do these influence marital happiness and adjustment?
By identifying broad themes, and by placing into categories the experiences and practices of marital friendship discovered through these cases, the research will be in a better position to establish a curriculum for teaching and guiding others. The practice of friendship and the experiences of each couple combined with the observation and conceptualization of these will inform our intervention. ‘The process is both descriptive and interpretive’304 and in essence, ‘Theory that follows practice can then assist in developing greater awareness. Therefore research as praxis...gives rise to theory.’305
Interviews and Questionnaire Results
The stories of these couples and the relationship of friendship, either well established and flourishing or recognized as important and faithfully walking toward that friendship, will be our focus. The thematic observation will support and clarify the meaning of friendship and the practices that create and maintain it. Each couple’s story will be presented, highlighting the themes that become significant for our study.306 I will begin each
304 Sensing, Qualitative Research, 161. 305 Ibid. 306 Each couples direct words, spoken or written, will be displayed in Italics
86 observation by summarizing the Oral History Interview using those themes that were most significant as highlighted on the Oral History Coding notes used by Gottman.307
Couple #1 - Gerry and Donna
Gerry and Donna were very engaged in the interview and described memories vividly and distinctly with much self-disclosure. They expanded on many situations and had a level of ‘we-ness’ emphasizing togetherness and shared beliefs, especially about faith, and similar values and goals. They also did not shy away from telling about the difficult times and how fighting and negativity had entered into their relationship with unexpected fighting, unpleasant life circumstances and relationship struggles. They also emphasized how they were learning to talk more calmly and work things out without fighting for the first time in their marital life. This is an important change in their relationship.
This couple’s journey has been characterized by a series of ups and downs. It began with the way they met where Donna really disliked Gerry, to some of the experiences of their short dating relationship. Gerry commented: It was a very contentious relationship.
We fought like cats and dogs as much as we enjoyed being together. Donna added: We would go into the prayer room and people would take bets as to who would come out alive. Family of origins were very different for Gerry and Donna. Donna was an only child and her father and mother were financially stable, generally providing whatever
Donna needed and wanted. Gerry, on the other hand, grew up in a fatherless single parent home that struggled financially. My Mom was always scraping to make ends meet.
307 Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Julie Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute, Inc., 2012). 7-9, 7-10
87 Donna’s father grew up poor also: My Dad grew up insanely poor...he and Gerry can really relate to each other because he knew how Gerry grew up and when my Dad became financially stable he did not want his daughter to go through the same life he and
Gerry went through. This financial reality from Gerry’s story of poverty, and Donna experiencing the reality of not wanting for anything, continues to be an area of challenge for this couple.
Gerry and Donna both expressed concern over the number of times they have moved in their married lives in chasing jobs. We moved 14 times in 25 years. Donna spoke of the significance of her parents moving away. That was 25 years ago and I still haven’t fully recovered from that...I didn’t leave home. My home left me. It was one of the most traumatic events of my life...I felt abandoned. This has left the couple without a sense of having and being home. This pulled the couple together into a sense of ‘we-ness’ and commitment to each other.
The illness of their new born child who almost died, and went without diagnosis for ten years, as well as severe personal illness on two occasions for Donna, were considerable challenges this couple faced. Their story speaks of how enduring life’s challenges and sticking together can produce and grow a friendship. In the truest sense this couple have survived difficult times, emphasized commitment, and are proud of their relationship. Gottman themes this particular attribute as Glorifying the Struggle.308 The struggles and challenges have cemented their relationship.
308 Gottman and Gottman, Gottman Method: Couples Therapy Level 2, 7–10.
88 This is what they said about their relationship of friendship and how they stay connected as friends. Gerry wrote:
Friendship is sharing life together, in fun, and in work. It includes laughter and a safe place for tears. Donna is my soul-friend, although we are very different she is my ‘home’ and safe person to be the real me with. We make each other laugh and take care of one another and look for opportunities to do and share together. As friends, we notice the needs of one another and try to meet those needs.
Our shared faith is probably our most central value. When stress and challenges have come, our faith has caused us to come back together and try again, even when we didn’t want to.
Praying for Donna’s healing (thyroid) was a defining moment for us. Seeing God move, as it were, between us, was a validation and affirmation of His love for us and our love for Him and for each other.
As friends we have connected through shared travel experiences, surprising one another, and in grief. Shared tears have always had a way of reminding us to value and comfort each other as friends. We also use humor a lot, and have many ‘inside’ jokes that are unique to us as a couple.
Donna wrote:
He is my best friend and at times has been my only friend. He understands me better than anyone and still likes me and loves me. Friendship is how we began and it is what we strive to grow as our love increases.
89 I remember one time when Gerry and I were first married we were having dinner at
Gerry’s mom’s house. She said something that both Gerry and I disagreed with. Instead of either of us saying anything we just looked at one another with a knowing look. We connected as partners and friends without saying a word. We have done this many times in our married life. We have a strong connection that is often not spoken but is there as a
“look.” That’s how I’ve always envisioned friendship to be. I have only had that with
Gerry.
Our faith is the reason we are still together. Our commitment to God - the promise we made to each other in front of God is why I am still married. Our faith is everything! God is who I go to when things are hard. God is who I go to when things are good. He is the center of our relationship, friendship and our love.
God has physically healed me, through anointing with oil and through a physician’s hands. Both times this has brought Gerry and I closer and in more awe of Him.
For most of our married life Gerry and I have only had each other. Both sets of parents were too far away and so were our friends. There were times the only other person we could talk to or relate to was each other. It helped us become closer friends and sometimes drove us apart. Either way our love and friendship grew.
Friendship for this couple includes connecting and paying attention to each other and meeting, to some degree, what the other wants from them, having a shared faith belief and commitment to God, and being safe with each other to laugh or cry, despite the challenges of life.
90 We can conceptualize themes from this interview and from their specific writing and see principles and practices for friendship. These contribute to our forming of a construct for soul-friendship. The first is the way the couple has learned to pay attention and connect through conversations about their life together. Gerry captured this regarding recent stressors: We had to have a lot of conversation we needed to have, so after 25 years we are learning. We are having a lot more conversational time together. The second is their shared relationship with God and the importance of a shared faith belief to their commitment to each other. Donna stated this clearly: If you are going to make a promise before God you better keep it. For me that is what it was and yes there were times when I wanted to pack a bag and say good-bye but that commitment to God kind of overshadows everything. It does not matter what you are going through, good or bad, that commitment that is unbreakable, even in death is unbreakable.
Third is the role of hardship and struggles to the deepening of friendship. This couple has had many challenging circumstances in their life but they have learned to be best friends and have, as Donna suggested in her notes, at times…been [each other’s] only friend. Their story is a story of perseverance.
Results of the Sound Relationship House Questionnaire
The summary results of the Sound Relationship House Questionnaire309 reveals a profile of couple strengths in their friendship and areas that need improvement that parallel the overall tone of the Oral History Interview.
309 This will be abbreviated and will be referred to as the SRH for the rest of this paper.
91 The SRH will be grouped into four parts for our review of each couple.310 The first consists of three levels that are about the relationship’s friendship. The second is the
Positive or Negative Perspective of the relationship. The third part has to do with the regulation of conflict. The fourth has to do with the couple’s ability to honor one another’s dreams and create shared meaning together, which is important as it also affects the relationship’s basic friendship.
What we see in part one for Donna and Gerry is that both the Love Maps profile, which identifies how current they are with each other and how well they know each other, and the profile of Fondness and Admiration, which is an expression of how much they value and appreciate each other, are strong. The third area or part of friendship is the profile titled Turning Toward or Away. This is an area that needs improvement as both members of this couple are quite different in their interests and likes regarding leisure, and have a hard time crossing over into the other’s space. The profile does reveal a willingness to turn toward each other with conversation about the day with interest.
The second part of the SRH reveals, for both, an area that needs improvement. This is the area of Negative Sentiment Override or an ability to frame the conversation and/or event in a positive way instead of defaulting to a negative perspective. This again relates to their working model of how they see themselves. Donna suggested a challenge with her negative self-talk and believing she is not a good mother. Gerry had little affirmation growing up until recently, where that began to change as he received affirmation through his education and his work. He is developing a more positive sense of self.
310 Gottman and Gottman, Gottman Method: Couples Therapy Level 2, 4–13.
92 The third part of the SRH is the Regulation of Conflict. This is an area that needs improvement in some areas but also shows this as an area of strength in others. Observing this couple and listening to their story, Gerry has a more positive view of conflict and how they regulate it than Donna, but both are improving this area and neither feels emotionally disengaged or lonely in these conflict discussions. This relates to their family of origin where Gerry regularly heard conflict and experienced fighting in their home but did not conclude it was a problem. Donna on the other hand did not witness conflict in their family and is learning how to deal with it in the marriage. Her perspective of conflict is worse than Gerry’s and her profiles indicated this.
The fourth area of the SRH is the couple’s ability to share in one another’s dreams and create shared meaning. This was also an important area of strength and affirms the level of friendship that they have for each other. They share a positive view of working together and honoring the dreams they each have, most recently to own their own home, setting down roots and making it into something they have always wanted. In summary, the profile for this couple affirms the strength of their friendship and also suggests the couple has conflict and at times are quite volatile towards one another. This is often mitigated by the depth of the friendship and their commitment to the marriage, which enables this couple to overcome their differences and find shared meaning, staying connected as friends.
The results of the Locke-Wallace Relationship Adjustment Test show scores for Gerry of 127 and for Donna of 100. The cutoff score is <85. If a score is less than 85, the marriage has adjustment issues and indicates a level of unhappiness. This couple scored
93 above the cut-off especially in Gerry’s case, which helps support our finding from the oral interview and the SRH questionnaire. The overall summary of this couple is one that, despite many challenges and through a faith in God, has developed a commitment to one another and which is growing in friendship and working through conflict and disagreement to find shared meaning.
Couple # 2 - Kyle and Maddie
This couple entered into the interview describing vividly and distinctly their story and did so with energy. They self-disclosed during our time together even if at times they recalled situations quite differently. This revealed a chaotic relationship of ups and downs often struggling for the relationship to survive. There were fights and conflict and they had to navigate difficult times, especially with Kyle’s workaholic tendencies and Maddie’s unique story from her family of origin. Through the years there were many relationship difficulties and the situation was often not what they thought it would be, having much relationship disappointment and disillusionment. The expression of fondness was not very apparent in the interview, and not a lot of physical affection was displayed. They sat together but were very careful not to touch each other. They expressed that for the first seventeen years of their marriage it was a series of ups and downs, but mostly a chaotic relationship struggling to survive. This has changed in the last three years where they have begun to repair and become hopeful, moving toward being friends. A sense of “we- ness” has entered into their conversation for the first time in their marriage rather than separateness.
94 The narrative of their story and the struggles they encountered as a couple became apparent in the interview. The relationship began very early as Kyle and Maddie grew up together in the same church. Maddie suggest that Kyle was a real flirt, and though quite a bit younger, over time, Maddie gave in to the flirting and they started dating when Kyle was 18 and Maddie was 21. Over time Kyle felt pressure about marriage so after he got a full time job, asked Maddie to marry him. Even though Maddie was surprised at the offer, she said yes. The honeymoon was not good and the couple fought constantly. Kyle suggested their first year of marriage was brutal, with a lot of big fights; screaming at each other. I thought she was crazy, and that our love for each other didn’t really start until two years ago. This pattern of fighting continued throughout their story. That combined with Kyle working too much, as far as Maddie was concerned, caused her to withdraw and put up a wall around her. This pattern of fighting, and negativity toward each other produced a chaotic relationship with much disappointment in each other.
The church and faith experiences did not help their marriage as they often found themselves in caustic situations and on different sides of conflicted relationships. Maddie suggested that as long as they didn’t talk about anything, and put it in the closet we were fine. But we weren’t.
Family of origin played a key part in constructing how Kyle and Maddie experienced marriage. Maddie was conceived out of wedlock to a young couple from a strict religious upbringing. As a result, when Maddie was born she felt like my mother resented me and as a result I was brought up with zero affection. Dad would pay attention to me by showing me how to do things. The way I was brought up is a huge part of me. This lack of
95 affection has spilled over into the marriage where Maddie resists all affection from Kyle, which has led to a distance in the relationship. Things are changing a bit but only for little moments of time. Kyle speaks of putting his arm around Maddie. She will let me for five minutes then she will have to move it. I don’t try often.
The marriage has endured a lot and for a long time and could have ended, but as Kyle said, It was her eyes, as he laughed. He then stated a philosophy and commitment to marriage that was both pragmatic, the same problems would occur in another marriage and I made a vow before God so I don’t walk out of that. It is the only thing for me.
Maddie suggested that she had a strong relationship with God that was good but sometimes the faith communities chased after the supernatural and imagination that was not good for the relationship. They would often lead worship together, but did not pray together or read the Bible together. That was always separate.
Maddie suggested the relationship started to change about three years ago. A light went on because our marriage was very dark, but it was like hope. Kyle added that their relationship began to change when he started really listening to Maddie. I left IBM, and also left the next employer. Kyle began to understand Maddie and changed how he listened and took influence from her.
Changes have also taken place in the area of affection where, in Kyle’s words, after
39 years of no affection Maddie is really working at it. Maddie clarified why receiving affection was so difficult. He betrayed me all those years... Friendship involves
Communication and Respect - always having the best interest of the person in mind for the other, talking and paying attention, valuing each other. Best friends - it sounds like a
96 simple word. I realize that we, over 17 years were never friends. It is something that is really important to me. To be friends you want to be together, laugh together. That simple word is a value to me. Kyle added: We are not there yet but are headed toward that. I am not good at connecting and sharing the way Maddie does with friends. It is weird to me.
The interview turned to what they are doing differently to stay connected. Maddie shared how she asks Kyle to have five questions ready to answer. Kyle commented on his willingness to call Maddie and tell her stories of his day that he never did before and that over time when something would happen I would want to tell her. Answering his phone is also an important thing Kyle started doing to be available to Maddie: I’m getting better at talking about stuff, but I need to be better about deeper things. I have been better at sharing about deeper things. Maddie added that he does not realize that a lot of time went by without much sharing taking place. This couple continued with some other specific ways they are connecting now. Having coffee in the morning together for an hour, just talking, traveling together without the kids. Connecting through their home, especially for
Maddie, is a symbol of change in their relationship. After a fire burned their house down this new home became a symbol of their new way of doing marriage.
In considering why marriages make it or not, Kyle mentioned faith as being important: I think faith puts people a leg ahead in making a decision about marriage when you don’t have any feeling toward it, it helps… If you are going to pull the plug the first time because it seems insurmountable, then I don’t think you’re going to survive long term, but if there is something, and for us that is faith...when you say for better or for worse you are going to hold through. Generally, over time you find your way through it
97 and generally most people don’t wait long enough to find their way through it. For most of our time together we both would say that the other is not the person we wanted to be with, but now we would both say the opposite, that we are the person we want to be with.
Maddie: I think it’s a choice. We had a choice but we continually chose to keep going and
I had a hope it would always get better…belief that if we separated and got divorced there would be a sense of disappointment. Kyle's mom is a person who gives me hope.
[She hangs in there even though] Kyle’s dad does not try. Kyle: We are both trying equally hard. It doesn’t always show but we both are trying hard. I made a decision to stick to it and was heavily influenced by faith. We are understanding each other and we are working at it - both working at it. I expected to love as Christ loved the church and got nothing in return. The great secret is if you stick with that person and keep trying and keep trying it will actually be much sweeter than anything else could.
This couple is working out their marriage. They have had many ups and downs and they would suggest mostly downs in the first seventeen years, but are realizing the importance of friendship and are learning how to be friends. Through relationship disappointment and disillusionment, through struggles and fighting, combined with negativity and limited fondness and affection, this couple is learning how important friendship is and both are working at what it takes to become soul-friends. One of the last comments they made as we ended the interview is worth noting for our discussion later.
Kyle said: It has been sad that, being in the church for all these years and hearing teaching and being under instruction, that it took so long to get these realizations.
Maddie: We put so much work and faith in the church building... if the church was bad we
98 and our faith was bad. How did we get there? It is interesting how we have perspective now.
This is what they both wrote about this journey of friendship. Kyle: Friendship is very important! I believe it is critical to a successful marriage. For most of our marriage
I have been largely unsuccessful at building a meaningful friendship with Maddie, but am learning to do that now. We are getting closer to having a deep friendship, but I wouldn’t say we are there yet.
I can remember times where we were close through tough situations (house fire, sickness...etc) and good situations (children, anniversaries…) and this keeps me hopeful of having a meaningful relationship.
Many of our fights were rooted in opinions of faith-related things, however, it is faith that kept both of us from throwing in the towel. I have had meaningful times of prayer and worship through music with Maddie that I find to be significant which has helped us build the relationship that we do have.
Children, music, love for the outdoors, dreams, have all been experiences that help connect us as friends. Going through the house fire together brought us closer. Me quitting my job at [a film company] brought us closer. Me going to counselling and trying to connect in areas I’m weak on have all contributed to our relationship.
Maddie: Friendship and commitment go hand in hand. Kyle and I enjoy leisure activities together - boating, nature, even holidays, etc. But, we’ve come to realize the importance of the “emotional” aspect of friendship and we are working on this. I do think Kyle is a soul-friend, so therefore also a best friend.
99 We haven’t done such a great job with the emotional part of friendship, but we are getting better and both desire to be better friends. We recognize it takes effort.
