Ashland Theological Seminary Marriage: the Impact of Using an Eight-Week Study on Communication and Conflict Resolution to Move

ASHLAND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

MARRIAGE: THE IMPACT OF USING AN EIGHT-WEEK STUDY ON COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION TO MOVE SELECT COUPLES FROM CONFLICT TO FORGIVENESS

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ASHLAND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY

BY CYNTHIA E. AARON WOODS

ASHLAND, OHIO MARCH 3, 2021

To Minister Reginald Woods, I’ll see you again

What Greater Thing

What greater thing is there for two human souls? than to feel that they are joined for life- to strengthen each other in all labor, to rest on each other in all sorrow, to minister to each other in all pain, to be one with each other in silent unspeakable memories ... George Eliot

APPROVAL PAGE Accepted by the faculty and the final demonstration examining committee of Ashland Theological Seminary, Ashland, Ohio, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Ministry degree.

______Academic Advisor Date

______Director of the Doctor of Ministry Program Date

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this project was to impact Christian married couples from

Foundational Counseling Services through participation in an eight-week study on communication, conflict resolution and forgiveness. The project included quantitative and qualitative pre-test, post-test design that assessed knowledge, cooperation, and the importance of unity in the participants’ marriage. The pre- test assessment showed participants had a genuine desire to resolve conflict in their marriage but with little application of Biblical principles and values within the marriage.

Upon completing the eight-week experience, the post-test assessment demonstrated that participants exhibited understanding of the importance in resolving conflict to develop forgiveness and unity.

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………… viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………… ix

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW ………. 1

2. BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS …………………………………………… 18

3. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ………………………... 58

4. DESIGN, PROCEDURE, AND ASSESSMENT………... 89

5. REPORTING THE RESULTS …………………………… 105

6. SUMMARY AND REFLECTIONS ………………………. 125

Appendix

1. PROPOSAL ………………………………………………. 151

2. PERMISSION PAGE ….…………………...... 178

3. ASSESSMENT TOOL …………………………………… 179

4. MARITAL HANDOUTS …………………….……………. 184

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………. 187

vii

TABLES

Table Page

1. Table 1. Goal #1 Understanding the Importance of Cooperation in…. 107 Resolving Conflict

Table 1a. Goal #1: Understanding the Importance of Cooperation…….109 in Resolving Conflict

2. Table 2. Goal #5 Ability to Value Their Spouse’s Point of View……..…110

3. Table 3. Goal #6 Ability to Respect Their Spouse ………………...... 112

4. Table 4. Goal #2 Communicate More Effectively Their Needs in the….114 Marriage

Table 4a. Goal 2 Communicate More Effectively Their Needs in the….116 Marriage

5. Table 5. Goal #4 Ability to Forgive Their Spouse ………………….…… 118

Table 5a. Ability to Forgive Their Spouse…………………………………120

6. Table 6. Goal #3 Understanding of Values of the Biblical Aspect of……122

Marriage

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project and paper have had critical contributions from many minds and hearts. I am extremely grateful to those mentioned below and more.

To Dr. Terry Wardle whose teaching and counsel formed the specific foundations of this project. Your shared experiences and affirmation that this tool would make a difference in the Kingdom sustained me through many challenges.

To the faculty at Ashland Theological Seminary and Dr. Dawn Morton for your guidance and expertise in the writing process, especially Dr. Jerrolynn

Johnson for your encouragement, that endowed me with strength and confidence.

To Dr. Matthew Bevere who was instrumental in understanding my vision for the project and the guidance he provided in structuring it.

To Dr. Jacquelyne Bailey who advised, and encouraged me in this project.

To Katurah Johnson whose teaching skills guided me in this project.

To Rev. Dr. A.L. Owens who opened his library of resources to me.

To Rev. Dr. Benjamin Franklin who was a fountain of encouragement.

To my family and friends, who believed I would accomplish this. To God, I could not have done this without your precious Spirit. Please accept this as an offering for use in furthering Your Kingdom. May it be pleasing in Your sight.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW

One evening at dusk my husband and I were walking in the park talking about life and enjoying nature as God created it. It was just before nightfall on a warm summer evening. The full trees hosted many birds. We found a pier by the pond and sat with our feet dangling from the edge as the fish swam by. We began to talk about marriage and how the Lord has blessed us and planted us in various situations to help other married couples work through the difficult times in their marriage. We realized helping other couples was part of our ministry. The conversation changed to my doctoral program at Ashland and the subject of selecting a project for my dissertation. I wanted it to be something meaningful to me; either related to counseling or ministry. Suddenly my husband suggested why not do my project on marriage. He reminded me of the experience I have in that area working with couples as well as our own marriage. I felt such a sense of peace about using marriage as my project and gratefulness for my husband’s suggestion.

Since writing the proposal a few changes have taken place. The first change required me to move the project for married couples from the church I attended, Second Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church to my private practice,

Foundational Counseling Services. The move allowed me greater access to married couples who were experiencing communication problems and conflict in their marriages along with other issues. Instead of having the couples collectively

1 in a group setting, allowing for transparency and respecting privacy I was able to have them participate individually in couple sessions. Another change that took place was the death of several family members. These losses affected the progress of the project during my grieving period. First was my oldest brother

Mark S. Aaron who passed away on September 18, 2017. Two months after that the Lord called the love of my life, my husband, Minister William Reginald Woods home on November 15, 2017. Three years later my last living brother Walter

Michael Aaron on June 26, 2020.

Purpose Statement and Research Question

The purpose of this project was to impact the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio. The research question was; What is the impact on the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at

Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio?

Overview

This project took place at Foundational Counseling Services, LLC.

Its goal is to assist Christian married couples with the problems that occur in their marriage. The areas of focus included the following topics: to increase awareness in communication by identifying negative communication styles, how to improve them, conflict resolutions, and forgiveness. The project purpose was to impact the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness in marriage. Seven Christian married couples met individually for eight weeks and

2 participated in a two-hour weekly session consisting of the following components; spiritual, teaching and experiential. The spiritual component consisted of what

God says about marriage biblically and theologically using scriptures based on the foundational scriptures for marriage found in Genesis 2:18, 21-24 Christ and

His Bride the Church Ephesians 5:21-33, and love represented by 1 Corinthians

13:4-7. The scriptures used will be from the New International Version unless otherwise noted. The teaching component consisted of improving communication styles and how to resolve conflict. The experiential learning component involved reflecting on the exercises as they practiced them.

Foundations

I have learned even in a healthy marriage built on godly principles; conflict exists. It is a natural occurring aspect of relationships. Everything in marriage is not all positive or all negative. There should be a balance which brings married couples closer when they have disagreements, yet are able to resolve them and move past them. Any relationship whether parents, siblings, friends and romantic relationships will experience conflict at some point in the relationship.

I was married previously in an unhealthy relationship where God was not honored in the marriage, resulting in principles and values being compromised.

Recognizing after thirteen years things were not getting better without Christ in my life things finally ended. I made a vow to the Lord, “If you get me out of this

Lord, I will serve you for the rest of my life.” He did and I have served him for the past twenty-five years.

I have experienced fifteen years in a previous marriage, and twenty-one years in a loving marriage with godly principles, honoring Jesus Christ. It is ironic that the Lord would speak to my husband to let me know marriage is the subject for my project. I always knew I would be in the helping profession. In my counseling practice I have been helping couples in their relationship for over thirteen years. There is a desire for couples to try and repair what is broken in their marriages and try and stay together. When the work begins it is difficult for the couples to let go of their own motives and agendas; however, this is necessary for change to take place.

Personally, this journey has taught me how to trust and see the Lord in all aspects of my life and to increase my awareness of His presence. As I continue to grow spiritually, I want to mature in the area of being more Christ centered and less self-centered. The Doctoral program has helped me tremendously in this area of growth and development. The wealth of information that I have been exposed to has broadened the depth of my understanding in how this project became part of my purpose. It has given me the insight into fulfilling a desire I initially had to help my own marriage with the problems we were experiencing internally, which has blossomed and taken on a broader scope to reach other couples externally that I may not have been able to do before. Individuals are hurting within their marriage, resulting in their marriages suffering for lack of tools, information and divine intervention. I believe the Lord has made me an instrument that He can use in His process of healing marriages and making them as He designed.

Biblical Foundation

The biblical foundation of this project focuses on two key passages of scripture, which are: Genesis 2:18, 21-24, and Ephesians 5:22-33 with references made to Genesis 1:26-27. The first scripture, Genesis 2:18 describes

God’s view of the state of man as it was “not good” for man to be alone. This is the image of marriage that God created with man and woman. The union of taking this woman from man symbolically represents one flesh in Genesis 2:21-

24. The two are one, complete as God’s design for marriage. The design was for oneness. However Christian married couples are challenged with this information in applying it to their marriages. Some feel it is outdated or obsolete.

They may believe part and not all. Or one spouse may adhere to the principles but the other does not.

Ephesians 5:21-33 may be viewed as a guide to assist married couples in their marital roles and aide in God’s purpose for marriage. Yet possibly it is a strategy in decreasing conflict. It gives a picture of marriage and the parallel relationship of Christ and His Bride taking shape in their lives. It is imperative for spouses to understand and recognize the importance of honoring their commitment in marriage. They should honor the promise they made to God to stay together in oneness the way He created them to be.

There are many challenges married couples face in their covenant relationship with each other and with God; as well as the challenge to stay together in a committed relationship. God designed the union referred to as

“become one flesh” in Gen. 2:24 and it is God’s doing and not man. To

5 understand the importance of covenant, A. Köstenberger joins into the discussion by reinforcing the concept of marriage as a covenant focusing on the permanence of marriage. He points out marriage constitutes a serious commitment that should not be entered into lightly or unadvisedly. It involves a solemn promise or pledge, not merely to one’s marriage partner but before God

(Köstenberger 2004, 89).

Köstenberger uses the term commitment interchangeably with covenant.

The covenant aspect (what must happen) of marriage is further represented in

Genesis 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Peter Hay describes three aspects existing in this scripture that represent the covenant, having both “religious and secular connotations attached while supporting

Köstenberger’s use of the word commitment instead of covenant.

Hay uses covenant and commitment interchangeably. First, he expresses commitment and devotion, second an acknowledgement of a divine command, and third it is “reminiscent of a contract; to do or not do something” (Hay 2005,

297). Sterrenburg also highlights three aspects evolving around the expressions leave, unite (cleave in KJV) and become (be) one flesh. He reasons, to leave father and mother, symbolizes the wedding ceremony and publicly professing their commitment. To unite or cleave, symbolizes the wedding ceremony and publicly professing their commitment (Sterrenburg 2012, 7). Both Hay and

Sterrenburg also weigh in on using covenant and commitment interchangeably

6 and Hamer and Sterrenburg agree lastly, on the act of physical intimacy forming the “one flesh” concept as intended in Genesis 2:24.

Theological Foundation

The theological foundations of marriage are expounded upon by various theologians on topics such as Theology of Love, Sacramentality of Marriage,

Theology of Marriage, Theology of Covenants, and Sexuality. Thomas Whitelaw, proposes man’s incompleteness by his lonely nature causing a need for its completion, physically, intellectually, and socially. Therefore, man’s need and woman’s power to satisfy that need, is laid in the foundation for the divine institution of marriage (Whitelaw 1977, 50). Out of those topics I want to focus on theological perspectives surrounding arguments about love, marriage, covenant, and sexuality.

Werner’s perspective comes from a theological framework of love and why there is only true pure Christian love opposed to love with eroticism or “impure love.” Over the past few years interest in love and the theology of love have grown in the Western culture as academic disciplines began to focus on the more personal aspects of marriage during the Twentieth Century (Werner 2010).

Brunner conceptualizes the theology of marriage having three layers of argument; an understanding of premoral goods or interests that humans have, a theory of natural law that inclines humans toward certain sexual, marital, and familial habits that are naturally expedient, and a theory of covenant that stabilizes and organizes these natural inclinations for the good of each person and the common good of society (Brunner 1957, 738). Exclusive and enduring

7 monogamous marriages, furthermore, are the best way to ensure that men and women are treated with equal dignity and respect, and that husbands and wives, parents and children provide each other with mutual support and protection throughout their lifetimes (Browning 2011, 739-740).

Browning simplistically and practically explains that the natural part of this theory starts with an account of all the personal and natural conditions that make up human life. Browning uses a grounding concept of natural law and an overarching theory of a covenant relationship to form an integrative marriage theory. That is based in part on “natural facts” conditions, interests, needs, qualities of human life, and generation of the “premoral” goods or realities of life.

That is, they are morally relevant but not morally deﬁnitive (Browning 2011, 734).

Historical Foundation

My focus on the history of marriage begins with the Babylonian period of

1894 BCE. To illustrate the context of Old Testament marriage law I shall look at two cultures at opposite ends of the Old Testament period: The Babylonian cultural era (Mesopotamia) and the Elephantine. I shall then move through cultures unto the first century AD. Also, to be explore is Mesopotamia marriage laws, historical information on what the church has done about marriage and their viewpoint.

By contrast we have evidence of numerous disciplinary decisions in line with the spiritual and ethical guidance contained in apostolic writings. The precise wording of these decisions varies from region to region and from period to period, but the issues they addressed are fairly constant: whether a marriage is

8 legitimate, whether it is to be prohibited as incestuous or degrading, or whether a separation is required in view of the reception of baptism by an adult or participation in the Eucharist (Yves Lacoste 1999, 985).

Concerning the history of marriage my focus is on the Hebrew cultures in the Old Testament Bible. To illustrate the context of Old Testament marriage law

I shall look at two cultures at opposite ends of the Old Testament period: The old

Babylonian (Mesopotamia) culture and the Elephantine. I shall then move on to the first century AD. Mesopotamia marriage laws, explored historical information on what the churches in the First Centuries East and West Religion have done about marriage and their viewpoint.

There were customs and traditions that took place in Mesopotamia pertaining to how families were formed for marriage. Some traditions were formed for children at young ages; girls between the ages of 10 to 14 and boys

12 to 16 or earlier. Parents chose who their children would marry based on many factors; wealth, blood line, and other socioeconomic reasons. There were some exceptions such as marrying for love and co-habitation. Even though co- habitation was legal, it was not counted as marriage and there would be no compensation or dowry if the arrangement ended (Wenham 1989, 7).

9 regard. The ritual significance of dotation and documentation was as important as its economic function. Gifts or agreements marked steps in the process of marrying, ensured that the marriage was honorable, and sometimes helped to distinguish between a true marriage and a causal relationship. Even a vestigial or token gift such as a flower could be significant in the absence of wealth. Some marriages did not occur without a formal dotation due to the need to distinguish between a causal relationship and marriage (Witte 2007, 38).

I examined what the Church has done historically concerning marriage and how marriage was looked upon in the Christian community. During the first century, there was a tendency within Christianity to distrust marriage, because of the beliefs and practices of a religious Gnostic sect. Their practice renounced marriage as well as abstaining from meat and wine in their dietary practices and tried to influence the Church to do the same. However, the Churches recognized marriage as having a positive value in the life of Christian communities (Yves

Lacoste 1999, 985). Yet there was no systematic development of the liturgical aspect of marriage within the Church.

Contemporary Foundation

The contemporary foundation brings us closer to the present complexities of marriage. There are many contemporary authors on marriage, however I want to focus on those authors who provide models and theories that believe God is the author of marriage. They exhibited components on how to maintain love, improve communication, resolve conflict and forgive. These elements preserve the marriage; allowing spouses to turn toward each other, apply strategies, heal

10 from hurts, and practice forgiveness just as they have received forgiveness from

God. An argument for love in the contemporary literature is that of Gary

Chapman. He points out the importance of love being the most important word in the English language and the most confusing. He recognizes the founder of love,

(Jesus Christ) wanted love to be the distinguishing characteristic of His followers

(Chapman 1992, 19).

Chapman ascribes to the different meanings love has in a romantic relationship and the importance of the married couple to understand each other’s love language. In terms of love language Chapman points out “Being sincere is not enough. We must be willing to learn our spouse’s primary love language if we are to be effective communicators of love” (Chapman 1992, 15).

Resolving conflict leads to improved communication. Whereas John

Gottman has done extensive research and takes an in-depth approach to

Shevack stand-alone view of conflict, John Gottman focuses on conflict as a cause-and-effect relationship with communication. Gottman takes a two-pronged approach of looking at the conflict and also the communication styles that cause the conflict. The model Gottman has for making marriage work has seven principles factored in to improve communication as well as resolve conflict.

Gottman also gives scientific results predicting how conflict and physiological responses affect the marriage (Gottman 1999, 3). Researchers were able to predict the fate of newlywed couples ten years later just by measuring hormone levels in their blood during their first year of marriage (Gottman 1999, 4).

Context The participants were Christian couples, pre-married or married, varied by age, years of marriage, and or if previously married had a desire to follow the image of marriage that God has designed along with Christian spiritual beliefs.

The demographics of the couples were married, Christian, and ranged in age from 25-69. The participants ranged from less than 3 to more than 15 years in their present faith community. The gender was male (husband) and female

(wife). The years of marriage range from 1 to 20. The other criteria used was married before yes and divorced/separated yes. The survey participants were selected from various resources such as my local church, Second Ebenezer

Missionary Baptist Church located in the Cleveland area, a counseling network called Psychology Today and referrals. Those couples who were experiencing problems in communication, conflict and forgiveness in their marriage were selected for the project.

The key focus was aimed at evaluating the impact of using an eight-week study on communication and conflict resolution to move select couples from conflict to forgiveness in their marriages. Marriage is at the heart of my ministry, and I became involved with married couples after having over 36 of married life. I wanted to build a marriage on godly principles as I sought out how to help my marriage, I discovered how to help others in the process. Although couples have chosen to live as one flesh in oneness and unity, and by doing so have chosen to follow the will of God for their marriage. However, that does not exempt them from incurring problems in the marriage. Observing the impact of the problems and how it influences couples from growing within their marriage

12 has led me to pursue this project to help couples develop positive ways to solve the problems they incur as married couples.

The project was beneficial for several reasons. First, there is an increasing amount of Christian married couples that are having difficulty in their marriages.

Second, the assessment revealed there is a need for interventions and guidance.

Couples were chosen for the project, who demonstrated their inability to interrupt the cycle of arguments and unresolved conflicts that lead to unforgiveness and separateness. Coming to the counseling office demonstrated their acknowledgement of marital problems and their ability to seek help. God uses those whose hearts are pliable for Him. Those participants recognized they needed help in order for change to occur within themselves and their marriage.

At the conclusion of the project, they demonstrated improvement in the areas of communication, conflict resolution and forgiveness.

Project Goals

The purpose of this project was to impact the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness in marriage through a Formational Counseling experience at Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio. The goals were as follows:

1. To impact participants’ understanding about the importance of cooperation in

resolving conflict.

2. To impact participants’ ability to communicate more effectively their needs in

the marriage.

3. To impact participants’ understanding of values of the Biblical aspect of

marriage.

4. To impact participants’ capacity to forgive their spouse.

5. To impact participants’ ability to value their spouse’s point of view.

6. To impact participants’ ability to respect their spouse.

Design, Procedure, and Assessment

The research question is: What is the impact on the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio? I conducted an impact project titled “Moving Couples from Conflict to Forgiveness in Marriage.” I held a series of two-hour sessions for eight weeks. That changed from every two weeks to weekly and the retreat was replaced with an initial session to assess the potential participant’s problems they were having in the marriage and obtain their permission to participate in this study.

The project focused on the understanding of biblical principles as they relate to marriage. I developed a four-part curriculum on Biblical principles. Next,

I met with the participants for eight weeks teaching them strategies with a spiritual component and an experiential component to improve communication styles, conflict resolution and forgiveness. I then analyzed the data collected to determine the progress of the participants in their marriage after the eight-week project completion. Under the direction of Dr. Dawn Morton of Ashland

Theological Seminar, I developed an eighteen-question survey based on a 7- point Likert scale, with three open-ended questions to measure the degree of

14 impact ranging from totally agree to totally disagree to determine the effectiveness of teaching and exercises. This survey gathered information relating to my project goals.

The survey assessed the anticipated achievement of this project’s six goals. Both a pre-assessment and post assessment were designed to survey how the curriculum’s objectives impacted each participant’s biblical knowledge of principles concerning marriage, understanding their levels of communication, how they handle conflict and their ability to forgive. Using the survey, I was able to determine the couples understanding of Biblical principles and knowledge, the level of communication, the degree in which conflict occurs and their willingness to forgive. There were reviews and modifications made to ensure information gathered would accurately adhere to the goals of the project.

The pre-test assessment was administered at the beginning of the project and the post-test assessment was given at the end of the project. The assessments addressed the couples’ knowledge and understanding of the project goals and curriculum objectives. Both assessments consisted of quantitative questions to verify the reliability of the assessment instrument. The post-test assessment had the same quantitative questions along with three additional qualitative questions at the end.

Personal Goals

My personal experience with marriage and wanting to resolve issues within my own marriage placed me on this path of helping married couples address the communication problems and the resulting conflict they experience which prevents them from resolution and moving towards forgiveness. This journey has taught me how to trust and see the Lord in all aspects of my life and to increase my awareness of His presence. As I continue to grow spiritually, I want to mature in the area of being more Christ-centered and less self-centered.

I plan to accomplish this by the following personal goals.

1. I will increase my quiet meditation time daily.

2. I will increase my frequency of entering into safe place weekly.

3. I will embrace my core longings and the love of Christ every time I

encounter anxiety concerning my performance.

Definition of Terms To Cleave - symbolizes the wedding ceremony and publicly professing their commitment.

Dotation - a dowry which represented the financial means that accompany the bride.

Sacramentality - the quality or state of being of, relating to, or having the nature of a sacrament or religious ritual.

Porneia - adultery or some form of sexual sin can interfere within the marriage.

Prelapsarian - characteristic of the time before the Fall of Man; innocent and unspoiled.

Safe Place – an experiential exercise where a person finds peace and safety with God through meditation and relaxation using sensations such as sight, sounds, smells and feelings. It is a mental, and emotional state where counseling clients can visualize and sense the very presence of Jesus.

Plan of the Paper

The rest of the paper will follow in this order to include biblical, historical, and theological foundations with corresponding chapters.

Chapter Two: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Foundations

Chapter Three: Review of the Literature

Chapter Four: Design, Procedure, and Assessment

Chapter Five: Reporting the Results

Chapter Six: Summary and Reflections

CHAPTER TWO

BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS

My research question for this study is “What is the impact on the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational

Counseling experience at Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights,

Ohio?” In answering that question, I will examine biblical, theological and historical foundations of marriage. It appears the value of marriage has declined over the years. We have moved from marriage being the foundation of the family, to not having to be married to start a family.

Over the past few decades young men and women seem to have decreased their values in the family unit of male and female coming together in holy matrimony to begin a life together. In my experience as a counselor, over the years I have witnessed changes in the family structure. What seems to be a traditional family, no longer has a spiritual foundation. Marriage does not appear to supply the stability needed to establish a spiritual foundation of longevity and commitment.

This chapter will focus on God’s covenant, submission, love, forgiveness and reconciliation biblically, theologically and historically. For the consideration of this project, marriage will be viewed in terms of communication, resolving conflict and forgiveness. The biblical foundation of this chapter will consider two passages of scripture from Genesis and the Epistle to Ephesians that provide the model for marriage as God intended it.

Biblical Foundation

The Biblical foundation will focus on how this text reveals God’s covenant, submission, love, forgiveness and reconciliation. The Biblical scriptures included are Genesis 2:18, 21-24, and Ephesians 5:22-33, with references made to

Genesis 1:26-27. Additional scriptures that are foundational to this study will also be used in understanding the depth of God’s design of marriage.

God’s Foundation for Marriage

“And the LORD God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18).

God’s words are powerful. He spoke that man should not be alone therefore speaking that He will create a helpmeet for him.

The Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man. Then man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman for she was taken out of man. (Gen. 2:21-23)

Many believe God’s idea and design for man is fundamentally supported in the Bible with scriptures in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 surrounding the creation of the heavens and earth, including mankind. God declared everything was good in Genesis 1. However, in Genesis 2 everything was not good, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18). He needed a companion. God was also referring to his purpose of the increase of mankind (Poole, 1990). When God created Eve from the rib of Adam that represented the intimacy and closeness of relationship with one another. At that moment marriage was instituted. God’s

19 foundation for marriage which is found in Genesis 2:18, and 21-24, represents

God’s idea and design for man and woman to come together to be as one in unity. In Genesis 2:18 when God created Adam a “helpmeet” for him God inferred that Eve was suitable to both his nature and necessity, one altogether like him in shape and constitution, disposition and affection (Poole, 1990).