We are both very much committed to grow together in our faith. We recognize that need to put more effort in communication. But we do enjoy talking and sharing about our faith. We’ve had some great moments in our spiritual journey of recognizing our connection with God together. [For example] After the house fire we knew God’s protection over us how we were spared the loss of the dog. Also, God’s direction for our lives following the next year. As we prayed and trusted God we both knew He was guiding us.
We’ve had many moments in nature and sailing that we both connected in our faith.
These moments are important because as we connect with God together - we also feel more connected. Spending time together in nature and boating always brings us closer together because we leave the cares of the world behind and simply dream together.
We also connect watching a movie together (even though we aren’t talking during), the discussion following is always very meaningful. We often discuss “what if” the story of the movie were us? Music together and things like making our maple syrup, or cooking a meal together, yard work, (or other home projects).
We see in this narrative the repetition of the themes identified from our first couple.
The first is the way the couple has learned to pay attention and connect through conversations about their life. Something they are learning to do for the first time in their marriage that has helped with “emotional” connection. The second is their relationship with God, often experienced and practiced alone except for public worship leading. This
100 faith was very important to their commitment to each other, even as they learn to share that experience of prayer and talking about the Word together. Faith has kept them together. Third is the role of hardship and struggles to the deepening of friendship. Most recently the house fire was a significant time of coming together and relying on their faith to secure them together.
Another important theme worth noting in both of these couples is how fighting, yelling, and chaotic conflict has either harmed their relationship, as in Kyle and Maddie, or has keep them from conversation, as in Gerry and Donna.
Results of the Sound Relationship House Questionnaire
The profile of Kyle's SRH resulted in three of the four parts indicating areas of concern.
Kyle’s evaluation of his history with Maddie had led to deficits in their friendship, a negative perspective and an inability to deal with conflict well. Part four is more hopeful and shows the beginning of basic respect and friendship in honoring each other’s dreams, beginning to create shared meaning and having common beliefs and values.
These results were also confirmed somewhat in the Locke-Wallace Relationship
Adjustment Test where Kyle scored below the cut-off of <85. His score was 53 indicating a marriage needing adjustment and a relationship needing work. On the subtest indicating how happy he was in the marriage on a scale of 1-7, from Very Unhappy to Perfectly
Happy, Kyle indicated a 5 out of 7. This would seem to indicate an area of hope, seeing the current steps forward toward friendship this couple has made.
Maddie’s profile was more mixed than Kyle’s. In part one, which indicates the level of friendship, two of the three profiles indicated strength areas. Part two, the area of a
101 positive or negative perspective, was an area of concern, indicating a negative perspective. Part three, which deals with the regulation of conflict, was primarily a concern as well with 8 of the 10 profiles being an area of concern. Part four was an area of strength, which indicates the beginning of basic respect and friendship in honoring each other’s dreams, beginning to create shared meaning and having common beliefs and values.
These results were also objectified somewhat in the Locke-Wallace Relationship
Adjustment Test where Maddie scored just above the cut-off of <85. Her score was 89 indicating that there is more work to be done in the relationship. On the subtest indicating how happy she was in the marriage on a scale of 1-7, from Very Unhappy to
Perfectly Happy, Maddie indicated a 4 out of 7. Again, this may indicate an area of hopefulness in the current situation and in the current steps forward toward friendship this couple has so far made.
Couple # 3 - Ted and Jill
This couple, like the previous two, entered into the interview describing memories vividly and distinctly. They were positive and energetic and were very personal about their story self-disclosing throughout. Jill and Ted expressed much fondness and affection to each other and laughter was part of our interview experience. This couple had a clear sense of “we-ness” and emphasized throughout the importance of their togetherness and a priority around the importance of their relationship as they share this value and many other beliefs and goals. There was no negativity expressed toward each other during the
102 interview and difficult times were talked about with calm and reason. Their lives together had very little history of fighting, negativity, or relationship disappointment or disillusion.
They did experience hard times and emphasized commitment as they survived these difficult times and were proud of each other because they did.
The narrative of the story and the experiences they had together through their fourteen years of marriage were recalled with a sense of meaning. Even difficult times were shared with a sense of connection to each other. They recalled meeting at graduate school and how they quickly began seeing each other often. In two weeks we were dating.
Eleven months later we were married. They spent much time together and got to know each other very well before the wedding. The introduction of Ted to the family was not smooth. Ted, being a philosophy major, presented as such and the “look” didn’t go over well with Dad. This resulted in some family tension and withholding of the blessing for the marriage. Ted: I wanted to be approved of as a person and I did not get that. This caused Jill to be angry and disappointed for a number of reasons. This family dynamic did not tear in anyway at the fiber of the friendship between Jill and Ted. Jill: He did better with it than I did. Ted: I understood it. The dynamic with Jill’s parents was challenging in the beginning of their marriage. The first year of marriage was the last year of college in Denver. One of Jill’s professors suggested to her that because of the strong positive connection with her family and with her parents, a firm foundation was laid for a solid marital relationship with Ted from the beginning. Jill: Our first year of marriage was a blast. We would work hard, study hard and ski every Monday. Ted: Living together was seamless. Some people get irritated about being in each other’s space. We
103 didn’t feel that way at all...we were older. Jill: We knew ourselves. This is who I am, the good the bad and the ugly. Take it or leave it. I wasn’t putting on airs. The couple recalled only fighting once over something they can’t remember. Jill got in the car and drove but good friends drove up and told her, basically, you have got to get over yourself. Ted: … and you came back. The conversation turned to trying to figure out why that event was so upsetting and it came down to Ted not reciprocating in words the love Jill had expressed.
Ted wasn’t going to tell her until he was going to marry her. Jill: So we fly to Trinidad to get married and he says it. Ted: Love is always a commitment and it’s a philosophy thing.
Words have power and those words have been a little lost in our culture. Jill: He took it too far. It was a little ridiculous…We had already booked the church and put a down payment on my dress before he said he loved me...a little ridiculous. Jill was laughing as she was talking about this. Ted: I still don’t apparently say it enough.
The dynamics of the family changed over time. Mom would poke me about Ted and I would defend him and she would say that I got a little defensive. I responded with telling her that‘You and dad are not my primary family. Ted is.’ She later apologized to Jill and later, upon the arrival of a grandchild, she also apologized to Ted. Their blessing came to
Ted in an unusual way. While being stuck on a chair lift for 45 minutes, Jill’s father said to Ted, “I just want to let you know I was not sure at the beginning but you are perfect for my daughter.” I didn’t know how powerful an apology could be. A healing time for the family.
The next challenge and major life event for this couple was the decision to have children and the reality of being parents. Being a parent was a very difficult time. Ted: I
104 grieved the loss of my life for the first year. I shut down. Jill: Some people say their kids are their life. I recognize the kids are with me for a length of time and that this relationship is the most important. If this is not good then they’re not going to be good.
Ted: Even to this day we put the kids to bed relatively early because we want to, and we sit in the same room together. We value our time together. Jill: We still have a life together. Ted: We wanted our time at home so we would invite people in because we can put the kids down and relax for the rest of the evening so we were very guarded with that…our lives do not revolve around our kids—they are part of our lives...we are not child centered. We are the primary relationship and they are part of us.
As we talked about difficult times we investigated how they navigated through them as a couple. School is important for Ted. They enjoy traveling together, sailing with their parents and for the most part these experiences have been great except for a backpack trip to Europe. Ted wanted to get there and have everything planned. Jill was quite different, being much more easy going. This brought several stories and laughter, even though it was a challenging time. Ted was not an easy person to be around until they arrived at their destination. Jill: Ted was a grump and a jerk. Ted: I agree. So the second time I planned the trip and it was seamless. We learned some very valuable things. She lets me plan the vacations. The researcher asked about how they were able to repair or fix the damage because of this trip and other challenges. Ted: I think we are pretty good at saying I’m sorry. Jill: Ted is better at that than I am because he has more to apologize about [much laughter]. Ted: That’s true. Jill: I think early on in our relationship we were very intentional about keeping short accounts and taking care of things. Jill: Early in our
105 marriage we would fight over our love languages so he took a course. Ted: a course on how to manipulate people and it worked. Jill: It didn’t last.
How do we stay connected? Ted: Formation for me has moved me sideways and you learn how self-absorbed you are. Faith is a challenge but most days I am at peace with this process of becoming. I am more aware now that I should say that there are more moments. I was thinking today about coming home to a great meal. She is a great cook and that comes from Colossians 3 where thankfulness is the huge meta narrative, ‘are you thankful for the things and people in your lives’, and thanking Jill for making the meals… I love suppers. It is sacred and we eat together as a family almost every night.
There is a theology of the table for me and it is very important. We have always ate [sic] together. Jill: Even when we were in college we ate together. Ted: The other thing we decided was never to have a television in our bedroom. The bedroom is for two things and they both begin with S: sex and sleep. It is also a sacred space. Jill: It concerns me when I hear of couples getting a TV and they put it in their bedroom, for the bedroom is for two things: sex and sleep. Jill: He is more aware of me, we usually go out to a meal to celebrate or just going out as a special moment when we are together.
Jill introduced the topic of Ted’s emotional illness which was a difficult time in their marriage: I left pastoral ministry and went to Denver coming out of a depression. Jill:
Our depression wasn’t too far off. Jill: I asked him if he had a tree. It was one of the hardest things I had to ask him, and because of my education, I knew enough to be concerned. Ted: That was the second time I had depression. I was in pastoral ministries in Ontario and I became more frustrated and trapped in all of that. Jill: It goes back to
106 significance. Ted: You have no significance. You are a cog in a machine. Depression is like circling a toilet bowl, you can feel yourself going down. Jill: I was trying to give him his space to deal with that. Ted: I would tell her it was not about you. Jill: He had
Fridays off and he was the grumpy monster with us...We’re not the enemy but you treated us as one.
Over time, what helped Ted and Jill get through the ups and downs of depression over a number of years was support of older friends who went through a similar battle with depression. Support from Eugene Peterson gave perspective on the work situation that helped Ted make a decision and from the experience and teaching of Renovaré. Ted: I started reading Dallas Willard again, reconnected again, and silence and stillness becomes an important part of my life, and to this day it centers me. It doesn’t mean that the depression piece is a play because there are times when I still feel it, but going into it is different...that was our hardest time in marriage. Jill: That was about three years...I am a turtle when it comes to arguing...because we never talked about the triggers and the slippery slope was apparent. I was getting frightened...after an event with our daughter where I displaced my anger on her, I turned to Ted and said I am tired of being angry. Ted went to Renovaré and he literally came back a different man. He got affirmation from what he was doing. You were 38 when you did that. Jill recalled the story of the man who was crippled for 38 years and Ted, who was 38, put himself in the story and shared that he felt like he was crippled for 38 years and now the scales were coming off. There was enlightenment and spiritual awareness. So definitely the spiritual formation for him was a healing in our relationship at a different level. Not only did I get him back but a better
107 version of him back. He is the most authentic person I have ever met. He is a good man and generous and thoughtful and giving [Ted laughs]. It’s true. Ted: We try now to be pretty open [with any triggers]. When I left teaching I struggled, so I tell her that I am not well. It is the spinning of thoughts... I love orthodoxy, and the Jesus prayer has been significant for me. In the sense of centering prayer it is the cessation of thought and you go into your heart. This summer when I’m at work and a thought comes that is not helpful, I stop and pray, “Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.” Ted continued to talk about the role of this simple prayer and other prayers that have helped center him and make his overall spirituality simpler. This formation included a need to see Jesus in a person and the role of seeing Jesus through Dallas Willard has been significant for Ted. I think as you get more in touch with your soul and the depth and clarity of triggers and why you are the way you are... I would say that joy, not as an emotion but as a pervasive sense of wellbeing, that I have experienced for one of the first times in my Christian experience, I have experienced this pervasive sense of wellbeing, and peace and hopeful… I am a big person when it comes to hope and I think that in the life of the soul that this gave me a sense of hope in this life, and that we don’t have to be, and that actually that Jesus expects us to become something different in this life, and that we exist for love and the good of other people, and that has radically changed how I see
(others). I think to a certain degree at home there is a sense of God calls us to love. Who is the good person? Jesus says it is the person who loves. Why? Because it is the antithesis of selfishness and of giving yourself away for the good of other people. These were concepts that revolutionized my faith. Ted talked about loneliness in his life also as a
108 result of several things: difficulty with institutions, a death of a close spiritual friend who committed suicide, and another, a mentor, who threatened suicide, which has not been reconciled in his heart yet with all the faith-forming practices that we talked about. Ted:
Faith is pretty much all I talk about. Life with God, and it has come into our relationship, and we talk a lot more about it. She reads on it and I think those practices have radically effected this house for whatever reason.
Jill: With maturity Ted loves me in other ways other than my love language. I see that and appreciate that and I know it, and there is a growth in that and other things have strengthened our relationship. Ted: Life with God...and when that is clicking, as you seek the kingdom of God first everything else falls in place. When life in God is not clicking, the dark night of the Soul... that is the falling back. Ted also spoke of the importance of the mind and heart and said: If you descend into your heart you are with God. Ted later spoke about how God takes you if you let him into a life of change that happens naturally.
There is something taking place at a deeper level.
Ted: The other piece is that the one thing I like about Jill is she grounds me. I can spiral intellectually and go sit on a pole for 40 years. I would be happy doing that. Her love of life, and for me…love has been an intellectual concept but I married someone who actually loves to love other people. She is hospitable. This home is the inflow of people.
She exists for the goodness of our family. That is love worked out, this is. I don’t expect
Jill to read my books. I actually wouldn’t want her to be an egghead because she lives it out. It is far more natural without all the technical terms. She is the incarnation of it. So
109 that for me is something that I observe and appreciate and one of the things I see - that love, and it is a constant. It is God. It is God!
I asked why do you think some marriages work and some fail. Ted suggested they fail because of selfishness. Our culture is selfish so marriages are destined to fail. Jill referred to the beginning of their marriage and family of origin. Jill: It comes from trust and respect and commonality of values. We wrote out values...and shared them...nothing was surprising on our list...respect and trust. Ted: We would never publicly shame or privately shame one another. We would never work out our stuff in public... Marriage for us is a lifetime; there is the Christian understanding of marriage. For me it is a commitment before God that I will exist for the good of this person. Jill: When we started using that language of ‘existing for the good of the other’ and started using it with our children as a family, not that we do it all the time, but you have that as something you live for…Trust and Respect and common values. I joke about this but when we were dating
Ted borrowed mustard from a friend of ours. We went grocery shopping together and there was a lot of ‘buy one get one free’ and he said, “that is a lot of mustard but I used more of Brian’s than I meant to so I am going to give him a brand new one back.” I was raised to give people back...what you borrowed the same or better...so when he did that I knew I could marry this man over mustard. It was a shared value of how you treat people.
Ted: The family systems we came from were so closely connected which I think is why we had such an easy transition, the family dynamics. Jill: Except for the financial piece our families were very similar.
110 I asked about what they saw in their parents’ marriage that they brought to theirs. Jill:
I saw mutual respect for my parents...and we didn’t see them argue with one another. I didn’t see them fight...They also said that those that play together stay together and we try to play together, dates together, ski together, travel, and enjoy life.
The biggest challenge the family is dealing with, in regard to a shared family of origin, is that they are not going to church and wrestling with the reality, wondering if the kids are going to be better off or not. Ted suggested that, our families of origin revolved around the church...our life is not centered around the church, and we are going to spend time getting to know our neighbor and loving our neighbor and being, rather than going to, an institution, so those are some differences and...that is what concern us.
Ted: Consciously I think we get along like our parents get along...our parents have wonderful marriages…it is who my mom and dad were. My memories early on are of my parents reading their Bibles and praying in bed and that is more powerful than seeing them in the pew and those disciplines were part of their life and I saw that. I am still a
Christian today because of that. It is real…and at the core these people loved Jesus. How they raised their children is simply relying on grace...The spiritual influence of our parents has been a significant influence on our relationship. Because that is one of our core values of marrying someone who knew Jesus and not dating someone who didn’t.
Jill: That’s the same thing with my parents. If my mom had to talk to me about something she would be on her knees praying for 40 minutes before she would talk to me.
Ted: That is legacy stuff.
111 How do you stay connected? Jill: We try and go out, just the two of us...probably happens every six weeks. Ted: go to a meal. Jill: Food is important to us. Food and wine, and enjoying it together. Interesting that one place we go to...this one waitress, the first time we went there we had been there about an hour and a half and we were there for two and a-half hours total. And we are just talking and talking. She asked ‘Is this a special celebration, and anniversary or whatever?’ No. And he must have been working because when he works he doesn’t wear his wedding ring, and she asked ‘Are you married?’ Yes, and to each other...and she felt she had asked a lot of personal - too many questions and clarified, ‘I just find that people who are married do not talk to each other’. Ted: That was her observation. Jill: ...She just saw us talking for over two hours like newlyweds.
Ted: I think that the most significant conversations about life come from that, as we block off the whole evening to eat together...it’s the night, so a long conversation about faith, family and how we are doing. Ted: I also find it helpful for her if she checks in with me from time to time to ask, ‘How is your head space?’ You may not want to know…. Jill: I have had to learn to be patient as… Ted: I am an internal processor. Jill: I am an external processor. Ted: If she asks me a straight forward question I will answer it, but I don’t know how to bring it up…Those type of check in pieces are helpful for the relationship.
Do you actively soothe him? Jill: No I do not do that... I know what things are good for you. Ted: Let’s go sit on the deck, we invite each other to go [pause] I love sitting on the front veranda.
This is what they wrote about their friendship in marriage.
112 Ted: Friendship, the ability to sit in a room when no one is talking and experience presence and love shared. Friendship is the by-product of the “with God life.” As I experience God as friend, I find a deepening of all my significant relationships.