From a biblical perspective marriage is important to God. In the Bible God is the creator of the heavens and earth and He created both man and woman.

After Adam named all the animals in the earth there still was none suitable for him and God’s next steps of creation involved creating a woman to complete

Adam. For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Gen 2:21-24)

God saying in terms of habitation and society, but not as to natural duty and affection. However, the conjugal relation is the highest affection owed only to his wife and they shall be one flesh (Poole 1990). When I envision how God created Eve from Adam to complete him it reveals to me how a wife is to complete her husband today. Their joining together represents the fullness or oneness in its completed stage. Megan Warner acknowledges Genesis 2:24 to be the foundational scripture used in most arguments to either support the original marriage between Adam and Eve or deny it (Warner 2017, 270). Warner highlights issues concerning social concerns that has been a debate, as well as the interpretation of “one flesh” in Gen. 2:24. This scripture provides the blueprint of “what must happen” opposed to “what does happen” of marriage (Warner

2017, 271).

Colin Hamer shares his perspective and importance of the metaphors in scripture. He sheds light on these two scriptures in Genesis by highlighting the deeper meaning in each. In verse 23 the metaphor begins with “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” In verse 24 the experience of one thing in terms of another brings forth a one-flesh union (Hamer 2018, 67).

Sterrenburg joins the discussion and reinforces the meaning and understanding of Gen. 2:23-24, intended by God. The marriage was perfect in its establishment of one man and one woman in a lifetime commitment. She further makes the argument that God never intended for man to be alone (Gen. 2:18) whereby the bone in which woman was crafted and came from man (Gen. 2:23).

Woman was taken out of man, then presented to man in order to complete him.

God created the man and the woman in His image (Gen. 1:26) with physical and emotional needs that only another human being could meet (Sterrenburg 2012,

14).

Colin Hamer argues, that the miracle takes place in verse 23. “This time and never again will a woman be created from a man as this one was created from me” (Hamer 2018, 66). Colin opposes Sterrenburg stating both verses represent the miracle taking place (Sterrenburg 2012, 14). In verse 24 it states the couple “shall become one flesh”, differing from Adam and Eve their “one flesh” status is because of their union, not a pre-existing state (Hamer 2018, 66).

Verse 24 gives the model for future married couples when they come together, they shall “become one flesh.” Verse 23 demonstrates how a woman was created, formed and shaped from the rib of man that made them one flesh.

The miracle that took place. Gordon Wenham agrees with Hamer and recognizes the differences within the two scriptures. It “reflects the academic consensus and the conflation of the etiology of marriage in verse 24 represents the commitment of marriage in applying the principles of the first marriage to every marriage”

(Wenham 1987, 70).

Hamer gives his perspective on the term “one flesh” which he derives from the union of Genesis 2:24. He questions if the act of intercourse is created by the

“one flesh” concept, (Hamer 2018, 73). Does sexual intercourse augment the

“one flesh” or “oneness” concepts? Does Hamer draw a conclusion with the lack of sexual intercourse and one flesh giving way to conflict? Or does this open the door for other distractions?

He gives an example using the Corinthian believers with Christ and an unbelieving world worshipping other gods in relation to the New Testament scripture where marital imagery is depicted in Ephesians 5:31-32. The scripture in Genesis 2:24 supports the “volitional, covenantal, “one family” union of a man and a woman” (Hamer 2018, 73). Hamer introduces another metaphor of the

“one-flesh union of Genesis 2:24 to the relationship of the Corinthian believers with Christ in the same manner as in Ephesians 5:31” (Hamer 2018. 73-74).

Agana-Nsiire takes a different argument in presenting Genesis 2:18 implying that it is not good for any person to be alone. “Some Bible translations and commentaries have fostered this notion, often omitting the article in which he calls ha’admam, ‘the man’.” Their inference is that ha’adam refers to men in a general sense, and they contend that it is not good for the social, psychological

22 and physical well-being of man to be unmarried (Agana-Nsiire 2018 Vol 1. 437).

The latter may indeed be true, but Hamer, and Sterrenburg disagree with Agana-

Nsiire interpretations of the text. of Gen. 2:18.

Barth focuses specifically on “For this cause” in Genesis 2:24 and gives four reasons for the meaning. First, He points out Adam’s joyous recognition of

Eve as part of himself (Gen 2:21-23).” Secondly, Barth reflects on God’s creation of man and woman in his own image. Thirdly, the author looks at “for this cause” as a futuristic marriage of the Lamb. Lastly, he quotes Paul’s proclamation that

“in the church and in the Messiah” the miracle predicted in Genesis 2:24 is fulfilled; now God is praised as the one whose promise and power prove effective in us” (Barth 1974, 638-639). Barth gives a more in depth look at Genesis and his version with interpretation supports the previous writers on the Biblical principle found in Genesis 2:21-24.

Sterrenburg adds to Barth’s argument and reminds us that God never intended for man to be alone and this is why he created a “helpmeet”

(Sterrenburg 2012, 14). For this cause or the reason for creation of woman is prefaced in verses 19 and 20 of Genesis when God gave Adam dominion over the animals to name them but discovered there were none compatible for him.

Sterrenburg reminds us the helpmeet represents oneness and unity, therefore rejecting the idea of man being alone which God never intended (Sterrenburg

2012, 14).

Megan Warner approaches the discussion from a social perspective. She acknowledges Genesis 2:24 to be the foundational scripture used in most

23 arguments to either support the original marriage between Adam and Eve or deny it. Warner makes known her focus is more on the social concerns namely intermarriage (between Israelites and non-Israelites), that has been a debate, as well as the interpretation of “one flesh” in Gen. 2:24. Warner points out the social concerns has been on a “wide range of presenting social issues such as divorce, incest, polygamy, bestiality and more recently, homosexuality” (Warner 2017,

269). Although there are a wide range of topics birthed out of this scripture, she wants to take a broader view of the creation narrative of Genesis to explore the biblical attitude behind sexuality in a more general sense. The argument Warner wants to make specifically is: “The creation narrative(s) reveal God’s intended plan or blueprint for human sexuality and that this blueprint should be a guide for the exegesis of other biblical material addressing the topic” (Warner 2017, 270).

Warner further argues the history of Gen. 2:24 has always been faced with wide spread social concerns and her area is not something new. Warner underscores in her research on the Jewish culture and their view of intermarriage

Warner underscores there is an underlying conviction that Gen. 2:24 establishes and defines “what must happen,” a definitive answer opposed to “what does happen,” a vague interpretation leading to “what does happen” today (Warner

2017, 271-272).

Colin Hamer takes a different approach to Gen. 2:24 and goes one step further with the use of metaphors adding “sensus plenior” (Webster defines as a fuller meaning), a fuller meaning of the text as God intended at creation. Hamer’s use of metaphor gives a visual of “Ephesians 5:31-32 and how it articulates the

24 root metaphor of New Testament marital imagery.” Using the image of “one flesh” union of Gen. 2:24 and rendering it with how the new covenant fulfills the

Abrahamic promise and brings the elect of “all the nations” into union with

Christ.” Hamer argues that the language in Gen. 2:24 “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” represents Christ and the church (Hamer 2018, 63). The scripture reveals the biblical the importance of covenant.

The Importance of Covenant

“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Vorster expounds on the biblical theme of covenant as “one of the major themes in the biblical revelation.” He explains the covenant as representing a special relation between God and humankind and as well as between people; a solemn and binding relationship which is deeply embedded and meant to last a life time. The covenant has significant meaning due to its roots implanted in creation. Creation has a purpose and this Vorster argues is creation’s epic purpose is revealed to be covenantal relations between the created Adam and

Eve and God, as well as human beings with each other (Vorster 2016, 2).

This cause, or reason of God’s creation resulted in the first marriage between man and woman. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24 NIV). Genesis introduces God’s plan for marriage in this scripture and a covenant is formed.

This passage is repeated again in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 19:5). The

25 scripture further states “They are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what

God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matt. 19:6).

The inference here is there is no greater bond than what God has joined together in a man and woman for the commitment of marriage. Scriptures leading up to Matt.19:6 interjects; Jesus spoke on the subject of divorce, reminded the

Pharisees about who created marriage, and when it was created. This referred to the origin of marriage, and its importance because it was instituted by God from the beginning of creation when He created male and female.

Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, the religious leaders, who asked

Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female.’ They are no longer two but one flesh, therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matt.19:4-6). Warner’s earlier argument states that the scripture provides the blueprint of “what must happen” opposed to

“what does happen” of marriage (Warner 2017, 271).

Köstenberger joins the discussion by reinforcing the concept of marriage as a covenant focusing on the permanence of marriage. He continues to argue:

Marriage constitutes a serious commitment that should not be entered into lightly or unadvisedly. It involves a solemn promise or pledge, not merely to one’s marriage partner but before God (Köstenberger 2004:89). Köstenberger uses the term commitment interchangeably with covenant. To further the cause of “what must happen” brings the covenant aspect of marriage which is also seen

26 represented in Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24).

Peter Hay describes three aspects existing in this scripture that represent the covenant, having both ‘religious and secular’ connotations attached while supporting Köstenberger’s use of the word commitment instead of covenant. Hay uses covenant and commitment interchangeably. First, he argues, it expresses commitment and devotion; second an acknowledgement of a divine command; and third it is “reminiscent of a contract (to do or not do something) (Hay 2005,

297).

Sterrenburg also highlights three aspects surrounding the expressions leave, cleave and become one flesh. Leave means to depart from your parents and unite with your spouse. To Cleave symbolizes the wedding ceremony and publicly professing their commitment. It also suggests tender affection and faithful commitment in a permanent relationship of growing love and to be of one flesh in physical union, which notes the deepest and most exclusive intimacy

(Sterrenburg 2012, 7). Both Hay and Sterrenburg also weigh in on using covenant and commitment interchangeably and Hamer and Sterrenburg agree lastly, on the act of physical intimacy forming the “one flesh” concept as intended in Gen. 2:24.

Jakobus Vorster introduces the “doctrine of the covenant and its social consequences”; applying the importance of the covenantal relationship in

Genesis 2:24 between Adam and Eve with God and between each other in the purpose of creation. Vorster points out how the covenant was developed into

27 doctrine during the time of Reformers; John Calvin and Martin Luther (Vorster

2016, 2). Vorster defines the doctrine into two important covenantal aspects of

“works with Adam and grace in Christ” (Vorster 2016, 2). “The monogamous marriage is part of the creational order however polygamy was part of the culture of the people of God” (Witte 2015, 1675).

Brunner agrees with Vorster in that the “monogamous relation between husband and wife is fulfilled by God in creation and there are natural polygamous impulses in humans, especially men” (Brunner 2011, 735). We see the social interaction in relationships today of the practice of polygamy and not that of monogamy as part of the order of creation. Brunner and Vorster both differentiate between monogamy being the choice of God and polygamy the choice of man which has shown up in marriages today.

Jakobus Vorster explains three Biblical points. and their relation in marriage and why conflict exists. These points are; the image of God, covenant and submission. When couples experience conflict in the marriage and feel they cannot maintain a healthy or godly marriage on their own. When feelings of inadequacy, impatience and lack of love surface and doubt arises (whether to continue in the marriage, or not) this brings up the question of image. “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen.1:27 KJV). The image of God offers the framework in which we find our identity in marriage. Vorster agrees “marriage is regarded as one of the orders of creation” (Vorster 2016, 4). Two biblical themes

28 we have previously discussed; the image of God and covenant, and now submission.

Submission

“Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:21 KJV)

Paul’s writing about the Biblical theme of submission is found in understanding what it demonstrates. “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:21 KJV). When I ponder the concept of the fear of God, I think of respect, being in awe, and having an adoration for God. I think about the original relationship as God designed for man in creation where man and woman are united to each other and to God in a covenant relationship and were not ashamed of their natural state seen in Gen.2:25.

Submission shows up to complement Headship according to Gen. 2:15-18 when “God took man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care”

(Gen. 2:15). Submission shows up in serving God in the Garden. Then submission accompanies Headship in Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord (Eph. 5:22 KJV). Submission took place when God decided “I will make him a helpmeet for him” (Gen. 2:18), and again when He said “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church (Eph. 5:23 KJV). “So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

“They are equal in personhood but different in function” (Gen. 1:27). Yet

“Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Eph. 5:24).

In verse 25 Paul tells “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church” (Eph. 5:25). Christ exemplifies love to the highest in his example of his love for the Church, I am reminded of a wonderful example and image of love. Vorster points to Ephesians 5:25-30 as he terms “the household codes” for marital living. In this passage of scriptures are the roles of husband and wife as God assigns them. There are some areas of mutuality and reciprocity. Vorster points out the areas of submission that are defined for both and for only the wife. For both; Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ

(Eph. 5:21). For the wife “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22), and again “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” (Eph. 5:24).

Sandra Madden advocates for the true meaning of submission to be brought to the conversation. Madden and Hamer both use the illustration of

“sensus plenior” to understand the fuller meaning intended by God. Madden begins with understanding the meaning of submit, in the “Greek language as hypotasso meaning a ranked order.” Madden argues the scripture “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21), “suggests everyone should submit to everyone else out of reverence for Christ.”

Madden furthers this argument with putting others before yourself. She focuses on serving others, and having the heart of a servant and then honoring and trusting God they will do the same for you. “Submission, in its most basic definition, simply involves trusting someone else to perform their vocation for you” (Madden 2019, 19). She uses the term vocation which simply put is a

30 relationship that serves others or in a position where others serve you (Madden

2019, 20). Christ’s submission to God is exemplified by his love for the Church as his bride in Ephesians 5:25-30. I am reminded of a wonderful example and image that represents love.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation

“Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in

Christ God forgave you” (Eph. 4:32).

Keener views forgiveness in this way, because we are part of creation, our forgiveness of sins and offenses from others are just as important to and relational to how God forgives us. Therefore, the analogy is both the manner of forgiveness and the basis of forgiveness.” (Keener 2005, 185-87). Another metaphor could exist here concerning the forgiveness in marriage, reconciling with each other just as God reconciled believers back to Himself for the forgiveness of their sin through Jesus Christ. Forgiveness and unity in the marriage is as forgiveness and unity in God. The biblical theme of forgiveness is found in scriptures Ephesians 4:32 and again in Col. 3:13 “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Eph. 4:32), “Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (Col. 3:13).

When I think of forgiveness, I think of receiving a gift that is priceless and precious from the Lord that is packaged specifically for me. Also, in Ephesians

2:14 “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph. 2:14). Keener brings to

31 our attention one of the reasons Paul was writing to the Corinthians to remind them of the reconciliation of Christs’ death. He further argues we are to live this

“life giving ministry” and enemies are to become friends (Keener 2005, 185-86).

When I give forgiveness, I am giving or extending the love God has given me out to the person in need as well. Forgiveness has a second part to it being joined with God through Jesus Christ. This is displayed in Romans 5:10-11 “For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

This is restated in Romans 5:11, as boasting through Jesus Christ whom we have received the reconciliation.

Douglas Moo highlights the prominence of grace. He recognizes through the forgiveness and reconciliation of God through Jesus Christ that it was all accomplished through His love, grace and mercy that we are redeemed, and by

His grace He has forgiven us and reconciled us back to Him (Eph. 1:4-7). The nature of God is loving, gracious and merciful, to us individually as well as in the context of marriage (Moo 2020, 8).

Theological Foundation

Various scholars have examined and supported the doctrine of marriage instituted by God in a covenant relationship with many theological arguments. I have chosen to examine theological perspectives surrounding love, marriage, covenant, and sexuality. The theological foundations of marriage are expounded upon by various theologians on topics such as Theology of Love, Sacramentality of Marriage, Theology of Marriage, Theology of Covenants, and Sexuality.

Thomas Whitelaw, proposes man’s incompleteness by his lonely nature causing a need for its completion, physically, intellectually, and socially. Therefore, man’s need and woman’s power to satisfy that need, is laid in the foundation for the divine institution of marriage (Whitelaw 1977, 50).

Theology of Love

Theology of love is expounded through theorists such as Dietrich von

Hildebrand, Herbert Doms and Jeanrond Werner and St. Augustine. Hildebrand highlights the “love-relation” in marriage that is unspoken core belief of marriage

(Hildebrand 1931, 49-50). Herbert Doms focused on the physical union or the conjugal act of marriage as fulfilling the one-flesh concept (Doms 1939, 763).

Hildebrand argues the conjugal act is part of the attraction of love, it does not have meaning on its own however, Doms says it does carry an independent meaning that leads to the importance of offspring (Burke 2015, 52).

Jeanrond Werner’s perspective comes from a theological framework of love and why is there only true pure Christian love opposed to love with eroticism or “impure love.” Werner explores the contrast between “pure Christian love as agape and worldly or misunderstood love as eros.” Over the past few years interest in love and the theology of love has grown in the Western culture and academic disciplines began to focus on the more personal aspects of marriage during the twentieth century (Werner 2010). An early Christian theologian, philosopher and Church Father, St. Augustine enters the discussion on love, when he speaks about love he is referring to God. His perspective is from the basis of God being love and if you love anyone you are loving the God in the

33 person (Werner 2010, 52). Werner further argues St. Augustine’s focus was solely on God, and not the individual. “Every genuine love relationship becomes an occasion for a relationship with God” (Werner 2010, 53). If we are loving the person, we are loving them for God’s sake.

Sacramentality of Marriage

The mystery concerning Christ and the Church is represented in terms of matrimony; the sacramental nature of Christian marriage (Burke 2015, 1).

Matrimony is closer to the eucharist and differs from the other sacraments in that the sacrament consists not in a passing action but in a resulting reality that is permanently sacramentalized (Burke 2015, 3). Sacramentality is the quality or state of being of, relating to, or having the nature of a sacrament or religious ritual.

Sacramentality refers to the special ontological configuration of the marriage between two baptized persons. Each sacrament has its distinctive nature and efficacy. If, for instance, we compare eucharist and matrimony (each being a sacrament of “communion”), it is helpful to note that in the case of the eucharist, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, into a sacramental reality, but it is not really accurate to say that matrimony “becomes” a sacrament, or is “changed” into a sacrament. Again, one does not speak of bread and wine being “raised” to sacramental dignity or efficacy. Yet that is exactly what one says of marriage; and in being raised to the dignity of a sacrament, it becomes operative on a new level. (Burke 2015, 4)

Luke Beckett gives his perspective on Cormac Burke’s work regarding marriage and claims Burke is committed to married couples living a holy life throughout the marriage. Beckett introduces the concept of a personalist view of marriage, in that the loving relationship between spouses is not implied at all, it is intentional, focused and incorporates both “institutional and personal dimensions

34 in such a way that there is an interrelation between them that is not hierarchical but complementary” (Beckett 2017, 625).

Theology of Marriage

Herman Ridderbos’ concept of the covenant, and its prominence in the

New Testament is displayed as a community of people and their relationship with

God and each other. This is presented in (Eph. 5:21–6:9) termed “house tables”, as explained in the previous biblical section, it provides the roles of spouses and the metaphor of Christ and his bride, the Church. Ridderbos goes on to include children and parents, workers and employers are also part of the covenant relation not just within the marriage. It is a “covenant of divine promise and the obligation on people to accept the promise in faith” (Ridderbos 1971, 371). The birth, life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ put the seal on the covenant. This becomes the theology of Christ, as mediator and redeemer. The redeeming act of Christ has the people’s faith in Him, institutes the covenant, His bride, which is the church (Ridderbos 1971, 372).

35 parents and children provide each other with mutual support and protection throughout their lifetimes (Browning 2011, 739-740).

This theological viewpoint supports my purpose statement “The ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness” demonstrates the enduring quality of marriage and the covenant that is the foundation that allows the family to have conflict and recover, allowing forgiveness to occur throughout their lifetimes. This argument presupposes that husbands and wives work hard to remain in open and active communication with each other, and especially that they maintain active and healthy sex lives even when, indeed especially when, procreation is not or is no longer possible. Robust sexual communication within marriage is essential for couples to deepen their marital love and to keep them in their own beds, rather than testing their neighbor’s. Marital sex sometimes is even more important when the marital home is (newly) empty, and husbands and wives depend more centrally on each other (not on their children) for emotional conﬁrmation and fulﬁllment (Browning 2011, 740).

The concept taken from the natural law of marriage is formed on the principles and ideas concerning human infant dependency, parental bonding, parental certainty, paternal investment, kin altruism, incest revulsion, exogamous

(nonincestuous) marriage, and the natural rights and duties of husband and wives, parents and children (Browning 2011, 740). Brunner highlights the components that exist in marriage that make it pliable. Marriage is a moving, living and breathing organism. All the variables Brunner conceptualizes are

36 working parts of the whole. They are interdependent, components of marriage.

When the components are lacking in areas conflict ensues.

Jakobus M. Vorster’s theoretical argument suggests that the concept of marriage in the biblical testimony should be defined and developed within the doctrine of the covenant. Such a view, with certain modifications, can still provide ethical directives and new perspectives on marital life for Christians today

(Vorster 2016, 1). Vorster begins with an introduction on postmodernism defining how it is a critique on all forms of foundationalism such as objectivism, universalism, rationalism and the certitude about truth and knowledge as professed by the Enlightenment.

It can be described as a radical questioning of all established beliefs and ideas. It is also fair to say that postmodernism also questions the character and validity of tradition, including the traditional institution of marriage and family life

(Vorster 2016, 1). Vorster focuses on the concepts of marriage and family life against the background of the emerging postmodern and post-secular ethic and its consequences for the traditional view of marriage as a biblical institution. This doctrine entails a creational covenant of works with Adam and a covenant of grace in Christ (Penner 2019, 578-80).

C.C. Roberts recognizes the underlying theme of sexuality as the essence of marriage and agrees with Browning and Brunner of the importance of marriage as an institution. In spite of marriage not being considered a sacrament during the Reformed view, in addition Roberts, foresees marriage as part of the theology of creation. However, St. Augustine disagrees in his “plea of virginity

37 and the Roman Catholic doctrine of celibacy” (Roberts 2007, 132). His argument if formulated on love for others should be only as an act towards God, not marriage. Roberts also highlights the difference in Augustine’s views of marriage, as procreational only and not an attachment to the concept of covenant.

In agreement with the other arguments where marriage is one of the orders of creation, but the difference here is the responsibility of the well-being of the relationship becoming that of the state. Augustine felt that the state should exercise authority over the components that make up the marriage ceremony giving the state jurisdiction over both marriage and divorce. The formal procedure for marriage that is held today was developed; entering into the bond of marriage requiring parental permission for individuals under age, witnesses and public profession of the marriage vows (Johnson 2005, 129). Marriage should be seen as an essential building block of a healthy state and the Church.

M. Stackhouse introduces the theory of overlapping covenants. He goes a step further than the initial covenant with marriage partners and their interrelationship with God. Stackhouse argues the covenant extends to the married partners and the families of the married partners, the parents and beyond to society with God present in all relationships (Stackhouse 2005, 159).

The components to the overlapping covenants compare to Ridderbos

Christocentric covenant with people accepting Christ and becoming a community of people of the covenant or the church (Ridderbos 1971:372). According to

Stackhouse, this is an extension of the covenant people, which represents the church, whereas the idea is celebrated and taking place in public worship

38 services. Marriage thus becomes a network of mutual entrustment (Stackhouse

2005, 159).

Vorster, agrees with Stackhouse and Peter Hay regarding how the marriage ceremony became an important part of the church and how these ceremonies were instituted. Hay argues the expansion of the Covenant Marriage standards extended to the States. The evolution of covenant marriage took place as American family law grew over the past quarter century (Hay 2005, 294).

Since the Reformation, the concept of marriage as a covenant was developed further and it now finds expression in the formulas used in the liturgies of worship services in which marriage ceremonies are celebrated and covenantal wedding liturgies developed. Most of these liturgies are still used in Reformed churches today.

However, some tension developed within the Protestant traditions. While recognizing the rites of all other religious persuasions, Lutherans made marriage more a matter of civil law, while the Reformed and Puritan traditions promoted the church-centered wedding as central, to be then registered by civil authority

(Stackhouse 2005,164). But the idea of marriage as a covenant remained the most important definition of marriage (Vorster 2016, 4).

A.J. Köstenberger gives his convictions regarding the commitment to the covenantal marriage by directing his focus on the exclusivity of marriage. He expressed that the covenantal marriage has a wide range of qualities that are exclusive only to marriage (Köstenberger 2004, 90-91). J. Carl Laney notes the apostle Paul’s viewpoint of permanence of marriage found in 1 Corinthians 7:2–

5. Paul is proclaiming to married partners to avoid fornication by giving themselves freely to each other. To not withhold from each other causing one to be tempted to sin and become unfaithful (1 Cor. 7:2-5). Laney brings up the issue of marriage and divorce or the more controversial order of divorce and remarriage (Laney 1982, 283).