Friendship in marriage is Trinitarian. When we experience life in and with God the shared love forms new bonds with others. Marriage becomes an expression or incarnation of the Triune relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is life with God as it was intended to be. (Ted drew a triangle with the trinity as one corner, Jill in the other and Ted in the other, all joined through love.)
I would describe Jill as a soul-friend because I experience her love as incarnation.
He meets me in my deepest place through her. In living life with her, she grounds me. This grounding is an experience of soul.
I simply love being with Julie. She is my companion. I love being with her in all my experiences. Our meal together...good food and wine and conversation are some of my favorite “friend” memories and present experiences. Enjoy life de-cluttered...stripped down...being together...sharing space...being comfortable when nothing is being exchanged but presence together. Enjoy traveling with her and experience other cultures together continues to get better (especially when planned properly.) :)
Faith is at the core of our relationship. It shapes our values. Who we are becoming
(without “trying”) is the most significant influencer on a growing friendship (a deepening of friendship). We are the best possible versions of ourselves when we are living life with God. He loves and deepens relationship and friendship.
113 Jill: I am very selective on who I call my friend. My parents expressed their relationship in terms of “lovers” and “best friends.” I too would say that Ted is my best friend and lover. Ted is the one friend that I don’t get bored with. He intrigues me and I find him funny, thoughtful, kind, respectful, talented, smart and good. He is a man of strong faith. I admire his discipline and pursuit of Jesus.
Trust was an issue for me with friends. I value the trust we have in our friendship and
I see it and experience everyday. Ted’s pursuit of “spiritual formation” has transformed and rejuvenated our family. Our conversations have changed. I believe they are of deeper significance with regard to our place in the Kingdom of God. That reality affects our home life, our relationship with outside family, friends, neighbors and strangers.
Honestly, Ted’s depression brought positive growth and change in our friendship with each other and our relationship with Jesus that is truly lovely. Our darkest time brought clarity, change and connectedness.
We see in the narrative of the Oral History Interview, the repetition of the themes identified from our first two couples. The first is the way the couple has learned to connect through conversation about their lives together and how they value each other’s presence. In Ted and Jill’s story they value the relationship and intentionally create time and space for being together as a routine. A very meaningful connection happens as they are in each other’s presence. The second is the importance of a relationship with God, and how their faith has strengthened their commitment to each other. This was a value clearly caught from their parents’ marriages. Third is the role of hardship and struggles in the
114 process of deepening of their friendship. They have battled depression together and yet can talk about it and are aware of a lingering presence in their lives.
I would suggest a significant fourth additional theme consistently observed in Ted and
Jill. The intentional practice of seeking to know God and being formed by Him as individuals has flowed into dialogue, connection and a forming together as soul-friends.
The conversation about their experience with God and the practice of their faith together was strong. Throughout the interview, I witnessed a connection that was deep. They lived the stated purpose of their family as stated in the interview, ‘We exist for the good of the other.’ This was very apparent and very significant for our study. Another observation that is noteworthy is the lack of conflict and negativity in their conversations. They disagree and did so during our interview, but without any type of criticism or negativity. They often saw in the conflict a way of understanding something more about each other.
Results of the Sound Relationship House Questionnaire
The results of Ted and Jill’s SRH and all four parts were very positive. They were extremely strong in all four parts, with one exception: for Ted, some of the details of Jill’s early life and knowledge of movie choices in the ‘love maps’ of friendship, and for Jill, the area of compromise was still an area she saw as needing improvement. Except for these two subsets, each area of the SRH was a strength.
These results were also objectified in the Locke-Wallace Relationship Adjustment
Test. Both couples scored 144. This score was well above the cutoff of <85 and confirmed a very high level of marital adjustment and satisfaction, confirming our clinical observations and SRH results.
115 Couple # 4 - Mike and Sarah
Similar to the previous couple, Mike and Sarah entered into the interview describing memories vividly and distinctly. They were positive and energetic and were very personal about their story, self-disclosing throughout. Mike and Sarah expressed much fondness and appreciation for each other and smiled at each other throughout the interview process. This couple had a clear sense of “we-ness” and emphasized throughout the importance of being emotionally present and processing life with each other. They lived well together, planning very purposefully time to talk, pray, walk, and enjoy each experience as a way to grow and connect as friends. Like our other couples, they share life’s most important values, beliefs and goals. There was no negativity expressed toward each other during the interview and difficult times were talked about as challenging but also meaningful for being together. Their lives together had very little history of fighting, negativity, or relationship disappointment or disillusion.
Mike and Sarah met at high school and enjoyed each other’s company right from the beginning. Mike: We were compatible right off the start. I was highly verbal and Sarah was quiet. We felt something at the same time. We were spending time together at a planning meeting to go on a missions trip. That’s how we connected. We loved the Lord together and had a strong faith journey.
After knowing each other for five and a half years they got married and moved to college. They found humor in Mike’s sleep walking, and were a team doing things together. They also had challenges as a couple. One of the challenges, shortly after being married, was the loss of Mike’s sister. Mike: Grieving together and, as I am naturally
116 verbal, talking about it together was good for us. She is my greatest friend and helper.
Other challenges included losing their first baby, and how when they did have a child they protected [the child] as a fragile glass. Sarah: Mike was kind of left out as I didn’t always have room for Mike and we were on our own. Mike: It was a daily trial and error as our child was sick and it was difficult on everyone. Humor helped us in difficult times.
I asked how they stayed connected. Mike: Every day we had quality time, sometimes we walked and hiked together and talked about many thoughts and dreams. We camped together and the many routines of life. We ‘tracked’ together.
What does it mean to track together? Sarah: I think it was all of those stages of life as we met and both had a desire to track with God at an early age. Where we were at, maturity, and family background, and youth pastor inviting us into his family, so at the beginning stage for our relationship to want God to be part of it. Mike: I mean we, were both disciples then and set out on a journey to follow Him. We met each other and fell in love and courted one another, and all these thing align. I wanted to track with Sarah as I was interested in her and her life and vise-versa. The Lord was part of our paradigm.
How did you track together? Mike: Quality time, spending time talking, listening, sharing and relating and just the presence of being with one another. If I think about it now with all these demands, being parents and the kids, and all these demands, it is easy to let life happen around you, or you can be conscious and intentional about being alone and not be distracted and being vulnerable about one another and relation listening and praying... but relating our whole selves, the more private areas of relating the more vulnerable areas of our lives, the good, bad, and the ugly—it is interesting. It all mirrors
117 together. When we are safe and secure in our love for each other and with the Lord, and confident in that love, we are safe and we can come as we are with no judgement, fear, or shame and just vulnerable. It is a beautiful thing if you can accept that, and the key is to preserve that for one other. Sarah: Yes, cultivating it, feeding it, and I think paying attention to the little things, and always caring enough to notice the little things, the idiosyncrasies, and allowing yourself to enter into what your spouse is going through whether you agree or not. Mike: We still come at things obviously independently, you know, in our lives. It is at this stage we have different working fields and unique perspectives and it is in sharing and coming together, and the complementary... the oneness that is formed out of two distinctive people. Again I asked about the process of paying attention and staying connected specifically for them as a couple. Mike: We use the mundane things. We redeem washing the dishes ...this is a particularly busy season but we can still find meaningful moments throughout the day, all be it shorter moments, but we can still be just as intentional. We recognize it is a season and small amounts of time can be good quality time if we are aware of the importance to it. The researcher asked about conflict and if they had much of it. Mike: Yea, I think we went through seasons of conflict, certainly... I think we, when we move into conflict we generally think similarly on a lot of things. Sarah: It wasn’t always that way. Mike: No. The passage of time has helped with that. Early on when you get in conflict with one another it is partly based on not having the tools to resolve. You are reacting to things but don’t have the maturity or tools to move to a resolution of that problem. That reaction and this is bugging me and you get caught in the cycle of those things, but I think with better
118 communication tools along the way our conflict, our points of conflict, are fewer. Sarah:
Much fewer, and well, we just didn’t give up and let the conflict take over our relationship. I guess we were both stubborn enough to be like ‘we are going to do this right the next time so let’s keep at the communication and keep trying’, so that when it comes around again we want to do better, and understand each other more, and not blow-up or react, and not just think of yourself, but to put yourself in each other’s position or shoes. I asked, ‘Why did you do that, why did you figure it out?’ Mike: Well I don’t know if I had a well formed answer for this, but if you love someone it is a much bigger base and foundation for your relationship for any conflict. Researcher: But wouldn’t everyone say they love each other going into a marriage? Sarah: Yes, but the definition is so different...I think we both wanted to get it right and think we both wanted it to be right. I think some I see really don’t want to get it right, they want what you want.
Mike: I think that is right because people have their own summation of what they think the covenant is. They wouldn’t even call it a covenant, contract ... what people enter into today as marriage is very different than what is biblical. Researcher: And that was really important to you to find that model from your parents, and you formed a model. Sarah: I think it was real intentional and compared to our coworkers, what they say about marriage is that it is an accessory, but Mike and I didn’t see it like that. It was going to be a complete marriage where we were going to be as...the trinity. That was perfect, which was our aim for the entire time, a lifelong partner, and our intention to make it a marriage that is fully devoted and committed. And life is not easy but we will work at this to make it what God intended marriage to be like, instead of what I want in this life, and
119 you are a nice accessory handbag and if it suits what I have decided what they will be and if they don’t they don’t…(‘you buy another bag’)...yea. Mike: The Lord has been good. He has been perfect in our weaknesses, and I think when we’re surrendered and when I think our marriage is surrendered to Him, He has provided the help and the grace to be where we are today. It is kinda like raising your kids, and I am not that good a parent but at the end of the day, I am intentional but I have many short comings as a parent but the Lord is gracious and he does the biggest work of changing us. He is still good. I can’t help but point to Him and say “thank you Lord for my marriage” and [I’m] thankful of Sarah and for the person she is and her heart and attitude of service to me and to our family. And bigger than those things is the Lord’s help and His grace and strength. Sarah: And it is ever evolving…our marriage is. It is never at one point. Invest more and do better and communicate in new ways as life is not stagnant and people aren’t… Mike: You take a deep breath and do your Hail Mary and that is true...but I am at a stage in my own personal walk that I have greater confidence in His kingdom and I walk in greater confidence, and that is a new theological perspective for me, and so I can’t help but say how much that is changing me and it is flowing into my marriage. So,
Sarah: That has been your personal walk but you have shared that journey with me. It is not something that happens in isolation and Mike becomes a different person, but we talk about these things every day. What is God doing today? What is he saying to us? And we are both listening together and growing together, both personally, but sharing that and journeying together. We get together so there are no surprises. You get to the end of the day and have touch points and we understand where we are at. The constant
120 communication and connection maintains our walk together. Mike: And that is friendship, right? That is the cool thing about this, that Sarah is my lover and my friend.
It is like your kids. I love my kids but I like them. I love Sarah but I like her, and when you have that...the different dynamics at play… Sarah: I think if you acknowledge that your friendship and your marriage is enhanced by the actions it is not really selfish, but your desire is for that to grow your friendship and be deeper and you see the payoff which seems shallow, but the habit is doing exactly what your heart desires and giving you exactly what you want in your marriage. It becomes natural and you can’t help but do it anymore. The researcher asked if they brought things from their parents’ marriages.
Sarah: Yes and no. Mike: You observe the big picture stuff and realize they are imperfect people, like us...relating the same thing as parents. You may not want to do that and say the same things about my parent’s marriage. Some I have modeled that were lived out before me that I affirm and live out today, and certain things that are them. Sarah: I think we have caught things from both of our parents’ marriages. They didn’t just stay together for the sake of the children but I learned that marriage was the most important relationship in the house. Probably your parents too, right? Mike: They are in a whole new part of their life...a season of marriage that we are watching and learning and we see their relationship dynamic; how they interact and love each other. Sarah: We learned how differently they communicated and we found balance… in our marriage and family.
Mike: But we set out to do our own thing. If we said we have to do it just like our parents did, that would be weird...just to be clear… Sarah: We set out to do our own thing and purposely turned away and did a different thing.
121 Researcher: How are you different? Mike: How many hours do you have? How are we different? Sarah: More like each other. Both better listeners, more balanced. Mike was more verbal and I was more the listener and I have become for verbal and he has become better at listening. Would you agree? Mike: Yea, I think we are more honoring and more respectful of one another and accommodate one anther differently and take care of one another. We understand each other better and when you understand, you can take care of it. I think we’ve… Sarah: Knowing each other, really knowing each and understanding.
When you are dating in your early years you could write down they liked blue, and why they liked blue and which shade of blue. You can point it out and remember it, and as you share life together you are able to honor them and respect them in new ways of doing that if you have paid attention. Mike: You go to war together. You are in a foxhole together...you are forged through difficulty together. That is a bond that you do not have on the front end, and so where we are now after some 21 years of being together, we have had a lot of life and experience and challenges both with each other and circumstances that you navigate with each passing day. You grow stronger and the bond of one another in reliance to one another has grown deeper in ways that I never thought or imagined starting out. So that has make me think... and I think about this and super impose myself when you have moments… I think of when someone loses their spouse it would be like a whole part of you would be sheared off. The researcher mentioned how in some cases when one spouse dies at an old age the other dies shortly after. Mike: I totally get how after a total life together, and hopefully it is not just having a life together; the marriages we are talking about are obviously deeper and more meaningful and spiritual… I don’t
122 like dwelling on that too much but it certainly makes you conscious of the now and who we have become together. It is awesome…and the other thing that feeds into that, there is a fresh river that feeds into that constantly about each other because you don’t stay where we are today. I am still learning about Sarah today and I am still surprised by her. And as much as familiarity and all that stuff gets into things, you continually experience that person in new ways. It is not always predictable...there is life in that and that is what is amazing about people. And you, Sarah, your insight is still fresh and amazing and you still surprise me. It is an adventure as well. Researcher: Why do people leave their marriages? Sarah: How the foundation of the marriage started is the answer to that: never a real investment in the marriage, whether they were capable or didn’t understand, and the daily habits of not remaining connected, having separate bank accounts, separate friends, separate habits, to the point of, life happens and gets in between the two and not knowing how to put it back together. And dysfunction: abusive situation of one spouse. It can be small but can add up. In the end they can’t put up with the abusiveness or the habits that don’t seem that they are going to change... I think that is the lack of God’s influence in their lives consciously or unconsciously. If we want to change and get better,
He is there to give you everything you need for the long haul, for He is the supply of power to change and of complete transformation that we can’t do ourselves, especially if you grew up in an unhealthy family... God can help, but unless you are willing and wanting for that there is a deep hole to climb out of. Mike: Many people split over many different reasons, but if it is a marriage contract where you are exchanging goods and services with one another in a world that is always feeding the fantasy of greener grass,
123 like our culture does, the contract is going to run its course and people leave because I don’t think they live consciously, they go about living their lives in the pursuit of things...there is an awareness piece of the inner life that they ignore—it is identity and narrative stuff...people are complex. There are lots of reasons why it bombs, but neglect, not having a vision, is critical in that, and a plan of who do we want to become together or a glimpse of how God describes how it can be, and what marriage can be in Him and in our lives together; you can operate from your own standards and that is deeply flawed.
So neglect is a big thing. Also how well you roll with life together. If you don’t cope well people can get wounded and keep score cards and bitterness sets in...people are battered and bruised and when they reach an impasse…if we are full of self and defensive self…at the end of the day...if you are full of self it’s not going to be conducive to your marriage because, first of all, it is not the definition of love. To will the good for someone else, the sacrificial love, the wanting, the desire to do that, that is a selfless thing. So if you are about yourself, in whatever form that may look like, it’s not going to operate as the definition of ‘I will lay my life down for my wife to esteem her and put her first and not because I have to but because I want to’. Self runs in the opposite direction of that.
Mike wrote the following about friendship: I place a high emphasis on friendship. I
“love” Sarah but “like” her immensely. She is my soul/best friend. We actively pursue life together. We want to exchange ideas and share life and experiences together.
Our faith has been our bedrock. The Lord has inspired us and equipped us in our relationship. He is the active agent in our hearts to one another.
124 Sarah wrote the following about friendship: Friendship is the essence of enjoying life together, and being a trusted friend is of great importance to me. Being married to my best friend is a joy because we have grown to love, respect and trust one another fully.
Our experiences as a couple have given us opportunity to grow closer and refine the ways to express our love and respect, as well as develop trust during crisis and everyday life. Grief, parenting, loss of income, and times of celebrations and laughter have all been times to draw close to each other as well as the Lord.
Our mutual foundation of faith in God has been the source of power, peace, and love when we ourselves didn’t have the ability to carry these characteristics into our life together.
We see in the narrative of the Oral History Interview and through their written thoughts on friendship, the repetition of the themes identified from our first three couples.
The first is the way the couple has learned to connect through conversation about their lives and how they value each other’s presence. In Mike and Sarah’s story they intentionally check in with each other and pay attention to each other. They regularly talk about their day and find specific ways to do that, like walking together and using the regular activities of life to connect.
The second is the importance of a relationship with God, and how their vows before
God have strengthened their commitment to each other. They understand marriage as a covenant before God. This was a value clearly caught from their parents’ marriages.
The third is the role of hardship and struggles in the process of deepening their
125 friendship. They have battled together, overcoming various difficulties, and have learned to grieve losses together. This has joined them in a meaningful way.