Kostenberger, and Laney have different views on the marriage commitment. Köstenberger’s view is that no other relationship should interfere with the marriage commitment between husband and wife. In other words, there are no grounds for divorce. Laney’s view states that a “case of porneia” which means adultery or some form of sexual sin can interfere within the marriage. This is the one exception that can cause a divorce (Laney 1982 283).

The biblical idea of marriage as a covenant is to my mind still a powerful and a solid foundation for Christian marriages in a time when a new ethic of marriage arises due to the postmodern, post-secular and post-ecclesiastical paradigms. The idea of marriage as covenant not only denotes the deep spiritual character of the marital relation, but this idea and everything it entails provides the liberty for men and women to realize their relations according to their own wishes and circumstances as equals and gifted servants of God.

This concept, when theologically expounded, runs against patriarchalism and androcentrism, and enriches marital relations as permanent relations of mutual trust, stewardship and love on an equal basis. Neither husband nor wife is superior or inferior. The idea of marriage as a covenant provides guidelines for

40 modern-day marriage counselling and affirms the importance of marriage for the health of society and especially for the church (Jones and Tarwater 2004, 11).

Theology of Covenants

Biblical scholars vary on the definition of covenant. Jones and Tarwater and explore theology on covenants and if they are dissoluble. Jones and

Tarwater contend that if a man and women marry under the true covenant of God then the marriage or the covenant is indissoluble. Based on scripture, the concept of covenant provides various clues which collectively testify to the fact that covenants in which God participates cannot be dissolved and examines a closer look at the language describing the nature of the covenants (Jones and

Tarwater 2004, 5). The language scripture uses to describe the permeance of covenant and their indissoluble nature when referring to covenanting parties “will not forget” or will “remember” the covenant, indicating their lasting commitment to the terms of the agreement. Similarly, covenanting members often promise to be

“faithful” to each other and to “keep” the covenant forever (Jones and Tarwater

2004, 5).

In defining the concept of covenant, a German theologian Julius

Wellhausen began to investigate the concept of covenant which upset scholarly interest on the topic, causing a sort of uprising on the topic which led a host of theologians to examine the precise nature of covenants. Beginning with

Wellhausen's understanding of the concept of covenant; largely influenced by a

"history of religions" approach, whereas more of the newer efforts focused on philological investigations. Another scholar had differing views on the covenant.

J. Begrich challenged Wellhausen's evolutionary construction of the concept of covenant in the Old Testament based upon the etymology of the Hebrew word for covenant; “Berit.” He concluded Berit was an act of a legal union established by a simple act of the will on the part of the more powerful party.

Ludwig Koehler offered another philological view of covenant that he quoted in a journal article he wrote on “Problems in the Study of the Language of the Old Testament,” Koehler defines covenant as a feminine noun which means

“to dine” arguing the noun is referring to the covenant meal (Koehler 1956, 4-7).

Koehler maintained that the essential idea of covenant relates to the covenant meal that often-concluded covenant ceremonies and the phrase “to cut a covenant” literally means “because one had to cut up food for the covenant meal”

(Koehler 1956, 4-7). The first argument evolved around Begrich's study emphasizing the legal and volitional aspects of covenant, followed by Koehler's work stressing the meal that usually accompanied the covenant ceremony leading to a third option by Weinfeld.

Moshe Weinfeld believed that the most plausible origin of covenant was the Akkadian word biritu, meaning “clasp,” “fetter,” or “bond.” Weinfeld concluded that covenant “implies first and foremost the notion of ‘imposition,’ ‘liability,’ or

‘obligation,’ as might be learned from the ‘bond’ etymology.” (Weinfeld, 1965,

255). Weinfeld argues covenant as a legal union, therefore a binding law and commandment. He defines the “Sinaitic covenant” in its “imposition of laws and obligations upon the people.” In contrast to the others scholars on covenant,

Gordon Hugenberger utilized a concept-oriented approach to understand the

42 meaning of covenant. From this, Hugenberger identified six different senses of the Hebrew meaning of covenant.

For the sake of relevance to this topic I will only address the predominant sense. Hugenberger defined the predominant sense in biblical Hebrew as “an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation established under divine sanction” (Hugenberger 1989,168-215). Similarly, G. E. Mendenhall described covenant as a solemn promise made binding by an oath, which may be either a verbal formula or symbolic action (Mendenhall 1962, 2-714). Hugenberger claimed this is the sense intended by the English word “covenant.” When understood in this manner, then covenant may refer to many different types of affiliations even though the word's precise origin remains unsettled. The majority of biblical scholars appear convinced that covenant signifies a binding agreement between a minimum of two parties. The more important question for this study, however, concerns the nature of covenant itself. (Hugenberger 1989, 172).

Perhaps the greatest proof of the unending nature of such agreements comes from the pen of the apostle Paul, who in an argument from the lesser to the greater, wrote that even a covenant between men as opposed to a divinely initiated covenant if confirmed “cannot be annulled” (Gal. 3:15 NIV). There are some theologians who disagree with the idea that Paul conveys that a covenant if confirmed by God cannot be annulled. A growing number of Biblical scholars have begun to challenge the long-held belief in the inviolable nature of covenants especially in regard to the covenant of marriage. For example, in God, Marriage, and Family, Andreas Köstenberger writes, “There is reason to believe that some

Biblical covenants can be and in fact are terminated” (Köstenberger 2004, 236-

239). Both Heth and Köstenberger agree with Hugenberger’s argument that covenants can be dissolved, and changes his mind regarding scripture's position on divorce and remarriage.

For this project I am not addressing divorce just noting that “Biblical covenants can be violated and dissolved” (Heth 2002, 4-29). Despite

Hugenberger's monumental contribution to the study of biblical covenants, we are not persuaded by his evidence for dissolubility. While Hugenberger correctly notes the translation or interpretation in English to mean “broken” or “annulled” connoting violation or dissolution it does not necessarily carry both meanings at the same time. Imposing more than one meaning simultaneously is what James

Barr calls the error of “illegitimate totality transfer.” In other words, it is wrong to conclude that, because a covenant was “broken,” it was therefore “dissolved”

(Jones and Tarwater 2004, 9).

Roberts understands the importance of the covenant in Biblical foundations. He discusses the covenant and the interrelation between God and man and the interrelation between God and others. This is where Roberts and

Ridderbos agree on the social aspects of covenant and how it is formed in creation with a purpose of the divine promise and the obligation of others

(Roberts 2007). This concept of covenant was part of the Reformed tradition and became part of the ecclesiastical doctrine under the influences of Luther, Calvin and Barth. They are the most prominent church fathers in the Reformed movement. (Roberts 2007).

Sexuality

The study of sexuality as the social assumptions that surround and shape the biological capacity for arousal, desire, or genital contact through which certain, statistically unusual configurations may lead to reproduction has thus far proved marginal. Sex has been a private matter and in the Jewish community sex, sexual identity, sex work, or reproductive methods and choices is not a public topic for discussion. it explores some possible reasons for why American

Jewish historians have written less about sex than have scholars in related fields

(Kranson 2020).

Biologism is the use of biological explanations in the analysis of social situations. Whereas, gender differences are the effects of biological sex. The fullness of sexuality of each spouse in the context of its not being good for man to be alone that God made him sexual (Burke 2015, 172). God made woman to complement man, and the man is to “love the wife as Christ loves the Church

(Eph. 5:25). In essence the differences between the sexes were established in the beginning In Genesis 2:18 “God said It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a helpmeet for him.”

Man on his own, cannot fulfill himself; he needs a companion, a spouse.

Sexual and marital union in self-donation, are normally a condition of human growth and fulfillment in marriage (Burke 2015, 172). When love, covenant and sexuality come together in the form of human growth as God designed, it gives the essential components of marriage. God shows that man and woman should come together as one as seen in Gen 2:24 KJV, “Therefore shall a man leave his

45 father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Hiestand and Wilson believed Genesis 2:24 “to be foundational for sexual ethics.” In sexual ethics we royally reign with Christ when we bring “his wise order into the world.” God’s eschatological family must be image-bearers with respect to sexuality in a manner that fosters the flourishing of human families

(Hiestand and Wilson 2017). Hiestand and Wilson quotes another author’s idea on sexuality:

Janet Smith puts it, our “natural urge for sexual pleasure” is good in itself, but in our fallen condition we require chastity to learn “how this urge must be put in service of the goods of the persons whom that urge affects” (Smith 1981).

In order to influence the world about the Christian image of sexuality as the image of God, the concept we set forth must be one of truth and goodness but also beautiful as well. We live in a world surrounded by aesthetics and if we want to be found persuasive when it comes to the historical teachings from the age-old church on marriage and sexuality, we must not only set forth logical and moral arguments; we must also set forth a vision of such stunning beauty that no argument can be raised against it (Hiestand and Wilson 2017).

In terms of thinking about human sexuality in a way that magnifies the beauty of sex as God intended. It is important to mention that sexual intimacy expressed in the context of heterosexual covenant monogamy is beautiful and desirable (Hiestand and Wilson 2017). A few reasons why it is beautiful and desirable: “first, it embodies and amplifies the faithful creational love of the triune

God. Second, it embodies and amplifies the new creational love of God by pointing forward to the coming redemption, not only of the human race, but of the

46 cosmos as a whole. To put it succinctly, sex is beautiful because it is the consummate act of a relationship that uniquely reveals the creative and redemptive love of the triune God” (Hiestand and Wilson 2017). Christian sexuality reveals the image of God as he has instituted marriage in Genesis.

However, the foundation of marriage has been affected by humanity throughout history.

Historical Foundation

My focus on the history of marriage begins with the Babylonian period of

1894 BCE. To illustrate the context of Old Testament marriage law I shall look at two cultures at opposite ends of the Old Testament period: The Babylonian cultural era (Mesopotamia) and the Elephantine. I shall then move through cultures unto the first century AD. Also, to be explored is Mesopotamia marriage laws, historical information on what the church has done about marriage and their viewpoint.

There were customs and traditions that took place in Mesopotamia pertaining to how families were formed for marriage. Some traditions were formed for children at young ages. Girls between the ages of ten to fourteen and boys twelve to sixteen. Parents chose who their children would marry based on many factors; wealth, blood line, and other socioeconomic reasons. There were some exceptions such as marrying for love and co-habitation, not like our society today. Even though co-habitation was legal it was not counted as marriage and there would be no compensation or dowry if the arrangement ended (Wenham

1989, 7).

Dotation and documentation were written formal agreements for betrothal and marriage, created and decided upon by the marrying families. The dotation consisted of a dowry which represented the financial means accompanying the bride. Dotation and documentation were considered to be the foundation upon which the process of marriage was formed and held in high regard. The ritual significance of dotation and documentation was as important as its economic function. Gifts or agreements marked steps in the process of marrying, it ensured that the marriage was honorable, and sometimes helped to distinguish between a true marriage and a causal relationship. Even a vestigial or token gift such as a flower could be significant in the absence of wealth (Christensen 2008, 38).

Marriage itself was regarded as much more than an agreement to live together. The laws and financial arrangements attached to it show that the 4th century BC Mesopotamian society intended marriages to involve lifelong commitments. The first step in contracting a valid marriage was to obtain the consent of the bride's father. This was normally accompanied by the payment of bride-money by the groom to the father. This bride-money or “engagement present” varied between one and 40 shekels, a substantial sum since craftsmen could only expect to earn a shekel a month (Wenham 1989, 7).

From the moment the bride-money was paid, the woman was legally the groom's wife, although she continued to live in her father's house. If she had sexual relations with another man, this was regarded as adultery and both parties could be put to death. After the engagement, the contracts were drawn up at a wedding ceremony and wedding breakfast paid for by the groom was all that was

48 necessary. After the ceremonies, the bride entered the man's house and they lived together as man and wife. About the same time, the bride's father presented the couple with a valuable wedding present, the dowry. In theory, this gift comprised of money, jewelry, clothes, furniture and even land, belonged to the wife but in practice the husband had discretion over its use. If the marriage broke up, however, it had to be restored in full to the wife (Wenham 1989, 7).

During the 4th century BC, Elephantine Jews were syncretists, who tried on occasion to invoke non-Israelite gods into their religion. Their marriage laws seemed to adopt what was probably Egyptian practices at certain points. Yet these changes served only to emphasize that in broad outline their marriage customs were unchanged from the second millennium. Marriages were still arranged for children by their parents and the bride-money and dowry payments were still recognized. The old Babylonian laws never expressed their implicit wish that the marriage bond was to be and enduring one. Four of the Elephantine contracts put these hopes into words: 'she is my wife and I am her husband from this day and forever' (Wenham 1989, 7).

The historical foundation of written marriage contracts and the contract of marriage has evolved over centuries. Throughout history marriage has been solidified by a contract. There have been many different variations of a marriage contract. Today a certificate of marriage signed by the couple, witnessed and registered with a government official is all that is needed. In the era of pre- modern West, both the documentation and the formation of marriage were more complex and variegated. Most marriage contracts in the Middle Ages were, in

49 fact, primarily marriage settlements: they recorded agreements about transfers of marital property, and although they often referred to the mutual consent of the parties to form a marital union, they did so only to situate the settlement in its proper context.

The relationship between written marriage contracts and the contract of marriage per se varied considerably over time and across cultures. Some of the documents recorded the marriage itself; some did not. Some of them were intended for use at weddings; some were not. Some of the documents included commentary on the legal, ethical, or religious function of marriage; some did not.

Finally, prior to the sixteenth century, marital liturgies, weddings, and feasts were not essential to the validity of a marriage contract, and when they did occur, they were subject to endless local variations (Christensen 2008, 38).

Other historical cultures beliefs about marriage in the Old Testament are the Greeks and the Romans. The Greeks Marriage laws and customs in fifth century Athens were similar to those of the Old Testament Betrothal, arranged by the man with the bride's parents, followed by the wedding. On the marriage, similar practices where the woman's parents gave the couple a dowry of money or land, which was administered by the husband but belonged to the wife and had to be returned to her if she was divorced. Adultery was a public offence for which the death penalty could be exacted.

Some differences between Athenian and Old Testament law stand out.

Men were allowed to marry women more closely related to them than was permitted under Old Testament law, their half-sister or niece, for example. The

50 typical average age for marriage for a man was thirty, although girls were mostly married by sixteen. But the most important difference was that a woman could, in

Athens, divorce her husband as well as vice versa (Wenham 1989, 8).

Bishops, canonists, and other churchmen, from late antiquity (284 AD) and throughout the early Middle Ages (1000 AD), insisted that formal dotation, as well as public nuptials, was a necessary step in contracting a legitimate marriage.

Churchmen often quoted the maxim, “There can be no marriage without a dowry.” The maxim seems settled and orthodox, although it is ambiguous: does it imply that marriages without dotation are invalid and therefore void, or only that they are illicit and perhaps for that reason voidable? Nor is it clear whether it was the dowry per se that was important or rather its written record, for the dotal charter seems to have been the only written record of marriage during the early

Middle Ages (Christensen 2008, 37-38).

In Roman law the essence of marriage was the consent to live together, not the wedding ceremony or conjugal relations (Wenham 1989, 7). In ancient

Roman culture several different kinds of marriage were possible, although by late republican times the most common was “Tree marriage.” Under this arrangement, the wife went to live with her husband but did not accept the authority of her husband's family. She remained under the ultimate control of her father or grandfather and could thus be described as free as she was not totally subservient to her husband's family. But she did not have much freedom in the choice of a partner.

As in other ancient societies, the marriages were generally arranged by the families rather than by the bride and groom; although the groom generally had more say in the matter and could refuse his family's choice. Girls were usually married between the ages of twelve and fourteen, while men married rather later, between twenty and twenty-five. Bride-money to guarantee a betrothal was introduced only in Byzantine times, but a large dowry from the family was standard. As in other cases this belonged to the wife and would be returned to her if she divorced, though certain deductions were made if there were children or if she were the guilty party (Wenham 1989, 7-8).

As I examine Churches in the First Centuries and what they have done historically it is notable to address how marriage was looked upon in the

Christian communities. During its first century, there was a tendency within

Christianity to distrust marriage, as the beliefs and practices of a second century religious Gnostic sect infiltrated into the church and may have caused some to look at marriage suspiciously. Their practice renounced marriage as well as abstaining from meat and wine in their dietary practices and tried to influence churches to do the same.

However, the Churches recognized marriage as having a positive value in the life of Christian communities (Yves Lacoste 1999, 985). Yet there was no systematic development of the liturgical aspect of marriage within the churches.

By contrast we have evidence of numerous disciplinary decisions in line with the spiritual and ethical guidance contained in the apostolic writings. The precise wording of these decisions varies from region to region and from period to period,

52 but the issues they address are fairly constant: whether a marriage is legitimate, whether it is to be prohibited as incestuous or degrading, or whether a separation is required in view of the reception of baptism by an adult or participation in the

Eucharist (Yves Lacoste 1999, 985).

However, Yves Lacoste’s exploration of the history of marriage as a sacrament revealed ancient theology and philosophy about marriage. Jews and pagans believed marriage was for procreation and if the woman was sterile, then the man was free to divorce and remarry. However, a consensus among the churches ruled failure to produce children could not justify a couple separating.

The position of the church and Christian community on marriage supported the decision between a man and woman that constitutes the essence of marriage not fertility. “Theology and law both accepted that marriage that is valid according to the laws of the church; in the medieval Latin phrase, ratum; could exist between two baptized spouses without being consummated (consummatum) in sexual union.” What was essential in order for a marriage to be valid was the free and responsible exchange of consent to be joined to one another indissolubly and irreversibly (Yves Lacoste 1999, 986).

Colin Hamer’s view of the historic aspect of marriage being a

“mystical/mysterious union with a heavenly dimension” from the perspective of the New Testament scriptures mentioned earlier Eph. 5:31-32, supports the teachings of the Roman church regarding marriage as a sacrament resulting in

1563 Council of Trent formally declaring that marriage would have an official ceremony with a priest (Hamer 2018, 72).

In the religion of Judaism, another belief that influenced the history of marriage includes blessings in which God is praised for his gifts and his favor is sought on behalf of the young couple (Yves Lacoste 1999, 986). In Eastern

Europe the church established marriage as a sacrament. Around 900 A.D., when the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI ordered the official codification of legal decisions on marriage among the subjects of the “New Rome.” The law required that for a marriage between two baptized people to be authentic, the couple had to receive a liturgical blessing administered by a bishop or a priest (Yves Lacoste 1999,

986).

It is noted that several non-Byzantine Eastern churches were also involved in the imperial legislation of the development of marriage in the East. In its celebrations, presided over by a bishop or a priest, the liturgical gathering takes part in the new creation engendered by the Easter mystery, made present by the Holy Spirit. Within this gathering, the making of a marriage, the sign of the covenant between Christ and the church, is in some sense also called to take part in this holy act of new creation. It is this participation that is announced and effected by the liturgical blessing on the couple at the threshold of their shared life (Yves Lacoste 1999, 986).

Historically, the issue of wealth, social class and stability were underlying reasons for marriage during this time. Kimberly Schutte writes about the culture of Aristocrats from the sixteenth century to the twentieth century with emphasis on the importance of marriage and marrying well. This culture believed in intermarrying within their own culture to preserve their social class, rank, and

54 status. It was their practice to ensure that their daughters were able to make a good marriage or find a fitting match by focusing on wealth and status, religious affiliation and age. The focus was not on the desires of the couples, but on the family as a whole to determine the best mate to marry in order to maintain or enhance their wealth, political and economic interests. “Marriage determined their standard of living” (Schutte 2014, 2).

During the fourth and fifth century the legitimacy of marriage and precreation for the Christian life was under attack. St. Augustine, a theologian, philosopher and bishop of Hippo Regius of Rome, was an import figure in the history of the Western Church. Who came to the defense of marriage? His theological visions and themes have shaped the Western Church traditions perhaps more than any other writer besides Paul in the Bible (Schafer 2019).

Augustine’s defense of “marriage as good,” was written during the fourth century.

St. Augustine defended three definitive areas that demonstrate marriage is good

(Schafer 2019).

Augustine argues that marriage is a gift from God instituted before Adam and Eve sinned. Arguing that the first couple was married shortly after the time of their creation when the Lord created Eve from the rib of Adam. Augustine proclaims, that marriage is a prelapsarian good, (characteristic of the time before the Fall of Man; innocent and unspoiled), instituted by God from the beginning of human history (Schafer 2019). Augustine’s argument supports the previous theologians in that God instituted marriage during creation.

Secondly, “Augustine points to the social dimension of marriage.

Augustine argues that humans are created by God to be relational beings”

(Schafer 2019). Augustine points out, God made the man and declared, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen 2:18). Therefore, God formed Eve and she became a partner for Adam. The result of this occurrence is what formed the beginning of a living community (Schafer 2019). Augustine asserts that “God designed human nature and applies it to the marriage relationship in such a way that it is something social and possesses the capacity for friendship as a great and natural good” (Schafer 2019).

Thirdly, Augustine directs our attention to the New Testament to support his defense of the good of marriage. For instance, he points to “Scripture’s prohibition of the remarriage of a divorced person while their spouse is still living

(1 Cor 7)” (Schafer 2019). Augustine recognizes these scriptures as a guide and witness presenting marriage as a lifelong good. In addition, Augustine points to the teachings of Jesus. While Moses allowed a man to divorce a woman if “he finds something objectionable about her” (Deut. 24:1), Jesus limited the grounds for divorce to adultery (Matt 5:31–32) previously noted how this supports the case of porneia. Based on this set of arguments, Augustine affirms marriage as a viable option for Christians.

An alternative account of the “Three Goods of Marriage” by St. Augustine.

Ron Haflidson argues the that the three goods follow the ascent of Augustine’s works: “the self begins oriented to what is outward, then turns to what is inward, and then ascends upward to God. Procreation, as a natural good of the body,

56 corresponds to the outward step; fidelity, as a spiritual good, is a turn inward; and the sacrament is the final step upward as the indissolubility of Christian marriages” (Haflidson 2016, 57).

Rademaker and Peterson argue Marriage practices, therefore, reveal social and religious changes. The religious history of marriage also shows how theological and spiritual creativity have accompanied social changes as well as the changing role and power of the state (Rademaker and Peterson 2019, 145).

We will begin to look at current themes about marriage in Chapter Three on Contemporary authors and what are some of the models we look to in

Christianity.

CHAPTER THREE

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

There are many contemporary authors on marriage, however we want to focus on those authors who provide models and theories that believe God is the author of marriage and promote the importance of oneness in the family structure, along with some similar contemporary theories. We will look at the components that make the marriage pliable, and discovering how to maintain love, improve communication, resolve conflict and forgive. These are elements that preserve the marriage, when spouses can turn towards each other, apply strategies and heal from hurts, and practice forgiveness just as they have received forgiveness from God. In addition, there are some scientific approaches to preserving the marriage through studies of how the physiological components of the human body and how its reactions have impact during conflict.

Different models of counseling have been used to alter behavior and to heal. The Formational Counseling Model is comprised of Christian counseling, spiritual direction, and inner healing prayer for the purpose of helping people journey toward Christian maturity (Wardle 2013). The model was used to introduce participants to a deeper level of healing regarding their core wounds that resulted from a traumatic experience that may have occurred in their life or marriage. The following literature review seeks to address ways Christian married couples can change perspectives to solve their problems and modify behavior. The review will assess models from secular and spiritual perspectives, identifying ideas from both viewpoints.

Michael Shevack reflects on how conflict began in the Garden of Eden.

The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate (Gen. 3:12). Shevack suggest conflict is inevitable, as demonstrated by

Adam and Eve’s response to each other when blaming the serpent. All of them participated in the event, all of them contributed to it. They all had to share in the consequence thereof, just as in marriage both the man and the women must share in the consequences of conflict.

Shevack’s theory regarding conflict started in the Garden of Eden with three concepts that tend to get tangled. The three concepts are blame, responsibility and innocence. He states that blame infers to direct intention and malice. Responsibility represents the appropriate response. The person may not have direct intention or malice but, the action needs to occur. Lastly, the person may not be aware of the nature of the problem, or the severity to which the damage even existed, that person is innocent (Shevack 2003, 99).

There is an example of blame, responsibility and innocence in God’s garden as it relates to Adam and Eve. They were innocent, responsible, and to blame and did not know what they were doing; having never experienced free will before, they were testing the limits of God’s order. Yet, despite their innocence,

God held them responsible for what they did. They were to blame because they had been forewarned about eating from the tree of Knowledge and they suffered the consequences for their action (Shevack 2003, 100). Shevack gives a personal statement to married couples to help them differentiate concepts when conflict ensues.