The fourth theme is one we saw clearly in our previous couple and again see in Mike and Sarah. The intentional practice of seeking to know God and being formed by Him as individuals has flowed into dialogue, and connection with each other, which has led to the manifest result of forming the couple together as soul-friends. The conversation about their experience with God and the practice of their faith together was strong. Throughout the interview, I witnessed a connection that was deep, and their appreciation for each other was very evident. They also expressed a thankfulness for each other and for the presence of God in their relationship.
Like our previous couple the researcher also observed the lack of conflict and negativity in their conversations. They have disagreed and do disagree, more at the beginning of their marriage, but they too frame disagreement as a way of understanding something more about each other.
Results of the Sound Relationship House Questionnaire
The results of each of the four parts of the SRH for Mike and Sarah showed a profile that was extremely positive. Their connection as friends, together with a positive perspective, the understanding way they deal with conflict, and how they honor each other’s dreams creating a shared meaning together, was all but perfect.
The positive results of the Oral History Interview, the Sound Relationship House questionnaire, and the written narrative of Mike and Sarah, were confirmed with the
Locke-Wallace Relationship Adjustment Test. Mike had a score of 148 and for Sarah a
126 score of 153. Both scores were far above the cutoff of <85. This results presented a marriage that was very well adjusted and very happy.
Given the rich soul-friendship of these couples, several consistent elements of soul- friendship will form our curriculum. In the next chapter we will discuss, describe and structure our retreat curriculum for marital soul-friendship.
127 Chapter 5
Presentation of the Elements of a Retreat Curriculum
This chapter will discuss the specific elements that have been identified for marital soul- friendship from our research and will use three ‘voices’ to clarify and advise the elements of our curriculum/retreat. The research will use the model of Triangulation suggested by
Sensing,311 which is to discuss, evaluate, and clarify the data from the following three sources. 1. The researcher, which is the experience I bring of observing and working with couples over twenty years, helping to facilitate change in their marriages. In many cases these couples have been struggling for many years before they asked for help. Along with my clinical experience, I wish to bring the experience of being married for thirty-seven years. Fay and I will reflect on each element of our curriculum of soul-friendship to verify its importance in our marriage and confirm the insight gained from each couple.
2. The participants of this project are the four couples who have talked about their lives together and expressed the experiences and practice of being and becoming a soul-friend.
They have informed this research and have helped identify the element of being and becoming marital soul-friends. 3. The outsiders, which in this case would be the researchers and practitioners who have helped interpret this data to name the elements with compatible observations from their study and work with couples so our conclusions can be as ‘accurate and appropriate’312 as possible. We will also consider the biblical, theological and historical findings of this paper to advise and confirm the results of each couple’s soul-friendship. This combination will help plan our retreat and inform each
311 Sensing, Qualitative Research, 74. 312 Ibid., 75.
128 element to provide the needed care, teaching, and support for couples that seek help in our context.
I will present each element for our curriculum beginning with the observations of soul-friendship realized from our couples. I will give a few examples from the couple dialogue to support each element, and will reflect, both Fay and I, on each element from the experience of our marriage. In addition, we will bring in outside support of researchers, practitioners, and findings from the Celtic understanding of soul-friendship to explore how the couples have realized a marital Anamcara.
These five elements and the supporting material form the teaching content of our retreat and will be introduced, described, and practiced to give each couple an opportunity to grow in their marital soul-friendship.
The Five Elements
The five elements of a curriculum include:
1. Intentional Connecting
The first element in marital soul-friendship is realized through a purposeful and intentional time of connection. This connection happens often and in everyday moments of paying attention, through conversation, and through being present with each other. The moments of living together and ‘redeeming the mundane things of life’ form the most common portal for connection. This intentional practice of paying attention, noticing each other, with an availability to enter into that space of the other, becomes a very important aspect of being a soul-friend. A very meaningful and consistent connection occurs as
129 couples are in each other’s presence and interested in the other. The activity chosen for being with the other seems to matter less than the importance of being together, and the intentionality about creating these times together. While the sexual relationship can be a way to connect and pay attention, in this study these couples focused primarily on being soul friends. Their intimate soul connection was the focus of their discussion. A few thoughts from our couples:
Donna and Gerry: We make each other laugh and take care of one another and look for opportunities to do and share together. As friends, we notice the needs of one another and try to meet those needs.
Mike and Sarah: I think if you acknowledge that your friendship and your marriage is enhanced by the actions it is not really selfish, but your desire is for that to grow your friendship, and be deeper and you see the payoff which seems shallow, but the habit is doing exactly what your heart desires and giving you exactly what you want.
Kyle and Maddie: Children, music, love for the outdoors, dreams, have all been experiences that help connect us as friends...trying to connect in areas I’m weak on have all contributed to our relationship...I enjoy leisure activities together - boating, nature, even holidays, etc. But, we’ve come to realize the importance of the “emotional” aspect of friendship and we are working on this. I do think Kyle is a soul-friend, so therefore also a best friend.
Ted and Jill talked about regularly checking in to see how their inner world is doing and how shared activities, like sitting on the front porch together or sitting in a room together quietly, have deep meaning for their friendship. Ted: I simply love being with
130 Julie. She is my companion. I love being with her in all my experiences. Our meals together...good food and wine and conversation are some of my favorite “friend” memories and present experiences. Enjoy life de-cluttered...stripped down...being together...sharing space...being comfortable when nothing is being exchanged but presence together. Enjoy traveling with her and experience other cultures together continues to get better... I think that the most significant conversations about life come from that, as we block off the whole evening to eat together...it’s the night, so a long conversation about faith, family and how we are doing...I also find it helpful for her if she checks in with me from time to time to ask, ‘How is your head space?’ You may not want to know…. If she asks me a straight forward question I will answer it, but I don’t know how to bring it up…Those type of check in pieces are helpful for the relationship.
Mike and Sarah: ...quality time, spending time talking, listening, sharing and relating and just the presence of being with one another. If I think about it now with all these demands, being parents and the kids, and all these demands, it is easy to let life happen around you, or you can be conscious and intentional about being alone and not be distracted and being vulnerable about one another and relational listening and praying.
Fay and I have established routines that we engage in regularly, if not every day, to check in, connect, and talk about our lives. The first routine and practice is coffee together each morning and the sharing a daily office together, a time of personal practice of reading and prayer. This can be a time of silence or of conversation about our readings and experiences with God. Other practices include sitting together each evening, watching something together, to hang out and hold each other; being in each other’s
131 presence is very important as we wind down the day. We work at conversation and are aware of each other to do what it takes to inquire of our inner worlds. This intentionality brings connection and forms a very important part of being, and becoming a soul-friend. I would summarize it this way: Rituals, routines and shared experiences grow our friendship. Coffee together, planning together, working together, and faith service together...everyday experiences of living and ‘presence’ with each other are the most connecting experiences.
For Fay, besides the rituals and routines and shared experiences, it is the leaning on each other for mutual support that is important: We have leaned on each other for spiritual, emotional and physical strength through all that life has brought our way.
Gottman suggests friendship is developed by having current ‘Love Maps’, a process of knowing and being up to date with your spouse and their world. To summarize
Gottman, the ‘quality of paying attention’ to each other’s ‘bids,’ the ask or signals of a partner seeking connection, will determine how we stay current.313 The better the couple gets at noticing these ‘bids’ the greater the opportunity to turn and meet the bid and have connection, deepening the friendship. This pattern, as it is repeated, develops ‘stable, long-lasting relationships rich in good feeling for one another.’314 As these ‘bids’ are met, the friendship grows stronger, insulating the couple from negative outside influences and
313 Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Julie Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute,Inc., 2012), 5-2 314 Ibid.,16.
132 a shared sense of purpose emerges.315 To capture the essence of this element, as Gottman suggests, friendship is built on the ‘quality of paying attention’.316
In Gottman’s words: ‘At the heart of my program is the truth that happy marriages are based on a deep friendship. By this I mean mutual respect for and enjoyment of each other’s company.’317 Every structure in The Sound Marital House program builds on this principle of friendship, learning the importance of expressing fondness and admiration, turning toward the bid instead of away, learning to manage conflict in a very clear and meaningful way, and sharing in each other’s dreams. As the construction of The Sound
Marital House takes place, the pinnacle of Gottman’s program is to create shared meaning—a common shared purpose and meaning for life together. This was certainly confirmed and realized in the couples we spoke to, and for Fay and I, the common shared meaning of creating and developing a retreat center for people to come and rest, reflect and renew, became a meaningful life goal for us that had much sustaining power and one that is being realized today. Fay said it this way: Also, having a mutual dream and seeing it become a reality...seeing God use this place to draw others to himself and couples repair has been wonderful.
John O’Donohue says the love of an Anamcara is vital for awakening what is divine within each of us. He also affirms that, ‘Love begins with paying attention to others, with an act of gracious self-forgetting. This is the condition in which we grow.’318 This is
315 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 243–266. 316 John M. Gottman and Joan DeClaire, The Relationship Cure: A 5 Step Guide to Strengthening Your Marriage, Family, and Friendship (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001), 28. 317 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 19. 318 O’Donohue, Anam Cara: A Book of Celtic Wisdom, 7.
133 especially true for nurturing marital soul-friendship, connection, and developing shared meaning.
2. Commitment as Obedience to God
The second element in marital soul-friendship realizes their commitment to each other is influenced by a relationship with God. Their faith strengthens their commitment to each other. This is a foundational principle in each of the couples. Their understanding of how important marriage is to God and to the Christian faith has, in some ways, stubbornly secured their relationship with each other. This level of commitment is primarily about obedience to God and the teaching about Christian marriages being ‘for better or for worse’.
In Gerry and Donna’s interview, Donna expressed it this way: If you are going to make a promise before God you better keep it. For me that is what it was and yes, there were times when I wanted to pack a bag and say good-bye but that commitment to God kind of overshadows everything. It does not matter what you are going through, good or bad, that commitment is unbreakable, even in death is unbreakable. Our faith is the reason we are still together. Our commitment to God - the promise we made to each other in front of God is why I am still married. Our faith is everything! God is who I go to when things are hard. God is who I go to when things are good. He is the center of our relationship, friendship and our love.
This was an overall attitude of all the couples. In Mike and Sarah’s interview, Sarah talked about this: It was going to be a complete marriage where we were going to be as
134 [for example]...the trinity. That was perfect which was our aim for the entire time, a lifelong partner and our intention to make it a marriage that is fully devoted and committed, and life is not easy but we will work at this to make it what God intended marriage to be like.
During Kyle and Maddie’s interview, Kyle mentioned faith as being important: I think faith puts people a leg ahead in making a decision about marriage when you don’t have any feeling toward it, it helps… If you are going to pull the plug the first time because it seems insurmountable, then I don’t think you’re going to survive long term, but if there is something, and for us that is faith...when you say for better or for worse you are going to hold through. Generally, over time you find your way through it and generally most people don’t wait long enough to find their way through it...I made a vow before God so I don’t walk out of that. It is the only thing for me.
Fay and I considered our vows to be binding and we can both say that we never once considered leaving those vows and each other. Our relationship with God as individuals helped us as a couple. In Fay’s words: I believe our faith in God has helped us both as individuals understand what it means to be friends in our marriage. As we have prayed as individuals for wisdom and guidance in understanding and connecting, God has answered that prayer and given us each insight into understanding the heart of the other.
We took the witness of God in our marriage as a very personal and serious commitment.
Marriage is the witness of Christ to each other. Marriage for us is also “trinitarian” as Ted mentioned in his explanation of marriage. Two people come together and with God form an incarnational reality of the nature and shared being of God. In our marriage, Fay has
135 been and is the witness of Christ to me, and I hope I am that for her. It is a dynamic process modeled on the very relationship of the trinity. This was taken very seriously by all the couples and ‘stubbornly’ secured the marriages in difficult times.
The three aspects of God’s purposes for marriage mainly understood as Covenant,
Vocation, and Sacrament are an important part of our discussion.
First, we want to understand that marriage is ‘a divine ordinance; it is an exclusive union; it is binding and permanent.’319 God intended marriage to be first a covenant relationship.
...as scripture understands it, it is a sacred, God-witnessed, public, mutually binding, irrevocable relationship between two parties who willingly promise and undertake to live by its terms…building and preserving joyful, companionable, just, faithful, permanent partnerships committed to fulfilling God’s purposes… 320
Second, marriage is intended by God to be a vocation or a call. Ephesians 4:1 says,
‘Therefore I, a prisoner for serving the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of your calling, for you have been called by God.’321
Third, marriage is a ‘means of grace’ or a ‘sacramental’ relationship. ‘[T]he union of a married couple is seen as a means by which, in smaller figure, the salvation brought by the incarnation of Christ and his continual indwelling of the church by the Spirit, is realised in particular human lives.’322
In summary, marriage is the ‘human’ relationship through which we ‘work out’ the incarnation of Christ with each other. It is the ‘embodied self’. It is a call to wholeness as
319 Deasley, Marriage and Divorce in the Bible and the Church, 27. 320 Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics, 277. 321 This biblical reference is taking from the New Living Translation. 322 Edmund Newey, Jeremey Taylor and the Theology of Marriage, Anglican Theological Review 84.2 (2002): 269–285.
136 suitable partners, husband and wife, assisting each other to be their most ‘authentic selves’. The marriage is the ‘visible sign or symbol of an invisible encounter with God…
God’s love is made visible and is experienced through the love of spouses.’323 This is the ideal to which we strive. An ideal we are empowered and equipped to complete by God, accompanied by our soul-friend.
3. Deepening Friendship through Crisis
The third element in marital soul-friendship is deepened through the process of hardship and struggles. Each of these couples have experienced significant and consistent challenges. These couples have experienced death, financial loss, significant sickness of children, challenges with mental health, personal illness, the reality of having and raising a disabled child, loss of employment, loss of community, and many other struggles. In all of these they have turned to each other and have relied on the other for support, care and friendship. In the relationships of each of the couples, their friendship has enabled them to find hope in the middle of some very difficult circumstances.
Kyle and Maddie: Going through the house fire together brought us closer.
Ted and Jill: Honestly, Ted’s depression brought positive growth and change in our friendship with each other and our relationship with Jesus that is truly lovely… Our darkest time brought clarity, change and connectedness.
Mike and Sarah: Grieving together and, as I am naturally verbal, talking about it together was good for us. She is my greatest friend and helper.
323 Ceasar and Ducote. Partners on the Journey, 68.
137 Gary and Donna: For most of our married life Gerry and I have only had each other.
Both sets of parents were too far away and so were our friends. There were times the only other person we could talk to or relate to was each other. It helped us become closer friends and sometimes drove us apart. Either way our love and friendship grew.
Fay and I also faced challenges and changes that were significant. There have been many losses, and disappointments. We have walked with each other through all the ups and downs of the past 37 years. Probably the most emotionally challenging situation of our lives that continues is having a disabled daughter. Through the highs and lows of trying to understand, teach, and protect our daughter, the reality of our humanity came through. This was, and is, discouraging at times, and yet by sticking together, brings a level of connection and joy that appears when we need it most. Other significant changes and challenges included leaving secure employment for pastoral ministry, leaving pastoral ministry for private practice and teaching, following God’s call to step out and trust his provision. Dreaming, building, working, and maintaining a small retreat center, with its challenges and opportunities, have all brought Fay and I together in a purposeful and meaningful way. Selling our home and buying the ‘field with the pearl of great price’ in it became very much a reality for us. The many challenges and changes have not always been easy, but the reality of friendship and our faith secured our love for each other.
Gottman would say that most problems in marriage, and most of our upsets about each other, including losses or difficulties we have, are not solvable or even changeable, but rather are a recurring part of our story. He says that 69% of all marital problems are
138 perpetual.324 The meaning we place on loss, struggles and upsets, and the ability of our spouse to listen and understand this meaning, is a feature of marriages that are made up of soul-friends.
In my clinical work with couples, a big part of the helping process is to identify the losses they bring from their family of origin and their life, and how those losses have manifested themselves in the marriage. A process of identifying and remembering, which leads to affective expression, and the need for justice making and forgiveness, if necessary, is part of the process of how couples deal with difficult situations in their lives.
In all cases, the couples from our study have learned to remain connected through difficult times and have, in one way or another, learned to understand the meaning of the loss and be with the other, allowing the necessary journey to take place.
We find in Scripture similar affirmations of how difficulties can be positive. James
1:2-4 reads: ‘Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete not lacking anything.’ This is also a reality of marriage.
The Celts also believed that ‘sometimes awkward situations, problems, or difficulties are really disguised as opportunities for growth...It is wise to learn to embrace with hospitality that which is awkward and difficult.’325 The vulnerability that difficult situations bring can bring couples together and in our research has done that. It also brings out a certain value and respect in each other, seeking mutual wisdom from the
324 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 130. 325 O’Donohue, Anam Cara, 158.
139 friendship. Sellner sees a soul-friend relationship as characterized by ‘great mutuality: a profound respect for each other’s wisdom...and [the sharing of] common values and vision of reality.’326
A soul friend is someone who, in the process of integrating wisdom which his or her own life experiences and wounds have taught, accompanies another in their own soul-birthing or soul-making, so that “in every generation wisdom lives in holy souls and makes them friends of God.”327
4. Spiritual Formation
The fourth element in marital soul-friendship realizes significant practice and experience of spiritual formation. The intentional practice of seeking to know God and being formed by Him as individuals, has flowed into dialogue, connection and a forming together of the couple as soul-friends. In each of the marriages where they were most well-adjusted and very happy, there was a consistent experience and practice of seeking and knowing God.