Today’s married couples tend to lump them all together under one big umbrella of “blame” without looking more discerningly at what actually happened. If you do look more discerningly, you’ll sometimes find that your spouse can be blamed for something, but may have done it innocently, or sometimes your spouse can be totally responsible, but not at all to blame. Making yourself aware of these distinctions can help you from being so “black and white” and categorical in your finger-pointing. (Shevack 2003, 100)

Gary Chapman, a pastor and writer known for his conceptual model of the

Five Love Languages, raises an important argument regarding Shevack philosophy on conflict. Chapman interjects in the discussion of conflict and points out just because a couple has conflict does not mean they do not have love for each other.

Love Languages

Chapman points out the importance of love being the most important word in the English language and the most confusing. He recognizes the founder of love, (Jesus Christ) wanted love to be the distinguishing characteristic of His followers (Chapman 1992, 19). Chapman ascribes to the different meanings love has in a romantic relationship and the importance of the married couple to understand each other’s love language. “Being sincere is not enough. We must be willing to learn our spouse’s primary love language if we are to be effective communicators of love” (Chapman 1992, 15).

Shevack disagrees with Chapman on the strategy in resolving conflict in the marriage. Shevack suggests the best way for married couples to resolve conflict is to take a hard look at themselves first to see how they played a role in the conflict. One should examine himself in the light of God as it is reflected in his good conscience. Shevack gives challenges to married couples to examine

60 themselves and ask the questions listed when feeling your mate has wronged you stated below.

Do you search your conscience for what you also may have thought, said, or done to contribute to it?

Do you ever stop to wonder if you may have sown something that influenced your mate to respond to you in this particular way?

Do you ever stop to consider that the problem may have a long history, one that may even precede your marriage, and you both have been fertilizing and reaping the fruit of the problem for years? (Shevack 2003, 98)

Chapman’s approach contrasts with Shevack in that he wants couples to focus more on understanding each other. In doing so there are various factors that inhibit the interpersonal interaction between spouses including a different upbringing. Many dynamics from childhood form and shape the way we interact with each other especially in the area of communication.

Seldom do a husband and wife have the same primary emotional love language. We tend to speak our primary love language, and we become confused when our spouse does not understand what we are communicating. We are expressing our love, but the message does not come through because we are speaking what, to them, is a foreign language. (Chapman 1992, 16)

Gary Chapman’s model of the Five Love Languages, is a significant contrast in strategy from Shevack’s approach to looking within oneself.

Chapman’s concentration is on the well-being of Chapman’s concentration is on the well-being of the one you love. Each love language conveys the deepest level of love and marital satisfaction as follows.

Love Language #1: Words of Affirmation

Verbal compliments, or words of appreciation, or encouraging words that are powerful communicators of love. The object of love is not getting something you want but doing something for the well-being of the one you love. It is a fact, however, that when we receive affirming words, we are far more likely to be motivated to reciprocate and do something our spouse desires (Chapman 1997,

39-41). Perhaps one spouse has untapped potential in one or more areas of life.

That potential may be awaiting encouraging words from his/her spouse. The encouraging will come from the area where the spouse has already expressed an interest.

Encouragement requires empathy and seeing the world from your spouse’s perspective. We must first learn what is important to our spouse. Only then can we give encouragement. With verbal encouragement, we are trying to communicate, “I know, I care, I am with you. How can I help?” (Chapman 1997,

44-45). This language establishes trust, belief and support in the spouse about his/her desires.

Love Language #2: Quality Time

A central aspect of quality time is togetherness. This facet means more than just proximity. Two people sitting in the same room are in close proximity, but they are not necessarily together. Togetherness has to do with focused attention. Quality time does not mean that we have to spend our together moments gazing into each other’s eyes. It means that we are doing something together and we are giving our full attention to the other person. The activity in

62 which we are both engaged is incidental. The important thing emotionally is that we are spending focused time with each other. What happens on the emotional level is what matters. Our spending time together in a common pursuit communicates that we care about each other, that we enjoy being with each other, that we like to do things together (Chapman 1997, 60).

John Gottman, is a psychological researcher and clinician, author and professor who has done extensive work over four decades on marital stability.

Gottman introduces Quality time and the second aspect called Quality

Conversation which sees other aspects of communication. It is a sympathetic dialogue where two individuals are sharing their experiences, thoughts, feelings, and desires in a friendly, uninterrupted context. Words of affirmation focus on what we are saying, whereas quality conversation focuses on what we are hearing. Quality time also means talking and listening to each other. Wanting to understand the other persons thoughts, feelings and desires. (Chapman 1997,

61).

The last aspect of quality time is quality activities. Quality activities may include anything in which one or both has an interest. The emphasis is not on what the activity itself, but on why they are doing the activity. The purpose is to experience something together, to walk away from it feeling “He cares about me.

He was willing to do something with me that I enjoy, and he did it with a positive attitude.” That is love, and for some people it is love’s loudest voice (Chapman

1997, 69).

Love Language #3: Receiving Gifts

Chapman explains the relevance of a gift to someone that has that love language. A gift is something that one can hold in the hand and say, “Look, he was thinking of me,” or “she remembered me.” You must be thinking of someone to give him a gift. The gift itself is a symbol of that thought. It is not the thought implanted only in the mind that counts, but the thought expressed in actually securing the gift and giving it as the expression of love (Chapman 1997, 74-75).

Gifts are visual symbols of love, for example most wedding ceremonies include the giving and receiving of gifts such as rings. “These rings are outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual bond that unites your two hearts in love that has no end.” This verbalizes truth that symbols have emotional value

(Chapman 1997, 75).

There are times where the gift may be the gift of self or the gift of physical presence. The spouse needs the person to be there in the time of crisis

(Chapman 1997, 78). Special occasions and holidays are other times where the gift of physical presence is the most powerful gift that can be given to a spouse if the spouse’s primary love language is receiving gifts. The body becomes the symbol of one’s love. Remove the symbol, and the sense of love evaporates.

Almost everything ever written on the subject of love indicates that at the heart of love is the spirit of giving (Chapman 1997, 80).

Love Language #4: Acts of Service

“In performing acts of service, requests give direction to love, but demands stop the flow of love” (Chapman 1997, 95). “What we do for each other

64 before marriage is no indication of what we will do after marriage. Before marriage we are carried along by the force of the in-love obsession. After marriage, we revert to being the people we were before we “fell in love””

(Chapman 1997, 96). Our actions are influenced by the model of our parents, our own personality, our perceptions of love, our emotions, needs, and desires

(Chapman 1997, 97).

Chapman recognizes when a spouse criticizes the other about his behavior that is a clear indicator of the area in which their love language dwells.

People tend to criticize their spouse most loudly in the area where they themselves have the deepest emotional need. Their criticism is an ineffective way of pleading for love. If we understand that, it may help us process their criticism in a more productive manner (Chapman 1997, 97).

Love Language #5: Physical Touch

“Physical touch is a powerful vehicle for communicating marital love.

Holding hands, kissing, embracing, and sexual intercourse are all ways of communicating emotional love to one’s spouse. For some individuals, physical touch is their primary love language. Without it they feel unloved. With it, their emotional tank is filled, and they feel secure in the love of their spouse

(Chapman 1997, 104).

Physical touch can make or break a relationship. It can communicate hate or love. To the person whose primary love language is touch, the message will be far louder than the words “I hate you” or “I love you.” In the marriage, the touch of love may take many forms. Since touch receptors are located

65 throughout the body, lovingly touching a spouse almost anywhere can be an expression of love. That does not mean that all touches are created equal. Some will bring more pleasure to a spouse than others. The best instructor is your spouse, of course, so learning spouse’s dialect is essential. (Chapman 1997,

106).

Gottman and His Research

John Gottman has done extensive research and takes an in-depth approach to Shevack’s stand-alone view of conflict. Gottman focuses on conflict but not as a stand-alone entity, perhaps as a cause-and-effect relationship with communication. Gottman takes a two-prong approach of looking at the conflict and also the communication styles that cause the conflict. The seven principles are as follows: 1) Enhance Your Love Maps 2) Nurture Your Fondness and

Admiration 3) Turn Toward Each Other Instead of Away 4) Let Your Partner

Influence You 5) Solve Your Solvable Problems 6) Overcome Gridlock 7) Create

Shared Meaning. Gottman also gives scientific results predicting how conflict and physiological responses affect the marriage. Whereas, researchers were able to predict the fate of newlywed couples ten years later just by measuring hormone levels in their blood during their first year of marriage (Gottman 1999, 4).

In addition, Gottman introduces a concept called “Emotionally Intelligent

Marriages”, in their day-to-day lives, couples have hit upon a dynamic that keeps their negative thoughts and feelings about each other from overwhelming their positive ones. Rather than creating a climate of disagreement and resistance, they embrace each other’s needs. The aspect of embracing each other’s needs

66 is similar to Chapman’s Love Language. When addressing a partner’s request, their motto tends to be a helpful “Yes, and …” rather than “Yes, but …” This positive attitude not only allows them to maintain but also to increase the sense of romance, play, fun, adventure, and learning together that are at the heat of any long-lasting love affair (Gottman 1999, 4-5).

Smalley and Intimacy

Gary Smalley enters the conversation with his views on intimacy and how it is negatively impacted by conflict and communication. His approach aligns with

Gottman in that he sees both conflict and communication as interconnected.

Smalley’s views evolve around how the two have interrupted the intimacy in the marriage. Husbands and wives view on communication, the lack thereof or too much, can interfere with intimacy and sex in the marriage.

Smalley uses a model to uncovering the keys to life-long intimacy in the marriage, that can help to develop relationship skills and improve communication. Whereas Gottman focuses on conflict, communication and the scientific model, Smalley focuses on conflict and communication as it relates to intimacy in relationships. Smalley uses “The Five-Levels of Intimate

Communication” model to guide couples through the steps of communication in marriage where couples move in and out of one or more of these five levels of intimate communication every day. In addition, the model uses three powerful relationship skills to move in and out of all five levels anytime (Smalley 2000, 27-

28). After the wedding how do couples connect on a deeper level of intimacy to sustain the marriage for longevity? Here are five levels that couples experience

67 in communication. According to Smalley the first two levels are natural easy, almost effortless (Smalley 2000, 28).

Level One: Sharing clichés with each other.

This is surface talk, down only just below the water’s surface (Smalley

2000, 29). Smalley uses the example of scuba diving to describe the depth of the level of communication, explained in the remaining levels.

Level Two: Sharing facts with each other.

Couples are down deeper, but just barely, perhaps four or seven feet down. It’s a safe level, requiring no deep breathing, thinking or feeling (Smalley

2000, 29). This is a safe area where no conflict exists in just sharing information with each other.

Level Three: Sharing opinions with each other and the conflict begins.

This includes discussing individual opinions, concerns, and expectations, including personal goals, dreams, and desires. Sharing opinions is like diving into the eight-to fifteen-foot range in scuba diving, one may instinctively want to retreat to the shallow levels (Smalley 2000, 29). This model helps couples to go past the surface and dive deep into the more serious aspects of their lives together. It helps them to practice how to go further as it defines the levels of communication. It draws a map or in this illustration deep sea diving to demonstrate the deeper levels of communication are necessary in order for intimacy to occur.

Level Four: Sharing your deepest and truest feelings with each other.

At this level participants help each other feel safe to share their deepest emotions. He goes on to describe it as each of you are a unique and special creation made up of a different combination of individual “colors” and you can both treasure each other’s individual “color” combinations (Smalley 2000, 31).

Level Five: Sharing your most important relational needs.

This is the deepest level of love and marital satisfaction. You’ve been together long enough and you feel safe enough to share your deepest needs with one another. The most intimate part of loving communication is when both of you feel safe to reveal your unique needs to one another. This shows that you know you will be accepted and valued by your mate for who you are (Smalley 2000,

31).

Chapman and Smalley are similar in they both use a five-step process in describing the communication and conflict. Smalley and Gottman use similar steps to help identify areas where conflict exists and to impact couples in a way that will help them resolve conflict in the relationship and transform their marriages. Speaking in clichés and sharing facts are safe harbors from conflict.

But opinions are something else entirely.

Opinions cause conflict, and conflict is extremely scary to most people. If a couple uses level three the sharing of opinions as a way to “get” each other or to prove their respective views, concerns and needs as superior to the other’s, they’re headed toward trouble. But if each party attempts to refocus his or her thinking on trying to understand the mate, instead of trying to “convince” the other

69 that a particular opinion is superior, then they can become a team (Smalley 2000,

30).