These experiences realized through consistent devotional practices lead each couple to meaningful soul-connecting conversations about the forming work of God. This resulted in a significant and deep connection with each other. These conversations about their experience with God and the practice of their faith together was a binding agent for their souls, and was significantly evident through their talk and actions toward God and each other. The result was an attitude and practice of ‘we exist for the good of the other.’ This was very apparent and very significant for our study. The reality of this forming work of
God becomes embodied in the marriage. For two of the couples, and in my own marriage,
326 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend, 205. 327 Ibid., 220.
140 the spouse becomes the reality and witness of God. As Ted expressed about Jill: she is the incarnation of God, it is God.
Let me differentiate between the second theme of relationship with God and the teaching of Christian tradition as a reason for commitment to the marriage, sometimes viewed as a ‘cross to bear,’ as one couple stated it, and the active agent of change brought about by God in our lives when being formed in His image, as we seek Him and know
Him. This spiritual formation of God in each person created an opportunity to be Christ to the other in the marriage, being a true soul-friend.
Some confirming comments from our research. The relationship between Jill and Ted expressed the vibrant formation of being formed in Christ and how that flowed into their marriage. Some summary and confirming thoughts. Ted: Jill is...she grounds me. Her love of life, and for me...I married someone who actually loves to love other people. She is hospitable. This home is the inflow of people. She exists for the goodness of our family.
That is love worked out...She is the incarnation of it. So that for me is something that I observe and appreciate and one of the things I see - that love, and it is a constant. It is
God. It is God! Friendship is the by-product of the “with God life.” As I experience God as friend, I find a deepening of all my significant relationships. Friendship in marriage is
Trinitarian. When we experience life in and with God, the shared love forms new bonds with others. Marriage becomes an expression or incarnation of the triune relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is life with God as it was intended to be. (Ted drew a triangle with the trinity as one corner, Jill in the other and Ted in the other all joined through love.) I would describe Jill as a soul-friend because I experience her love
141 as incarnation. He meets me in my deepest place through her. In living life with her, she grounds me. This grounding is an experience of soul...Faith is a challenge but most days
I am at peace with this process of becoming... I love suppers. It is sacred and we eat together as a family almost every night. There is a theology of the table for me and it is very important. We have always ate [sic] together.
Mike and Sarah. Mike: The Lord has been good. He has been perfect in our weaknesses and I think when we’re surrendered and when I think our marriage is surrendered to Him, He has provided the help and the grace to be where we are today...He is still good. I can’t help but point to Him and say ‘thank you Lord for my marriage’ and [I am] thankful of Sarah and for the person she is and her heart and attitude of service to me and to our family. And bigger than those things is the Lord’s help and His grace and strength...but I am at a stage in my own personal walk that I have greater confidence in His kingdom and I walk in greater confidence, and that is a new theological perspective for me and so I can’t help but say how much that is changing me and it is flowing into my marriage.
Sarah: That has been your personal walk (talking to Mike) but you have shared that journey with me. It is not something that happens in isolation and Mike becomes a different person; but we talk about these things everyday: what is God doing today? What is He saying to us? and we are both listening together and growing together both personally but sharing that and journeying together we get together so there are no surprises. You get to the end of the day and have touch points and we understand where we are at. The constant communication and connection maintains our walk together.
142 Mike: And that is friendship, right?... I mean, we were both disciples then and set out on a journey to follow Him. We met each other and fell in love and courted one another, and all these thing align. I wanted to track with Sarah as I was interested in her and her life and vise-versa. The Lord was part of our paradigm... When we are safe and secure in our love for each other and with the Lord, and confident in that love, we are safe and we can come as we are with no judgement, fear, or shame and just vulnerable. It is a beautiful thing if you can accept that, and the key is to preserve that for one other.
Sarah: Yes, cultivating it, feeding it, and I think paying attention to the little things, and always caring enough to notice the little things, the idiosyncrasies, and allowing yourself to enter into what your spouse is going through whether you agree or not.
Celtic Anamcara knows the importance of being understood.
In everyone’s life, there is great need for an anam cara, a soul friend. In this love, you are understood as you are without mask or pretension...When you are understood, you are at home. Understanding nourishes belonging. When you really feel understood, you feel free to release yourself into the trust and shelter of the other person’s soul.328
This formation of Christ in both Fay and I as individuals is particularly important in our relationship. It begins with understanding. In our marriage, Fay is also the very witness of Christ. She demonstrates naturally the character of God. This is the witness of the reality of the forming work of God in her life and it flows out to mine. This has been healing. ‘The role of the soul friend...was the one who most fully explored the human
328 O’Donohue, Anam Cara: A Book of Celtic Wisdom, 26.
143 need for disclosing sicknesses and secrets which lie in the heart in order to be free.’329
This has very much been a reality of my soul-friendship with Fay.
My pursuit of a deeper experience through faithful practice has been very important in my spiritual and personal formation. Times of silence, solitude and the practice of contemplative prayer, were crucial to my heart being settled and to developing a deep awareness of God in my life. These practices were also important to the early church and to the Celtic Christians in being an Anamcara. Having been deeply influenced by the
Desert Fathers and Mothers, the experiences of prayer became an important part of knowing God. They were mystics in the purest sense of the word. ‘Mysticism simply means to feel acutely the presence of God. A person who is a mystic is someone who knows God exits because they feel it. God is not far away...but a God that is close by.’330
This experience with God often happens in a ‘thin’ place, a place in creation, a place at the edge of a cliff, or near the ocean, or in the deep forest. “A truly thin place is any environment that invites transformation in us.”331 A place where we know God is close.
Prayer, silence, solitude, and pilgrimage were an essential practice of the Celtic
Christian faith. This experiential knowing was also an important part of the early church.
Through the practice of teaching, eating together, and caring for the physical and emotional needs of the group, they were true witnesses of the incarnational reality of
Christ. John Wesley’s Aldersgate experience was framed by the Scripture of Romans
8:16: ‘The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.’ That was his
329 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend, 74. 330 Doherty, A Celtic Model of Ministry, 83. 331 Balzer, Thin Places an Evangelical Journey into Celtic Christianity, 29.
144 experience. Our Lord stated in John 17:3 in His prayer, ‘Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.’ This knowing is an experiential reality of our walk with God that leads to formational change. Couples’ therapy also requires an experience to change the marital friendship. I believe this is most possible when our own encounter with God is experienced through formation practices. It alters the view of God.
Change occurs both by change in people’s view of themselves and by change in their context...clients must experience, on an emotionally meaningful level new aspects of their partner, thereby creating new interactions. Partners must encounter each other in the session in a new way and participate in the corrective emotional experience of an I-thou relationship. This reestablishes the possibility of them having a positive human relationship with each other.332
These formation practices are specifically beneficial for our couples, modeled by
Christ and practiced in the early church; the faith formation practices by the Celtic
Christians, and the group formation of John Wesley, who knew the importance of the balance between personal works of piety and the necessary works of mercy for a witness of the love of Christ. These form a major piece of this important element in the making of soul-friendship, and flow from our research of Chapters 1 and 2. Faith formation, and the flowing of that to each member of the couple, holds a major key to being and becoming a soul-friend.
Ultimately a marital soul-friend is centered on God. ‘True soul friends do not depend upon each other alone, but root their relationship in God.’333 This is apparent and very meaningful in the couples.
332 Greenberg and Johnson, Emotionally Focused Therapy for Couples, 38. 333 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend, 209.
145 5. Lack of Criticism and Negativity
The fifth element in marital soul-friendship is realized without criticism and negativity.
There are two things worth noting in this area. First, what was evident in the couples that were finding a delayed effect in connecting well and/or were continuing to struggle with deep friendship, was a pattern, present or past, of conflict, negativity and criticism in conversations. Second, what was also evident in the couples that have secured more of a deep soul-friendship, was the lack of consistent conflict and lack of negativity and criticism in their conversations. What is apparent in all marital relationships that do well, is a deep respect and trust of each other that is developed in an attitude of acceptance.
The absence of negativity leads to an atmosphere where dialogue can take place.
Negativity prevents and/or delays meaningful dialogue and soul-connecting conversations.
What I have seen in my clinical work with couples regarding negativity are really two things: 1. Seeing a cycle of negativity, and 2. The lack of ability to process a fight, or to deal with conflict. The negativity seen in couples is quite consistent and has been a pattern that has been consistent in their marriage for some time. In two of the marriages from the research we find conflict posing a problem to connection in the early years of their story together. For Kyle and Maddie, Kyle suggested their first year of marriage was brutal, with a lot of big fights; screaming at each other. I thought she was crazy, and that our love for each other didn’t really start until two years ago. Maddie suggested that as long as they didn’t talk about anything, and put it in the closet we were fine. But we weren’t.
146 In Gerry and Donna’s story, Gerry commented: It was a very contentious relationship.
We fought like cats and dogs as much as we enjoyed being together. Donna added: We would go into the prayer room and people would take bets as to who would come out alive.
All of the couples in the research are using conflict now in a much different way, and are using it to connect and understand.
In our marriage, over time Fay and I have learned to understand the meaning we each place on upsets and difficulties, and have resisted being critical of each other because we are upset about something. We have learned and continue to work on giving each other permission to be upset. Through trial and error and through years of building connection and trust, we are learning to not take it personally, and to seek to process and understand the meaning of the event. This is really the nature of soul-friendship.
Gottman, in his early studies and consistently throughout his research, confirms the challenges couples face when negativity is the norm is their interactions with each other.
As mentioned previously, Gottman and Levenson’s study published in Journal of
Marriage and the Family, suggested that ‘negative affect during conflict predicted early divorcing…the model predicted divorce with 93% accuracy.’334
This brief note summarizes the findings of studies over decades of Gottman’s research and has led to a comprehensive understanding and intervention for marriage which indicates a very clear pattern that is predictive of marriage dissolution. This cycle of negativity and the lack of fondness in the day-to-day, and an increase in conflict
334 Gottman and Levenson, “The Timing of Divorce,” 737.
147 discussions, are specific areas of insight we can give couples. For Stanley, this negative cycle looks like: Escalation, Invalidation, Withdrawal and Avoidance, and Negative interpretations.335 Gottman has another way of describing this negative cycle. ‘The Four
Horsemen of the Apocalypse are: Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt and
Stonewalling.’336 As previous discussed in this paper, Gottman noted other predictive factors of a failing marriage. 337
This idea that negativity destroys relationships is also seen in Scripture. The writer of the Ephesians clearly gives directives to stop these patterns. In Ephesians 4:29 we read,
‘Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs.’ Verse 31 reads, ‘Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander along with every form of malice.’
Explaining the cycle of negativity and the lack of friendship, the positive sentiment in the day-to-day, and then identifying the scope of these two primary realities is an important step in informing couples.
Overall, we must influence three major areas to sustain marriages. The first area needing change is to ‘decrease negativity during conflict discussions.’ We must stop the criticism. This requires teaching the antidote to each of the four horsemen. The antidote to criticism is to ‘know what you want, and say what you want’ with a ‘soft’ or careful beginning. This is stated as an action that will benefit the couple. Defensiveness is negated by taking responsibility for your part, even a little bit, of what is being said as a
335 Markman, Stanley, and Blumberg, Fighting for your Marriage, 1. 336 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 27–34. 337 Ibid., 26–44.
148 criticism. Contempt is changed as we develop a culture of appreciation and fondness for each other, seeing the ‘plank’ in our own eye. Stonewalling is stopped by learning to self soothe. Soothing includes taking a ‘timeout’ as a means to disarm the ‘fight or flight’ response that comes with the ‘threat’ of a criticism. It also includes learning to understanding the ‘meaning’ placed on the situation that caused the ‘flooding’.338
The second area needing change is to increase ‘positivity in marriage in non-conflict situations.’ In other words, we must repair what has been torn because of the negativity and increase the marital friendship. This requires ‘repair’ attempts to be given by the offending party and accepted by the offended.339 Repair attempts are any personal gesture to ‘make it right’.
The third area needing change is to ‘increase positivity during conflict discussions’.
We want to teach couples how to converse about an issue that is ‘gridlocked’ or
‘perpetual’—a problem that keeps coming up—but do so without the ‘four horsemen’ being present. We do this by finding the ‘dream within the conflict,’ the symbolic meaning of an issue.340 We also take them through a process of each naming their subjective realities, acknowledging this to each other, and then each taking responsibility for their own part, however small, in that conflict. The ability to communicate
‘understanding’ is the key to increasing the positivity in difficult discussions.341
338Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Julie Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute,Inc., 2012), 19-95j 339 Gottman, The Marriage Clinic, 48–51. 340 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 217–241. 341 Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Julie Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute,Inc., 2012) 17-95a-17-95i
149 The role of the soul-friend in the process of repair is to hear the disclosure, and to take responsibility for a part of the upset that they contributed to, and action the necessary healing response to restore the relationship. The Celtic practice influenced by the Desert
Fathers and Mothers was the Anamcara, a friend and guide which taught:
[I]t is essential for everyone to speak directly from the heart to another person, and… this self-disclosure is good for the soul. They practiced a form of therapy that consisted of exagoreusis, “opening one’s heart,” that lead to hesychia, or “peace of heart.” These spiritual practices of these desert guides, united with that of the ancient Celt’s druidic mentors, contributed significantly to the rise of the ministry of the soul friend in the early Celtic church.342
The importance of stopping negativity and repairing the relationship is essential to marital soul-friendship and is just as necessary today as it was when the Desert Mothers and Fathers began the practice.
These five elements will form the curriculum for a marriage retreat. The outline and schedule of this retreat will carefully balance teaching of each element with homework and free time to help the couple connect, realizing their potential as friends.
Structure of the Elements of a Retreat/Curriculum
The application of both the five elements proposed from our research, combined with the biblical and theological vision for Anamcara as marital soul-friendship, will offer couples concrete ways to help encourage a new level of marital friendship. The work of learning, understanding, and application of these elements of soul-friendship will give the couple a chance to repair, to grow the marital friendship, and stop the slide to divorce. The session
342 Sellner, The Celtic Soul Friend, 55.
150 teachings, the homework assignments, and the experiences of rest, hiking, and prayer will work together to address each concern.
151 Retreat Schedule
Marriage Retreat Schedule - Marital Soul-Friendship Day Time On Your Own With Ken & Fay 1. 3 - 7 PM Arrive & Settle Welcome, Intro, Q & A. Pre-test 7 PM The SRH questionnaire.
Teaching Session #1: 2. 9 – 10:30 AM Intentional Connecting
10:30–12 Noon Rest, Hike, Prayer. 12 – 12:30 PM Lunch 12:30 - 3 PM Homework Teaching Session #2: 3 – 4:30 PM Commitment as Obedience to God 4:30 - 5:30 PM Supper 5:30 ➔ Free Time Teaching Session #3: 3 9 – 10:30 AM Deepening Friendship through Crisis 10:30–12 Noon Rest, Hike, Prayer. 12 – 12:30 PM Lunch 12:30 - 3 PM Homework Teaching Session #4: 3 – 4:30 PM Spiritual Formation 4:30 - 5:30 PM Supper 5:30 PM ➔ Free Time Teaching Session #5: 4 9 – 10:30 AM Lack of Criticism and Negativity 10:30–12 Noon Rest, Hike, Prayer. 12 – 12:30 PM Lunch Post-test The SRH questionnaire 12:30 - 4:30 PM and exit interviews with each couple 4:30 - 5:30 PM Candlelight Supper
152 During the welcoming time we will give an orientation to our property, walking trails, and footpaths, and to other general attractions in the area. We will go over accommodation information they may require and, if appropriate, how to light the wood stove in their cottage. We will also give a very simple orientation to the weekend, outlining briefly each element and the overall direction of working together as a couple.
This session will also introduce our two primary books for the retreat: The Seven
Principles for Making Marriage Work by John M. Gottman, and Partners on the Journey by Paul T. Caesar and Darryl Ducote. These books and the completed SRH questionnaires will serve to tailor the retreat to the personal concerns of each couple.
The process of our sessions will model the structure and care of Wesley’s groups giving each couple time to talk about their experiences together, and to talk privately as a couple. At the end of our retreat, the re-test of the SRH will be given and an exit interview with each couple will take place. This will also address any specific questions about the retreat each couple may have.
At each exit interview there will also be an invitation to continue in the process of marital soul-friend making, through a continuation of a marital group and/or meeting with me as a group of three for teaching and meaning making.
Conclusion
This thesis project articulates and develops a biblical model of friendship using the words of Christ found in the Gospel of John as its foundation: ‘You are my friends if you do what I command’ John 15:14. This command was given earlier in John 13:13: ‘A new
153 command I give you: Love one another.’ This friendship love was linked to the covenant relationship God made with His people as an expressed desire for a deep relationship.
Christ also prayed for a deep level of connecting and unity, and this unity was modeled by the early communities of faith through specific practices and experiences having application to the formation of our hearts and for faith forming soul-friendships in our marriages.
Historically, we can see how the disciplines of the Desert Fathers and Mothers influenced the monks who found their way to an indigenous people, later called the Celts.
Here, the gospel was received, and the idea of the soul-friend was introduced. This soul- friendship, practiced together in groups in very monastic communities found through the
Celtic Christians, was also modeled by the Methodist movement of John Wesley who developed group experiences through which intimate friendships formed, continuing the very practices of the early church and the monastic movements.
The research also looks at theological underpinnings of marriage, considering that marriage is indeed a group of two, and how each of the practices of the early church have import for couples and their friendship today. An important aspect of being married is formed through our understanding and practice of the covenant, the call of marriage as a vocation, and the witness of Christ through the sacrament of marriage.
The project also reviews specific social science research on marital friendship and presents our own qualitative research with couples on what it means to have friendship.
The practices and processes that develop and maintain this friendship capture the most
154 important themes, forming the elements of a retreat curriculum guide for marriage intervention.
There is biblical and theological evidence for friendship, and its application to marriage was seen clearly in the couples of our study. Marriage is based on friendship, and soul-friendship is based on the forming work of Christ in each member of the couple.
As a result, the evidence of this forming work of God flows into the marriage, giving a clear and embodied witness of Christ to each other in the marriage and as a witness to the broader faith community and culture.
Further Research and Implications for Ministry
To continue to investigate the thesis of this project, the retreat model and curriculum developed in this research will be put into practice and evaluated. Through the pre-and post-testing and the exit interviews, data will be collected to help confirm each element and identify any further additions or amendments needed.
What this project has helped me to realize is that this work has barely scratched the surface regarding these elements of both being and becoming marital soul-friends. The process of shepherding couples in this journey, helping them both individually and together to form in Christ, needs further investigation and application. What is apparent for the most marital adjustment and satisfaction, is the experience and practice of spiritual formation that flows into the marital soul-friendship. A future research question related to my work is: What is the relationship between personal spiritual formation and a couple’s spiritual formation?
155 What we do know is that half of marriages end within the first seven years343 and between year two and three the highest marital dissolution of these seven years takes place.344 This leads me to conclude that people are not ready for marriage and, in particular, the marriage preparation is not working very well in preparing people for marriage. This has huge implications for ministry and ministry leaders. Do we need to change the way we do pre-marriage work with couples being married by our faith communities? Can the elements of this research be part of a comprehensive strategy to prepare our young people, people remarrying, and all marriages with a more hopeful future? Can we suggest the process of Group Anamcara for the Christian Church and begin ongoing couple's groups with a focus on soul-friendship?
I believe that as marriages develop a soul-friendship at home and a spiritual formation in Christ, allowing that formation to flow into their marriages, we will see a more vulnerable and open faith community.
Closing Thoughts
Marriage is not for every person. Indeed, both Jesus in Matthew 19:10-11, and Paul in
I Corinthians 7:7, speak of not being married in order to focus on Kingdom work. The reality, though, is that many people get married: almost 78% of adults and 84% of born again Christians.345
343 Gottman and Silver, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, 4. 344 John Gottman, seminar lecture, Boston MA., September 13, 2002. 345 “New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released,” accessed April, 2013, http:// www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics- released.
156 To be equipped to help couples prepare and last in their marriages is a high value and priority for me. My wish is for the faith community to have this value, but my sense is that it does not quite know what to do with marriage. I am not naive to think that all marriages will be saved—or should be—but I do believe that far too many marriages are ending for reasons that can be repaired, and far too many marriages are ending because it is viewed as ‘normal’—as a viable option. In some cases, ending a marriage is necessary, but in most cases it is not. We need to view marriage as a ‘covenant’ relationship and capture again the essence of connecting that develops a security and oneness that embodies the prayer of Christ for us to be one as He and His Father are one. When the
Pharisees came to Jesus in Matthew 19:7-8 to ask, ‘Why then … did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’, Jesus replied,
‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.’ Christ can soften any heart as we offer the hope and a way to Anamcara—soul-friendship.
We have solid evidence that we can use as a ‘redemptive movement’346 to help marriages. It is incumbent on us as leaders to avail ourselves of the evidence-based research of the importance of marital friendship. Pay attention to the invitation of God to be friends, and practice the unity and oneness He desires for marriage. This will be a witness of the reality of the embodied Christ living and acting in our marriages. Marriage is sacred in God’s sight.
346 William J. Web, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 247–49, e-edition.
157 I have witnessed too much the pain of marriage betrayal. It is an extreme and numbing pain. I have witnessed the indifference and the negativity of a failing marriage as harmful, destructive and yet predictive. It does not have to be this way. Let us lead our congregations, our friends, neighbours, and our families into better marriages for the honor and glory of God. ‘Christians should do everything in their power to exalt God’s standard of monogamous lifetime marriage.’347 Marriage is intended to be an example of a deep friendship, an intimate soul-friendship, an Anamcara to each other. As ministry leaders, let us lead our marriages into faithful soul-friendship. Anamcara - A Way for
Marriage.
347 Geisler, Christian Ethics, 312.
158 Appendix A
Consent form for Research Participants and Letter of Invitation
Consent form for Research Participants
Introduction: My name is Ken Neilson, and I am a Doctoral Student at Acadia Divinity College at Acadia University conducting a study on marital friendship. I can be contacted by email at: [email protected] or by phone at 506 833-9817. My Supervisor’s name is Dr. John Sumarah and can be contacted at [email protected]. If you have any questions please contact either of us. If you have any concerns about the ethical nature of this research, you may contact Stephen Maitzen by email at: [email protected] or by phone at 902-585-1070.
Purpose: The purpose of this research is to study the practice of marital friendship. I am trying to learn more about what it is, what it looks like in practice, and what effect it has on marriage.
Procedure: If you consent, you will be asked several questions in an oral interview that will take place at my office or in your home. It is your preference. I will make an audiotape recording of the interview which will be secured under lock at my office and will be destroyed after the thesis has been approved.
Time Required: The interview will take approximately 1–2 hours of your time.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation as a couple in this study is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, you may still refuse to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. You may also withdraw from the study up to two weeks after the initial interview. Please let me know if you have any concerns about your participation within these two weeks. I would ask that the data collected from your interview remain part of this study if there is no notice of withdrawal within the two week time period.
Risks: There are no known risks associated with this interview. However, it is possible that you might feel distress in the course of the conversation. If this happens, please inform me promptly and I can talk to you and offer a referral.
Benefits: While there are no guaranteed benefits, it is possible that you will enjoy sharing your answers to these questions or that you will find the conversation meaningful. This study is intended to benefit marriages by enlivening our discourse on the theology and practice of being best friends in marriage.
Confidentiality / Anonymity: Your names will be kept confidential in all of the reporting and/or writing related to this study. The only exception to this would be as follows: when I am required by law to disclose what would otherwise be confidential
159 information, such as when I believe you may pose a risk of serious injury to yourself or others, when there is suspicion of child or elder abuse as defined by provincial legislation, or when I am served with a court order.
I will be the only other person present for the interview and the only person who listens to the tapes. When I write the ethnography, I will use pseudonyms - made up names - for all participants, unless you specify in writing that you wish to be identified by name. If you wish to choose your own pseudonym for the study, please indicate the first name you would like me to use here: ______.
Sharing the Results: I plan to write a thesis chapter on the findings and conclusions based on the themes and findings of the interviews and together with my reading and historical research write a retreat syllabus.
I also plan to share what I learn from this study with my research readers and selected faculty of Acadia Divinity College. The thesis will then become a public document.
Publication: There is the possibility that I will publish this study or refer to it in published writing in the future. In this event, I will continue to use pseudonyms (as described above) and I may alter some identifying details in order to further protect your anonymity.
Before you sign: By signing below, you are agreeing to an audiotaped interview together as a couple for this research study. Be sure that any questions you may have are answered to your satisfaction. If you agree to participate in this study, a copy of this document will be given to you.
By signing below I also understand that I do not waive my rights to legal recourse for research-related harm.
Participant’s signature: (Wife) ______
Print name: ______Date: ______
Participant’s signature: (Husband) ______
Print name: ______Date: ______
Researcher’s signature: ______
Print name: ______Date: ______
160 Letter of Invitation
Letter of Invitation to Participants
Dear (Names)
Thank you for your interest in this thesis research. I would like you to consider this letter as a formal invitation to be part of a study on Marital Friendship.
My name is Ken Neilson, and I am a Doctoral Student at Acadia Divinity College at Acadia University conducting a study on marital friendship. I can be contacted by email at: [email protected], or by phone at 506 833-9817. My Supervisor’s name is Dr. John Sumarah and can be contacted at [email protected] If you have any questions please contact either of us. If you have any concerns about the ethical nature of this research, you may contact Stephen Maitzen by email at: [email protected] or by phone at 902-585-1070.
The purpose of this research is to study the practice of marital friendship. I am trying to learn more about what it is, what it looks like in practice, and what effect it has on the marriage.
If you consent as a couple to be part of this study, you will be asked several questions together, in an oral interview that will take place at my office, or in your home according to your preference. I will make an audiotape recording of the interview. The interview will take approximately 1–2 hours of your time and your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, you may still refuse to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. You may also withdraw from the study up to two weeks after the initial interview. Please let me know if you have any concerns about your participation within these two weeks. I would ask that the data collected from your interview remain part of this study if there is no notice of withdrawal within the two week time period.
If you are interested, a consent form is attached and if you would sign this and return it to me by email, I will be in contact to arrange our interview time. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ken Neilson BA, BSL, MA, CCC, OD
161 Appendix B
Interview of Marital Friendship
Can you tell me what meaning you place on ‘friendship’? Tell me about how you see your idea of friendship being part of your marriage? Would you describe your spouse as your best friend, a ‘soul-friend’?
Tell me about the experience(s) of friendship you have or have had in your marriage and how important these are to you.
Explain how faith has helped or hindered your marital friendship. Have there been meaningful ‘spiritual’ experiences together that you can recall? What is the significance of these to your friendship?
Please list any additional meaningful experiences you have had that connect you as friends.
162 Appendix C
Oral History Interview Questions, Locke-Wallace Relationship Adjustment Test, Sound Relationship House Questionnaire 348
Oral History Interview
Part 1: History of the Relationship
Question 1. Why don’t we start from the very beginning. Let’s discuss how the two of you met and got together: Do you remember the time you met for the first time? Tell me about it. Was there anything about your wife (husband) that made her (him) stand out? What were your first impressions of each other?
Question 2. When you think back to the time you were dating, before you got married, what do you remember? What stands out? How long did you know each other before you got married? What do you remember of this period? What were some of the highlights? Some of the tensions? What types of things did you do together?
Question 3. Tell me about how the two of you decided to get married. Of all the people in the world, what led you to decide that this was the person you wanted to marry? Was it an easy decision? Was it a difficult decision? Were you ever in love? Tell me about this time.
Question 4. When you think back to the first year you were married, what do you remember? Were there any adjustments to being married?
Question 5. What about the transition to becoming parents? Tell me about this period in your marriage. What was it like for the two of you?
Question 6. Looking back over the years, what moments stand out as the really good times in your marriage? What were the really happy times? What is a good time for you as a couple? Has this changed over the years?
Question 7. Many of the couples we’ve talked to say that their relationships go through periods of ups and downs. Would you say that this is true of your marriage?
348 Dr. John Gottman and Dr. Julie Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2 (Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute,Inc., 2012) used with permission
163 Question 8. Looking back over the years, what moments stand out as the really hard times in your marriage? Why do you think you stayed together? How did you get through these difficult times? What is your philosophy about how to get through difficult times?
Question 9. How would you say your marriage is different from when you first got married? (Lots of people have losses here; they have stopped doing things that once gave them pleasure. Explore these with the couple.)
Part II. Your Philosophy of Marriage
Question 10. We’re interested in your ideas about what makes a marriage work. Tell me about why you think some marriages work while others don’t. Think of a couple you know who has a particularly good marriage and one that you know who has a particularly bad marriage. Decide together which two couples these are. What is the difference about these two marriages? How would you compare your own marriage to each of these couples?
Question 11. Tell me about your parents’ marriages. What was their marriage like? Would you say it’s very similar or different from your own marriage?
Question 12. Make a map of the history of your marriage, its major turning points, ups and downs. What were the happiest times for you and your partner? How has your marriage changed over the years?
Question 13. Tell me what you currently know about your partner’s major worries, stresses, hopes and aspiration. How do you stay in touch with one another on a daily basis? What are your routines for staying in emotional contact?
164 Locke-Wallace Relationship Adjustment Test
Your Name:______ID______Date: ______
Locke-Wallace Relationship Adjustment Test Circle the dot on the scale line that best describes the degree of happiness, everything considered,of your present relationship. !e middle point “happy” represents the degree of happiness that most people get from their relationship, and the scale gradually ranges on one side to those few who are very unhappy and, on the other, to those few who experience extreme joy or felicity in their relationship......
Very Unhppy !!!!!Happy !!!!Perfectly Happy
State the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner on the following items. Please check each column.
Always Almost Occasionally Frequently Almost Always Agree Always Disagree Disagree Always Disagree Agree Disagree 1. Handling Family Finances
2. Matters of Recreation
3. Demonstration of Affection
4. Friends
5. Sex Relations
6. Conventionality (right, good, or proper conduct) 7. Philosophy of Life
8. Ways of Dealing with In-laws
For each of the following items, check one response:
9. When disagreements arise, they usually result in (a) me giving in___ (b) my partner giving in___ (c) agreement by mutual give and take__ 10. Do you and your partner engage in outside interests together? (a) all of them___ (b) some of them___ (c) very few of them___ (d) none of them___ 11. In leisure time, do you generally prefer: (a) to be “on the go”___ (b) to stay at home ___ 12. Does your partner generally prefer: (a) to be “on the go”___ (b) to stay at home ___ 13. Do you ever wish you had not committed to this relationship? (a) frequently___ (b) occasionally___ (c) rarely___ (d) never___ 14. If you had your life to live over again, do you think you would: (a) commit to the same person ___ (b) commit to a different person ___ (c) not commit at all ___ 15. Do you ever confide in your partner? (a) almost never___ (b) rarely___ (c) in most things___ (d) in everything___
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
165 Sound Relationship House Questionnaire Love Maps Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
TRUE FALSE
1. I can name my partnerʼs best friends. ❍ ❍
2. I can tell you what stresses my partner is currently facing. ❍ ❍
3. I know the names of some of the people who have been irritating in ❍ ❍ my partnerʼs current life.
4. I can tell you some of my partnerʼs life dreams. ❍ ❍
5. I am very familiar with my partnerʼs religious beliefs and ideas. ❍ ❍
6. I can tell you about my partnerʼs basic philosophy of life. ❍ ❍
7. I can list the relatives my partner likes the least. ❍ ❍
8. I know my partnerʼs favorite music. ❍ ❍
9. I can list my partnerʼs three favorite movies. ❍ ❍
10. My partner is familiar with what are my current stresses. ❍ ❍
11. I know the three times that have been most special in my partnerʼs ❍ ❍ life.
12. I can tell you the most stressful thing that happened to my partner as ❍ ❍ a child.
13. I can list my partnerʼs major aspirations and hopes in life. ❍ ❍
14. I know my partnerʼs major current worries. ❍ ❍
15. My partner knows who my friends are. ❍ ❍
16. I know what my partner would want to do if he suddenly won the ❍ ❍ lottery.
17. I can tell you, in detail, my first impressions of my partner. ❍ ❍
18. Periodically, I update my knowledge of my partnerʼs world. ❍ ❍
19. I feel that my partner knows me pretty well. ❍ ❍
20. My partner is familiar with my own hopes and aspirations. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
166 Fondness and Admiration System Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
TRUE FALSE
1. I can easily list the three things I most admire about my partner. ❍ ❍
2. When we are apart, I often think fondly of my partner. ❍ ❍
3. I will often find some way to tell my partner, “I love you.” ❍ ❍
4. I often touch or kiss my partner affectionately. ❍ ❍
5. My partner really respects me. ❍ ❍
6. I feel loved and cared for in this relationship. ❍ ❍
7. I feel accepted and liked by my partner. ❍ ❍
8. My partner finds me sexy and attractive. ❍ ❍
9. My partner turns me on sexually. ❍ ❍
10. There is fire and passion in this relationship. ❍ ❍
11. Romance is something our relationship definitely still has in it. ❍ ❍
12. I am really proud of my partner. ❍ ❍
13. My partner really enjoys my achievements and accomplishments. ❍ ❍
14. I can easily tell you why I got into a relationship with my partner. ❍ ❍
15. If I had it to do all over again, I would partner with the same person. ❍ ❍
16. We rarely go to sleep without some show of love or affection. ❍ ❍
17. At the end of a day my partner is glad to see me. ❍ ❍
18. My partner appreciates the things I do in this relationship. ❍ ❍
19. My partner generally likes my personality. ❍ ❍
20. Our sex life is generally satisfying. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
167 Turning Towards or Away Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
TRUE FALSE
1. We enjoy doing even the smallest things together, like folding laundry ❍ ❍ or watching TV.
2. I look forward to spending my free time with my partner. ❍ ❍
3. At the end of a day my partner is glad to see me. ❍ ❍
4. My partner is usually interested in hearing my views on things. ❍ ❍
5. I really enjoy discussing things with my partner. ❍ ❍
6. My partner is one of my best friends. ❍ ❍
7. I think my partner would consider me a very close friend. ❍ ❍
8. We love just talking to each other. ❍ ❍
9. When we go out, the time goes very quickly. ❍ ❍
10. We always have a lot to say to each other. ❍ ❍
11. We have a lot of fun together in our everyday lives. ❍ ❍
12. We are spiritually very compatible. ❍ ❍
13. We tend to share the same basic values in life. ❍ ❍
14. We like to spend time together in similar ways. ❍ ❍
15. We really have a lot of interests in common. ❍ ❍
16. We have many of the same dreams and life goals. ❍ ❍
17. We like to do a lot of the same things. ❍ ❍
18. Even though our interests are somewhat different, I enjoy my ❍ ❍ partnerʼs interests.
19. Whatever we do together we usually tend to have a good time. ❍ ❍
20. My partner tells me when he or she has had a bad day. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
168 Negative Sentiment Override Fill this form out thinking about your immediate past (last 2 to 4 weeks), or a recent discussion of an existing relationship issue. Read each statement and #ll in the appropriateTRUE or FALSE bubble.
IN THE RECENT PAST IN MY RELATIONSHIP, GENERALLY: TRUE FALSE
1. I felt hurt. ❍ ❍
2. I felt misunderstood. ❍ ❍
3. I thought, “I donʼt have to take this.” ❍ ❍
4. I felt innocent of blame for this problem. ❍ ❍
5. I thought to myself, “Just get up and leave.” ❍ ❍
6. I was angry. ❍ ❍
7. I felt disappointed. ❍ ❍
8. I felt unjustly accused. ❍ ❍
9. I thought, “My partner has no right to say those things.” ❍ ❍
10. I was frustrated. ❍ ❍
11. I felt personally attacked. ❍ ❍
12. I wanted to strike back. ❍ ❍
13. I felt like I was warding off a barrage. ❍ ❍
14. I felt like getting even. ❍ ❍
15. I wanted to protect myself. ❍ ❍
16. I took my partnerʼs complaints as slights. ❍ ❍
17. I felt like my partner was trying to control me. ❍ ❍
18. I thought that my partner was very manipulative. ❍ ❍
19. I felt unjustly criticized. ❍ ❍
20. I wanted the negativity to just stop. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
169 Harsh Startup Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
WHEN WE DISCUSS OUR RELATIONSHIP ISSUES: TRUE FALSE
1. My partner is often very critical of me. ❍ ❍
2. I hate the way my partner raises an issue. ❍ ❍
3. Arguments often seem to come out of nowhere. ❍ ❍
4. Before I know it, we are in a fight. ❍ ❍
5. When my partner complains, I feel picked on. ❍ ❍
6. I seem to always get blamed for issues. ❍ ❍
7. My partner is negative all out of proportion. ❍ ❍
8. I feel I have to ward off personal attacks. ❍ ❍
9. I often have to deny charges leveled against me. ❍ ❍
10. My partnerʼs feelings are too easily hurt. ❍ ❍
11. What goes wrong is often not my responsibility. ❍ ❍
12. My partner criticizes my personality. ❍ ❍
13. Issues get raised in an insulting manner. ❍ ❍
14. My partner will at times complain in a smug or superior way. ❍ ❍
15. I have just about had it with all this negativity between us. ❍ ❍
16. I feel basically disrespected when my partner complains. ❍ ❍
17. I just want to leave the scene when complaints arise. ❍ ❍
18. Our calm is suddenly shattered. ❍ ❍
19. I find my partnerʼs negativity unnerving and unsettling. ❍ ❍
20. I think my partner can be totally irrational. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
170 Accepting Influence Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
WHEN WE DISCUSS OUR RELATIONSHIP ISSUES: TRUE FALSE
1. I find that I am really interested in my partnerʼs opinion on our basic ❍ ❍ issues.
2. I usually learn a lot from my partner even when we disagree. ❍ ❍
3. I want my partner to feel that what he or she says really counts with me. ❍ ❍
4. I generally want my partner to feel influential in this relationship. ❍ ❍
5. I can listen to my partner, but only up to a point. ❍ ❍
6. My partner has a lot of basic common sense. ❍ ❍
7. I try to communicate respect even during our disagreements. ❍ ❍
8. I donʼt keep trying to convince my partner so that I will eventually win out. ❍ ❍
9. I donʼt reject my partnerʼs opinions out of hand. ❍ ❍
10. My partner is rational enough to take seriously when we discuss our ❍ ❍ issues.
11. I believe in lots of give and take in our discussions. ❍ ❍
12. I am very persuasive, but donʼt usually try to win arguments with my ❍ ❍ partner.
13. I feel important in our decisions. ❍ ❍
14. My partner usually has good ideas. ❍ ❍
15. My partner is basically a great help as a problem-solver. ❍ ❍
16. I try to listen respectfully even when I disagree. ❍ ❍
17. My ideas for solutions are not better than my partnerʼs. ❍ ❍
18. I can usually find something to agree with in my partnerʼs position. ❍ ❍
19. My partner is not usually too emotional. ❍ ❍
20. I am the not one who needs to make the major decisions in this ❍ ❍ relationship.
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
171 Repair Attempts Read each statement and #ll in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
DURING OUR ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE CONFLICT BETWEEN US: TRUE FALSE
1. We are good at taking breaks when we need them. ❍ ❍
2. When I apologize, it usually gets accepted by my partner. ❍ ❍
3. I can say that I am wrong. ❍ ❍
4. I am pretty good at calming myself down. ❍ ❍
5. Even when arguing, we can maintain a sense of humor. ❍ ❍
6. When my partner says we should talk to each other in a different way, it ❍ ❍ usually makes a lot of sense.
7. My attempts to repair our discussions when they get negative are usually ❍ ❍ effective.
8. We are pretty good listeners even when we have different positions on things ❍ ❍
9. If things get heated, we can usually pull out of it and change things. ❍ ❍
10. My partner is good at soothing me when I get upset. ❍ ❍
11. I feel confident that we can resolve most issues between us. ❍ ❍
12. When I comment on how we could communicate better, my partner listens ❍ ❍ to me.
13. Even if things get hard at times, I know we can get past our differences. ❍ ❍
14. We can be affectionate even when we are disagreeing. ❍ ❍
15. Teasing and humor usually work with my partner for getting over negativity. ❍ ❍
16. We can start all over again and improve our discussions when we need to ❍ ❍
17. When emotions run hot, expressing how upset I feel makes a real ❍ ❍ difference.
18. Even when there are big differences between us, we can discuss these. ❍ ❍
19. My partner expresses appreciation for nice things I do. ❍ ❍
20. If I keep trying to communicate, it will eventually work. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
172 Compromise Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
DURING OUR ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE CONFLICT BETWEEN US: TRUE FALSE
1. Our decisions often get made by both of us compromising. ❍ ❍
2. We are usually good at resolving our differences. ❍ ❍
3. I can give in when I need to, and often do. ❍ ❍
4. I can be stubborn in an argument, but Iʼm not opposed to compromising. ❍ ❍
5. I think that sharing power in a relationship is very important. ❍ ❍
6. My partner is not a very stubborn person. ❍ ❍
7. I donʼt believe that one person is usually right and the other wrong on ❍ ❍ most issues.
8. We both believe in meeting each other half way when we disagree. ❍ ❍
9. I am able to yield somewhat even when I feel strongly on an issue. ❍ ❍
10. The two of us usually arrive at a better decision through give-and-take. ❍ ❍
11. Itʼs a good idea to give in somewhat, in my view. ❍ ❍
12. In discussing issues, we can usually find our common ground of ❍ ❍ agreement.
13. Everyone gets some of what they want when there is a compromise. ❍ ❍
14. My partner can give in, and often does. ❍ ❍
15. I donʼt wait until my partner gives in before I do. ❍ ❍
16. When I give in first, my partner then gives in, too. ❍ ❍
17. Yielding power is not very difficult for my partner. ❍ ❍
18. Yielding power is not very difficult for me. ❍ ❍
19. Give-and-take in making decisions is not a problem in this relationship. ❍ ❍
20. I will compromise even when I believe I am right. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
173 Gridlock on Perpetual Issues Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
WHEN WE DISCUSS OUR RELATIONSHIP ISSUES: TRUE FALSE
1. The same problems keep coming up again and again in our relationship. ❍ ❍
2. We rarely make much progress on our central issues. ❍ ❍
3. We keep hurting each other whenever we discuss our core issues. ❍ ❍
4. I feel criticized and misunderstood when we discuss our hot topics. ❍ ❍
5. My partner has a long list of basically unreasonable demands. ❍ ❍
6. When we discuss our basic issues, I often feel that my partner doesnʼt ❍ ❍ even like me.
7. My partner wants me to change my basic personality. ❍ ❍
8. I often keep quiet and withdraw to avoid stirring up too much conflict. ❍ ❍
9. I donʼt feel respected when we disagree. ❍ ❍
10. My partner often acts in a selfish manner. ❍ ❍
11. What I say in our discussions rarely has much effect. ❍ ❍
12. I feel put down in our discussions of key issues. ❍ ❍
13. I canʼt really be myself in this relationship. ❍ ❍
14. I often think that my partner is manipulating me. ❍ ❍
15. Sometimes I think that my partner doesnʼt care about my feelings. ❍ ❍
16. My partner rarely makes a real effort to change. ❍ ❍
17. There are some basic faults in my partnerʼs personality that he or she ❍ ❍ will not change.
18. My partner disregards my fundamental needs. ❍ ❍
19. Sometimes I feel that my values donʼt matter to my partner. ❍ ❍
20. When we discuss our issues, my partner acts as if I am totally wrong and ❍ ❍ he or she is totally right.
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
174 The Four Horsemen Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
WHEN WE DISCUSS OUR RELATIONSHIP ISSUES: TRUE FALSE
1. I feel attacked or criticized when we talk about our disagreements. ❍ ❍
2. I usually feel like my personality is being assaulted. ❍ ❍
3. In our disputes, at times, I donʼt even feel like my partner likes me very ❍ ❍ much.
4. I have to defend myself because the charges against me are so unfair. ❍ ❍
5. I often feel unappreciated by my partner. ❍ ❍
6. My feelings and intentions are often misunderstood. ❍ ❍
7. I donʼt feel appreciated for all the good I do in this relationship. ❍ ❍
8. I often just want to leave the scene of the arguments. ❍ ❍
9. I get disgusted by all the negativity between us. ❍ ❍
10. I feel insulted by my partner at times. ❍ ❍
11. I sometimes just clam up and become quiet. ❍ ❍
12. I can get mean and insulting in our disputes. ❍ ❍
13. I feel basically disrespected. ❍ ❍
14. Many of our issues are just not my problem. ❍ ❍
15. The way we talk makes me want to just withdraw from the whole ❍ ❍ relationship.
16. I think to myself, “Who needs all this conflict?” ❍ ❍
17. My partner never really changes. ❍ ❍
18. Our problems have made me feel desperate at times. ❍ ❍
19. My partner doesnʼt face issues responsibly and maturely. ❍ ❍
20. I try to point out flaws in my partnerʼs personality that need ❍ ❍ improvement.
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
175 The Four Horsemen (continued)
WHEN WE DISCUSS OUR RELATIONSHIP ISSUES: TRUE FALSE
21. I feel explosive and out of control about our issues at times. ❍ ❍
22. My partner uses phrases like “You always” or “You never” when ❍ ❍ complaining.
23. I often get the blame for what are really our problems. ❍ ❍
24. I donʼt have a lot of respect for my partnerʼs position on our basic ❍ ❍ issues.
25. My partner can be quite selfish and self-centered. ❍ ❍
26. I feel disgusted by some of my partnerʼs attitudes. ❍ ❍
27. My partner gets far too emotional. ❍ ❍
28. I am just not guilty of many of the things I get accused of. ❍ ❍
29. Small issues often escalate out of proportion. ❍ ❍
30. Arguments seem to come out of nowhere. ❍ ❍
31. My partnerʼs feelings get hurt too easily. ❍ ❍
32. I often will become silent to cool things down a bit. ❍ ❍
33. My partner has a lot of trouble being rational and logical. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
176 Flooding Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
TRUE FALSE
1. Our discussions get too heated. ❍ ❍
2. I have a hard time calming down. ❍ ❍
3. One of us is going to say something we will regret. ❍ ❍
4. My partner gets too upset. ❍ ❍
5. After a fight, I want to keep my distance. ❍ ❍
6. My partner yells unnecessarily. ❍ ❍
7. I feel overwhelmed by our arguments. ❍ ❍
8. I canʼt think straight when my partner gets hostile. ❍ ❍
9. I think to myself, “Why canʼt we talk more logically?” ❍ ❍
10. My partnerʼs negativity often comes out of nowhere. ❍ ❍
11. Thereʼs often no stopping my partnerʼs temper. ❍ ❍
12. I feel like running away during our fights. ❍ ❍
13. Small issues suddenly become big ones. ❍ ❍
14. I canʼt calm down very easily during an argument. ❍ ❍
15. My partner has a long list of unreasonable demands. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
177 Emotional Disengagement and Loneliness Read each statement and fill in the appropriate TRUE or FALSE bubble.
TRUE FALSE
1. I often find myself disappointed in this relationship. ❍ ❍
2. I have learned to expect less from my partner. ❍ ❍
3. I will, at times, find myself quite lonely in this relationship. ❍ ❍
4. It is hard for my deepest feelings to get much attention in this ❍ ❍ relationship.
5. I often try to avoid saying things I will later regret. ❍ ❍
6. I feel like I have to be so careful, it is like walking on eggshells. ❍ ❍
7. Suddenly, once again, I find I have said the wrong thing. ❍ ❍
8. There is not much intimacy in this relationship right now. ❍ ❍
9. Our relationship problems are not really solvable. ❍ ❍
10. Sometimes our relationship feels empty to me. ❍ ❍
11. This relationship is not quite what I expected, and I feel let down by it. ❍ ❍
12. We are pretty separate and unconnected emotionally. ❍ ❍
13. We donʼt really talk very deeply to each other. ❍ ❍
14. There is not enough closeness between us. ❍ ❍
15. I sometimes think I expect too much and should settle for less in my ❍ ❍ relationship.
16. I am coping with a lot of relationship stress, and Iʼm concerned it will ❍ ❍ not turn out okay.
17. I have adapted to a lot in this relationship, and I am not so sure itʼs a ❍ ❍ good idea.
18. Thereʼs certainly not much romance in this relationship. ❍ ❍
19. I canʼt really say that we are very good friends right now. ❍ ❍
20. I am lonely in this relationship. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
178 Shared Meanings Questionnaire
Honoring Each Otherʼs Dreams Think about how well you and your partner have been able to create a sense of shared meaning in your lives together. When people become partnered, they create a new culture, and some relationships also involve the union of two very different cultures. Even if two people are coming from the same regional, cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds, they will have been raised in two very different families, and their merging involves the creation of a new culture.
YOUR RITUALS TRUE FALSE
1. We see eye-to-eye about the rituals that involve dinner times in our ❍ ❍ home.
2. Holiday meals (such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, Passover) are very ❍ ❍ special and happy times for us.
3. Reunions at the end of each day in our home are generally special times ❍ ❍ in my day.
4. We see eye-to-eye about the role of TV in our home. ❍ ❍
5. Bedtimes are generally good times for being close. ❍ ❍
6. During weekends, we do a lot of things together that we enjoy and value. ❍ ❍
7. We have the same values about entertaining in our home (having friends ❍ ❍ over, parties, etc.).
8. We both value special celebrations (such as birthdays, anniversaries, ❍ ❍ family reunions).
9. When I become sick, I feel taken care of and loved by my partner. ❍ ❍
10. I really look forward to and enjoy our vacations and the travel we do ❍ ❍ together.
11. The mornings together are special times for me. ❍ ❍
12. When we do errands together, we generally have a good time. ❍ ❍
13. We have ways of becoming renewed and refreshed when we are ❍ ❍ burned out or fatigued.
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
179 14. We share many similar values in our roles as partners. ❍ ❍
15. We share many similar values in our roles as parents. ❍ ❍
16. We have many similar views about what it means to be a good friend to ❍ ❍ others.
17. My partner and I have compatible views about the role of work in oneʼs ❍ ❍ life.
18. My partner and I have similar philosophies about balancing work and ❍ ❍ family life.
19. My partner supports what I would see as my basic mission in life. ❍ ❍
YOUR GOALS TRUE FALSE
20. My partner shares my views on the importance of family and kin ❍ ❍ (sisters, brothers, moms, dads) in our life together.
21. We share many of the same goals in our life together. ❍ ❍
22. If I were to look back on my life in very old age, I think I would see that ❍ ❍ our paths in life had meshed very well.
23. My partner values my own accomplishments. ❍ ❍
24. My partner honors my own very personal goals, unrelated to my ❍ ❍ relationship.
25. We share many of the same goals for others who are important to us ❍ ❍ (children, kin, friends and community).
26. We have very similar financial goals. ❍ ❍
27. We tend to have compatible financial disaster scenarios (ones we both ❍ ❍ want to avoid).
28. Our hopes and aspirations, as individuals and together, for our children, ❍ ❍ for our life in general, and for our old age are quite compatible.
29. Our life dreams tend to be similar or compatible. ❍ ❍
30. Even when different, we have been able to find a way to honor our life ❍ ❍ dreams.
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
180 YOUR ROALS TRUE FALSE
31. We share many similar values in our roles as lovers and partners. ❍ ❍
32. My partner and I have compatible views about the role of work in oneʼs ❍ ❍ life.
33. My partner and I have similar philosophies about balancing work and ❍ ❍ family life.
34. My partner supports what I would see as my basic mission in life. ❍ ❍
35. My partner shares my views on the importance of family and kin (sisters, ❍ ❍ brothers, moms, dads) in our life together.
YOUR SYMBOLS TRUE FALSE
36. We see eye-to-eye about what “home” means. ❍ ❍
37. Our philosophies of what love ought to be are quite compatible. ❍ ❍
38. We have similar values about the importance of “peacefulness” in our ❍ ❍ lives.
39. We have similar views about the meaning of “family.” ❍ ❍
40. We have similar views about the role of sex in our lives. ❍ ❍
41. We have similar views about the role of love and affection in our lives. ❍ ❍
42. We have similar values about the meaning of being partnered. ❍ ❍
43. We have similar values about the importance and meaning of money in ❍ ❍ our lives.
44. We have similar values about the importance of education in our lives. ❍ ❍
45. We have similar values about the importance of “fun” and “play” in our ❍ ❍ lives.
46. We have similar values about the significance of adventure. ❍ ❍
47. We have similar values about “trust.” ❍ ❍
48. We have similar values about personal “freedom.” ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
181 49. We have similar values about “autonomy” and “independence.” ❍ ❍
50. We have similar values about sharing “power” in our relationship. ❍ ❍
51. We have similar values about being “interdependent,” of being a “we.” ❍ ❍
52. We have similar values about the meaning of “having possessions,” of ❍ ❍ “owning things” (like cars, nice clothes, books, music, a house and land).
53. We have similar values about the meaning of “nature,” and of our ❍ ❍ relationship to the seasons.
54. We are both sentimental and tend to reminisce about things in our past. ❍ ❍
55. We have similar views about what we want in retirement and old age. ❍ ❍
Copyright © 2000–2010 by Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman. Distributed under license by The Gottman Institute, Inc.
182 Bibliography
Allen, Diogenes. Love: Christian Romance, Marriage, Friendship. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Anderson, Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson, 1986.
Anderson, Katherine, Don S. Browning, and Brian Boyer, eds. Marriage–Just a Piece of Paper? 1st ed. Eerdmans, 2001.
Augsburger, Myron S. The Communicator’s Commentary Series. Waco, TX: Word, 1982.
Balswick, Jack O., and Judith K. Balswick. Authentic Human Sexuality: An Integrated Christian Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.
———. A Model for Marriage: Covenant, Grace, Empowerment and Intimacy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.
Balzer, Tracy. Thin Places: An Evangelical Journey into Celtic Christianity. Abilene, TX: Leafwood, 2007.
Bardsley, Samuel. Personal Journal and Diary. John Rylands Special Collections, University of Manchester, England, 1773.
Barna Group Ltd., The. “New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released,” accessed April, 2013, http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and- divorce-statistics-released.
“BBC’s: The Story of Ireland 1of5 Age of Invasions.” Last modified 30 December 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN0ndWAgA6o&feature=youtube_gdata_player.
Blair, David M. “Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 19, no. 2 (1992): 242–46.
Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The Craft of Research. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Brant, Jo-Ann. John. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament, edited by Mikeal Parsons, and Charles Talbert. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.
183 British Broadcasting Corporation. “BBC - History - Ancient History in Depth: Peoples of Britain.” Accessed 26 February, 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/ british_prehistory/peoples_01.shtml#three.
———. “Terry Jones’ Barbarians - S1 Ep1 - The Primitive Celts – BBC.” Last modified 1 December 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=iKGVqXznpNU&feature=youtube_gdata_player.
Bruce, F. F., The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, Notes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.
Buchanan, Mark. Spiritual Rhythm: Being with Jesus Every Season of Your Soul. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.
Burr, Wesley R., Loren D. Marks, and Randal D. Day. Sacred Matters: Religion and Spirituality in Families. New York: Routledge, 2011.
Carver, Gary L. “Acts 2:42-47.” Review & Expositor 87, no. 3 (1990): 475–80.
Ceasar, Paul T., and Darryl Ducote. Partners on the Journey. A Christian Marriage Enrichment Series. Catholic Edition. Participants Booklet. Seattle: The Gottman Institute, Baton Rouge: Marriage Ministry Resources, 2012.
Chapman, Gary. The Five Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts. Chicago: Moody Publishing, 2010.
Claiborne, Shane. Irresistible Revolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.
Clinton, Tim, and Julie Clinton. The Marriage You’ve Always Wanted: How to Grow a Stronger, More Intimate Relationship. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000.
Crabb, Larry. Connecting. Reprint edition. Nashville, TN: Word, 2005.
Crabb, Larry, and Eugene Peterson. The Safest Place on Earth: Where People Connect and Are Forever Changed. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999.
Culpepper, R Alan. “The Theology of the Gospel of John.” Review & Expositor 85, no. 3 (1988): 417–32.
Cunliffe, Barry W. Britain Begins. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
184 “Cunliffe, Barry: Who Were the Celts?” Last modified 4 February 2014. http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FM9nMFbfI&feature=youtube_gdata_player.
Davies, Oliver, and Fiona Bowie. Celtic Christian Spirituality: Medieval and Modern. London: SPCK, 1995.
Davies, Oliver, and Thomas O’Loughlin. Celtic Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1999.
Davies, Rupert E., ed. The Works of John Wesley. Volume 9, The Methodist Societies, History, Nature and Design, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.
Dayringer, Richard L. The Heart of Pastoral Counseling: Healing Through Relationship. Rev. Ed. Binghamton, NY: Routledge, 1998.
Deasley, Alex R. G. Marriage and Divorce: In the Bible and the Church. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 2000. de Waal, Esther. Every Earthly Blessing: Rediscovering the Celtic Tradition. Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing, 1999.
———. The Celtic Way of Prayer: The Recovery of the Religious Imagination. Reprint edition. New York: Image, 1999.
Dietrich, Jan. “Friendship with God, Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Perspectives.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 28, no. 2 (2014): 157–71.
Doherty, Jerry C. A Celtic Model of Ministry: The Reawakening of Community Spirituality. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003.
Dowd, William Aloysius. “Exegetical Notes: Breaking Bread (Acts 2:46).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1, no. 4 (1939): 358–62.
Emerson, Everett H. “Calvin and Covenant Theology.” Church History 25, no. 2 (1956): 136–44.
Fitzgerald, William John. A Contemporary Celtic Prayer Book. Chicago, IL: Acta, 1998.
Geisler, Norman. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.
185 Gorazd, Fr. "Celtic Christian Spirituality - Orthodox Christian Information Center." Accessed 25 February, 2014. http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/celtic.aspx.
Gottman, John M. Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically Based Marital Therapy. 1st ed. New York: WW Norton, 1999.
———. The Relationship Cure: A 5 Step Guide to Strengthening Your Marriage, Family, and Friendships. 1st ed. New York: Harmony, 2002.
Gottman, John M., and Julie Gottman, Assessment, Intervention and Co-Morbidities, Gottman Couples Therapy Level 2. Distributed under license by The Gottman Relationship Institute, 2012.
Gottman, John M., and Robert W. Levenson. “The Timing of Divorce: Prediction when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period.” Journal of Marriage and the Family.Volume 62, Number 3, (2000): 737-745.
Gottman, John M., and Nan Silver. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999.
Gray, George, and Neil Guppy. Successful Surveys. 4th ed. Toronto: Nelson College Indigenous, 2007.
Greenberg, Leslie S., and Susan M. Johnson. Emotionally Focused Therapy for Couples. 1st ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2010.
Grenz, Linda L., and Delbert Glover. The Marriage Journey: Preparations and Provisions for Life Together. 2nd ed. New York: Church Publishing, 2003.
Grenz, Stanley., and David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 1999), 26.
Guenther, Margaret. Holy Listening: The Art of Spiritual Direction. Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications, 1992.
Gundry, Robert H. A Survey of the New Testament. 5th ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.
186 Hailey, David J. “Take a Walk on the Wild Side: Genesis 1:1-2; John 3:8; Mark 1:12-13.” Review & Expositor 106, no. 4 (2009): 617–21.
Hauerwas, Stanley. “Virtue, Description and Friendship: A Thought Experiment in Catholic Moral Theology.” Irish Theological Quarterly 62, no. 2–3 (1996): 170–84. doi: 10.1177/002114009606200207.
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy. Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with Practice. 1st ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2010.
Henderson, D. Michael. A Model for Making Disciples: John Wesley’s Class Meeting. Nappanee, IN: Evangel, 1997.
“History of Britain: Rise and Fall of the Druids. BBC Documentary.” 2013. http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdvBePlmxAg&feature=youtube_gdata_player [video no longer available].
Holden, William. Personal Journal and Diary. John Rylands Special Collections, University of Manchester, England, 1768-1770.
“How the Celts Saved Britain - A New Civilization.” 2013. http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=e56WFK73EZU&feature=youtube_gdata_player [video no longer available].
“‘How The Celts Saved Britain’ (part 2of2) Dark Ages and the Celts - BBC 2009.” Last modified 25 November, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=uIBkv7pU9Eo&feature=youtube_gdata_player.
James, Simon. The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention? Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1999.
Johnson, Sue. “Bonds or Bargains: Relationship Paradigms and their Significance for Marital Therapy.” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 12, no. 3 (1986): 259–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1986.tb00652.x.
Johnson, Sue. Love Sense: The Revolutionary New Science of Romantic Relationships. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2013.
Johnson, Sue. Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love, MP3 version, Grand Haven, MI: Brilliance Audio, 2008.
187 Johnson, Susan M., and Leslie S. Greenberg. The Heart of the Matter: Perspectives on Emotion in Marital Therapy. New York, NY: Brunner Mazel, 1994.
Jones, W. Paul. The Art of Spiritual Direction: Giving and Receiving Spiritual Guidance. Nashville, TN: Upper Room Press, 2002.
Joyce, Timothy J. Celtic Christianity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2011.
Keener, Craig S. Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009.
Kelly, Geffrey B. “Celtic Christianity & Creation Spirituality.” Living Pulpit 9, no. 2 (2000): 16–17.
Kelly, Thomas M. “Toward an Integrated Phenomenology of Married Love.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 5, no. 1 (2002): 76–102. doi:10.1353/log. 2002.0006.
Kings James Bible online. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-27, 31. (Accessed December 20, 2015.)
Kroeger, Catherine Clark, and Nancy Nason-Clark. No Place for Abuse: Biblical and Practical Resources to Counteract Domestic Violence. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2010.
Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Friends with God? Moses and the Possibility of Covenantal Friendship.” Interpretation 58, no. 2 (2004): 117–29.
Lee, Edwin Kenneth. Religious Thought of St. John. 1st ed. London: SPCK, 1950.
LeMasters, Philip. “Celtic Christianity: Its Call to Discipleship.” Encounter 60, no. 4 (1999): 463–95.
Levitt, Laura S. “Covenant or Contract? Marriage as Theology.” Cross Currents 48, no. 2 (1998): 169–84.
Lewis, C. S. “C.S. Lewis Daily.” https://twitter.om/CSLewisDaily/status/ 532109485481803776. Accessed Nov 11, 2014.
———. The Four Loves. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1960.
188 Livingston, G. Herbert, Dennis F. Kinlaw, Leo G. Cox, Lauriston J. Du Bois, Jack Ford, and Alex R. G. Deasley. Beacon Bible Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis through Deuteronomy. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1969.
Longenecker, Richard N. Acts. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Love, Patricia, and Steven Stosny. How to Improve Your Marriage Without Talking About It. Reprint edition. New York: Harmony, 2008.
Markman, Howard J., Scott M. Stanley, and Susan L. Blumberg. Fighting for Your Marriage: A Deluxe Revised Edition of the Classic Best-Seller for Enhancing Marriage and Preventing Divorce. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
Marshall, I. Howard, and David Peterson, eds. Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
Martin, F. “Biblical Teaching on Marriage: A Brief Survey.” Word & World 23, no. 1 (2003): 15–22.
Matthaei, Sondra Higgins. Making Disciples: Faith Formation in the Wesleyan Tradition. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000.
Mayfeld, Joseph H., and Ralph Earl. John, Acts. Vol. VII of The Beacon Bible Commentary in Ten Volumes. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1965.
McClendon Jr., James William. Ethics. 2nd ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002.
McEvoy, James. “Friendship within Marriage: A Philosophical Essay.” In Moral Truth and Moral Tradition, edited by P. T. Geach, Luke Gormally, and G. E. M. Anscombe, 194–202. Dublin: Four Courts, 1994.
Milne, Bruce. The Message of John (Bible Speaks Today). Westmont, Ill: IVP Academics, 1993.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Mould, Daphne D. C. Pochin. The Celtic Saints. 1st ed.New York: MacMillan, 1956.
189 Moltmann, Jurgen. “Open Friendship: Aristotelian and Christian Concepts of Friendship.” In The Changing Face of Friendship, edited by Leroy Rouner. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.
“New Testament Greek Lexicon.” Accessed 20 June, 2014. http:// www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek.
Newell, J. Philip. Listening for the Heartbeat of God: A Celtic Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.
———. One Foot in Eden: A Celtic View of the Stages of Life. New York: Paulist Press, 1999.
Newell, John Philip, and Mary C. Earle. Celtic Christian Spirituality: Essential Writings Annotated & Explained. 1st ed. Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths, 2011.
Newey, Edmund, “Jeremy Taylor and the Theology of Marriage.” Anglican Theological Review 84 no. 2 (2002): 269-285.
Nouwen, Henri. The Inner Voice of Love. Rev. ed. New York: Image, 1999.
———. The Wounded Healer: Ministry in Contemporary Society. 1st ed. New York, NY: Image, 1979.
Nouwen, Henri, Donald P. McNeill, and Douglas A. Morrison. Compassion: A Reflection on the Christian Life. New York: Image, 2005.
O’Beirne, Marguerite. “Discovering Celtic Christianity: Its Roots, Relationship and Relevance.” Horizons 27, no. 2 (2000): 414–15.
O’Day, Gail R. “Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John.” Interpretation 58, no. 2 (2004): 144–57.
O’Donohue, John. Anam Cara: A Book of Celtic Wisdom. 1st ed. New York: Harper Perennial, 1998.
O’Donoghue, Tom, and Keith Punch, eds. Qualitative Educational Research in Action: Doing and Reflecting. 1st ed. London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003.
Olson, David H., and Amy K. Olson. Empowering Couples: Building on Your Strengths. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations, 2000.
190 Paddison, Angus. “Engaging Scripture: Incarnation and the Gospel of John.” Scottish Journal of Theology 60, no. 2 (2007): 144–60.
Palmer, Parker J. A Hidden Wholeness: The Journey Toward an Undivided Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004.
Parrott, Les, and Leslie Parrott. The Complete Guide to Marriage Mentoring: Connecting Couples to Build Better Marriages. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Polhill, John B. Acts: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, The New American Commentary. Vol 26, Ed. David S. Dockery, Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.
Power, Rosemary. “A Place of Community: ‘Celtic’ Iona and Institutional Religion.” Folklore 117, no. 1 (2006): 33–53. doi:10.1080/00155870500479919.
Pue, Carson, and George Barna. Mentoring Leaders: Wisdom for Developing Character, Calling, and Competency. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.
Scazzero, Peter. Emotionally Healthy Spirituality: Unleash a Revolution in Your Life in Christ. Reprint edition. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2011.
Schnarch, David. Passionate Marriage. Reprint edition. New York: WW Norton, 2009.
Sellner, Edward C. The Celtic Soul Friend: A Trusted Guide for Today. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2002.
———. “Celtic Soul Friendship and Contemporary Spiritual Mentoring.” In Handbook of Spirituality for Ministers, Volume 2: Perspectives for the 21st Century, edited by Robert J. Wicks, 360–72. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000.
Sensing, Tim. Qualitative Research: A Multi-Methods Approach to Projects for Doctor of Ministry Theses. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011.
Shauf, Scott. “Commentary on Acts 2:42-47 by Scott Shauf.” Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=2043.
Shults, F., and Steven Sandage. Transforming Spirituality: Integrating Theology and Psychology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
191 Stanley, Scott M., Daniel Trathen, Savanna McCain, and Milt Bryan. A Lasting Promise: A Christian Guide to Fighting for Your Marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998. Stassen, Glen Harold, and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006.
Stewart, Columba. Cassian the Monk. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Stott, John R. The Message of Acts. Reprint edition. Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990.
“Strong’s Greek: 2853. Κολλάω (kollaó) -- to Glue, Unite.” Accessed July 7, 2015. http:// biblehub.com/greek/2853.htm .
Swisher, David J. “Evangelizing Post-Moderns: A Celtic Model.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 47, no. 2 (2012): 179–94.
The Holy Bible, New International Bible, Cornerstone Bible Publishers, Nashville Tennessee, 1999.
The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, Wheaton: Tydale House Publishers, Inc, 1996.
Trites, Allison A., William J. Larkin. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Luke, Acts. Vol 12, Edited by Acts Philip W. Comfort. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Carol Stream. 2006.
Trousdale, Ann. “Embodied Spirituality.” International Journal of Children’s Spirituality 18, no. 1 (2013): 18–29. doi:10.1080/1364436X.2013.766880.
Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, Seventh Edition: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers. Edited by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, and University of Chicago Press Staff. 7th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Vacek, Edward Collins. “Discernment within a Mutual Love Relationship with God: A New Theological Foundation.” Theological Studies 74, no. 3 (2013): 683–710.
Van Asselt, Willem J. “Covenant Theology: An Invitation to Friendship.” Netherlands Theologisch Tijdschift 64 (2010): 1–15.
192 Vanier, Jean. Drawn into the Mystery of Jesus Through the Gospel of John. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2013.
Volz, Carl A. “Celtic Christianity, a Sacred Tradition, a Vision of Hope.” Word & World 18, no. 4 (1998): 432–34.
Waite, Linda J., and Evelyn L. Lehrer. “The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis.” Population and Development Review 29, no. 2 (2003): 255–76.
Waite, Linda, and Maggie Gallagher. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially. Reprint edition. New York: Broadway Books, 2001.
Watson, David Lowes. The Early Methodist Class Meeting: Its Origin and Significance. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002.
Wertz, Frederick J., Kathy Charmaz, Linda M. McMullen, Ruthellen Josselson, Rosemarie Anderson, and Emalinda McSpadden. Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry. New York: The Guilford Press, 2011.
Webb, William J. “A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: Encouraging Dialogue Among Four Evangelical Views.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 2 (2005): 331–49.
Wesley, John., and Albert Cook Outler. The Works of John Wesley. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984.
Willard, Dallas, and The Navigators. Renovation of the Heart: Putting On the Character of Christ. 10th ed. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012.
Zaczek, Iain, and David C. Lyons. Sacred Celtic Places. London: Collins & Brown, 2002.
193