Conflict can work two ways: Most often, it breaks couples apart. But it also delivers them to the deeper levels. Conflict is the doorway to intimacy. Most couples in conflict cannot see that the very force that is battering them is essential to reaching a deeper relationship. They are too busy with the struggle of daily existence to search for the depth beyond the conflict (Smalley 2000, 30-

31). Levels four and five are at the heart of intimacy designed for the husband and wife to address.

Gottman and Balance Repair

Gottman uses additional scientific studies from a cognitive and behavioral approach to examine marriage. He introduces the ideas of balance and repair in marriages as it relates to conflict. Three domains exist in this context interactive behavior, perception, and physiology. Gottman describes how within a marriage it would be possible to write down equations that told us precisely how change in each person overtime was affected by the other person. This led to the idea of

“circular causality” that each person’s behavior is affected by the other. In families this point of view called attention to patterns of interactive behavior, rather than to the personalities of individual people (Gottman 1999, 31). Gottman further delineates the model and introduces a third party to assist in solving the marital conflict as follows:

To model marital interaction with equations, reveal that homeostasis; a stable steady state in couples is a dynamic process in which the couple has its own mechanisms of self-correction and repair when the interaction becomes too destructive. Also, there are two, not one, homeostatic steady stages for each couple, one positive and one negative. The therapist and the couple have the same goal, which is strengthening the attractive power of the positive homeostatic steady state and weakening the attractive power of the negative homeostatic steady state. The mechanism that makes this happen is making repair more effective…It puts the therapist on the side of the mechanisms of repair that are natural in marital interaction, rather than in an adversarial position regarding pathological processes. (Gottman 1999, 33)

Gottman is the only presenter here who takes the scientific approach with married couples in communication and resolving conflict. He shares additional information to support the survival of marriages and the capacity to return to a stable state.

In our research we also gathered data from three domains of human experience: behavior, perception, and physiology. These three domains are not independent; rather, they are intricately linked in a relationship I call the “core triad of balance.” The idea is that every marriage establishes a steady state and the system of the relationship is repeatedly drawn to this stable steady state. Also, each marital system is capable of repair when this is needed. (Gottman 1999, 33)

Lewis and Hendricks with Roles in Marriage

Lewis and Hendricks enter in the discussion regarding the roles of the marriage, traditional versus non-traditional or roleless models and their impact on conflict and communication in the marriage. Twentieth century authors bring light on differing perspectives such as the traditional marriage. Some view a traditional marriage as an “intact family with Mom, Dad, and the kids which represent only

32 percent of all United States households in 1980; by 1990, the number fell to

27 percent.” Couples today believe the days of Ozzie and Harriet are gone. The

71 vision of an egalitarian, roleless marriage has become extraordinarily popular during the last twenty years (Lewis and Hendricks 1998, 22-23). Almost two- thirds of married couples with children; 16 million families had two incomes in

1988. In eight million of those households, both husband and wife are employed full-time, year-round. In more than twenty percent of the dual-earner couples in the United States in 1997, wives earned more than husbands (Lewis and

Hendricks 1998, 23).

The term roleless marriage according to Lewis and Hendricks is a myth recognizing couples may start out that way wanting to have an equal marriage, however it becomes more of a challenge when it comes to housework.

Employed wives not only handle the responsibilities of a job outside the home, but work a second shift once they arrive home. Out of fifty dual-income families, only 20 percent split chores and child-rearing equally. Surprisingly, it was the

“traditional” husbands who pitched in to help more than the “transitional” ones; men who were all for their wives’ employment (Lewis and Hendricks 1998, 24-

25).

Lewis and Hendricks suggest when the roles in marriage are not defined, then confusion, heartbreak and frustration set in leading to conflict. Could it be they are trying to establish roles that no other society in the history of the world has ever accomplished. Quite the opposite: Every culture assigns distinct roles and a clear division of responsibilities to men and women in marriage (Lewis

1998, 30). Lewis’ philosophy supports the Bible’s teaching on marriage as he references how marriage should be organized using words such as head,

72 protect, and provide when speaking to husbands and helper, lover and submission when speaking to wives. These words point to distinct roles and scripture does not blend genders together, but distinct. The husband is responsible for a specific kind of leadership and the wife is responsible for a specific kind of support and nurture. These marital duties describe a simple organizational arrangement, but one that has proven very effective and stable throughout history. Lewis references scriptures in Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2 to support this (Lewis and Hendricks 1998, 30-31).

Dennis and Barbara Raney With Prayer

Dennis and Barbara Rainey are the only ones that use prayer as a model and begin to focus on moving from conflict to forgiveness. Praying as a couple will enrich, enhance, and fortify your life, marriage and family. Praying together may be the single most important spiritual discipline you and your spouse will ever share. Here’s why:

Are you lacking intimacy in your marriage? Praying together will take you to new levels of intimacy far beyond what you thought possible. Is there conflict in your marriage? Praying together will defuse, disarm, resolve, and prevent disagreements. Do you want more transparency in your marriage? Praying together is certain to open your hearts to one another. Do you feel distant from God? Here’s a scriptural promise to grab onto and apply: “Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know” (Jeremiah 33:3). Are you fearful? Disappointed? Discouraged? Worried? Angry? Hopeless? Praying together will calm the storms in your heart, marriage, and family. Are you struggling against sin? Praying as a couple exposes sin so God can work. Are you near divorce? Praying as a couple restores unity of heart, mind, and purpose. (Rainey and Rainey 2002, 9-10)

The model of prayer differs from the other models in that it covers all aspects in the marriage; intimacy, conflict, transparency and communication, distant spiritually, sin, discouragement and worry.

Hendrix and Hunt Offer Meditation

Hendrix and Hunt enters the conversation with an exercise and meditation combination. This is not like any of the previous models the presenters expounded. Hendrix explains the method as an Imago exercises with a meditative practice. The Imago exercises were targeted to the conscious mind, the practice of meditation gave access to unconscious states. In combination they had the potential to produce deeper and more permanent levels of relationship growth (Hendrix and Hunt 1994, xiv).

The daily use of Imago exercises appeals to our conscious minds. They offer tangible, measurable ingredients in the recipe for change, fortifying the conscious mind with specific, doable, concrete tasks. They may not change a relationship overnight, but will have an experience a cumulative effect over time.

Hendrix and Hunt’s model is similar to Gottman’s scientific study with regards to the cognitive work that will strengthen the ability to develop intentionality in the marital relationship, to will a desired outcome, and to carry out actions that achieve a goal.

This in itself is an empowering experience and the meditative practice is also a form of personal empowerment. Working with the deeper self will produce the unconscious attitudinal shifts essential to the cognitive work that’s being done on the relationship. There are varied forms of mediational practices from many

74 religious traditions, and with a variety of purposes; spiritual development, ego transcendence and inner healing (Hendrik and Hunt 1994, xi). Hendrix and Hunt have some similarities with Rainey and Rainey in that they cover many aspects of the marriage, not just conflict and communication.

Guttman and Emotional Attunement

Gottman shares another perspective called emotional attunement to build trust in the marriage. Thus far none of the other authors have focused on an emotional model for marriage. However, Gottman introduces this model using a fundamental social skill consisting of everyday interactions, called sliding-door moments, regrettable incidents, or past emotional injuries and lastly conflict interactions. Sliding door moments are very small moments in which a need is expressed and responsiveness of one’s partner is a test of trust. This test shows whether the spouse can be trusted to turn toward the expressed need of the partner.

The second part involves a moment in which at least one person is experiencing negative affect and longs for a voice and connection with the partner. It can be a negative emotion that is not about the relationship at all. This second context also includes regrettable incidents that are about the relationship, in which we hurt our partner’s feelings or have an unfortunate argument.

The third part involves an actual conflict discussion. The couple choses a discussion where there has been a disagreement or they expect some disagreement between them (Gottman 2011, 178). Gottman describes the role of each individual in the process. Looking at the distress of the relationship for

75 couples, the attunement during conflict for the person who is the speaker, should be no blaming, no “you” statements. Talk about how ones feel in a specific situation, use “I” statements and express positive need. For the spouse who is listening try to increase your awareness of partner’s enduring vulnerabilities. Turn toward your partner by postponing your own agenda. Do not focus on what one wants to say or try to get a point across. Having tolerance or patience for your spouse helps them to believe you are trying to understand and validate. Make it a goal to listen and not be defensive in your listening. Try not to respond right away, that may mean you are only focusing on how what you heard made you feel. Try waiting to allow yourself to get in touch with the partner’s pain. Use empathy, and summarize your partner’s view and validate them by completing a sentence like “I can totally understand why you have these feelings and needs, because . . . .” (Gottman 2011, 221).

David and Vera Mace Consider Marital Growth

David and Vera Mace explores the couples’ ability to grow in the marriage.

Mace and Mace take the position that every wedding does not turn into a marriage. The wedding marks the beginning of a relationship that may or may not develop into a marriage. The emphasis is on how marriages can grow. There are some similar components with Robert Lewis in the aspect of the traditional marriage and how society views it to be stable. However, those views are obsolete today for the stability for married couples. The philosophy is that stability is out of touch with reality and nothing that is alive and moves remains the same, it grows, it changes, it adapts, it develops its potential (Mace 1977, 42). Mace

76 and Mace introduce the growth concept and how couples change and grow over time, explaining it like this:

If we are to be realistic about marriage, then, we must rethink its whole meaning in relation to the growth concept. Consider how any marriage – and the marriage partners – are bound to change and grow. 1. Each person grows as his individual potential develops. 2. Each person changes in continuous adaptation to the other and to changes in the other. 3. Both persons change in response to changing cultural environments. 4. Both persons change in adaptation to the successive phases of the life cycle. (Mace and Mace 1977, 42)

Mace and Mace report that change takes place through behavior modification for meeting the needs and achieving goals, another similarity to

Gottman and the scientific study regarding cognitive behavior. Mace and Mace believe the use of this approach seems to show better results in clearing up marital difficulties than any other method. They recognize how the human potential movement points us in the same direction. We are now seeing how much power we have to shape ourselves in order to meet our deepest needs and to achieve our most important goals (Mace 1977, 42).

Mace and Mace also explores behavior modification as it relates to compatibility. The old saying was when people married, they stayed married even if they were not compatible with each other. Even if one was miserable, he/she remained married in misery. However, compatibility in marriage is not so much a state of affairs as a job of work. “What you have, on your wedding day, is just a heap of raw materials. Your task is then to work on the relationship, and through the natural processes of change, adaptation, and growth, to shape the marriage of your dreams” (Mace and Mace 1977, 43).

Conflict Resolution with Gottman

John Gottman brings more information to the table. He has developed guidelines to help couples solve their conflict. Guidelines help to reestablish politeness, and begin a process of problem solving as he explains in his model

De-Escalating Quarrels. This model compares with his model on communication and resolving conflict. If something is bothering someone, if they’ve had a rough day for example, instead of taking it out on the spouse, say “I’ve had a rough day and I’m in a bad mood. Don’t take my bad mood personally.” (Gottman 1976,

125). “A second de-escalation technique, if you feel yourself getting your dander up, or getting ready to strike out, or to be mean, first ask yourself; “Is it really worth it to start a fight about this? Is this important enough to argue about?” If not, hold your tongue. You’ve edited successfully. If it is, can you say it politely?”

(Gottman 1976, 125).

Lastly, sometimes discussions are escalating and not making progress, you may find helpful is suggesting a cooling off period if a quarrel is escalating out of control or not getting anywhere. You can say, “I’d like to stop and cool off.

Let’s agree to talk some more in an hour.” You can make an agreement to postpone your argument to an appointed time for a family meeting. In this way a quarrel will be more likely to become a discussion (Gottman 1976, 126).

Worthington and Hope

Worthington enters the conversation with restoring hope in the marriage by focusing on love, faith and work in the marriage. He further expounds on how each Christian is commissioned to make disciples of others (Matt. 28:19).

Worthington continues with the scripture in Matthew which speaks to this “In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). Failure to promote the partner’s spiritual maturity within the marriage relationship is a serious Christian problem. It is difficult to want to help a partner better his or her relationship with God when feelings of hurt, fear and sadness run high (Worthington 1999, 45). Partners who are demoralized and feel no hope generally focus more on their own survival than on the growth of the partner with whom they are actively having conflict.

This is in contrast to Gottman’s ten step conflict resolution model or the model based on data to determine how long a couple’s marriage will last.

Worthington’s focus on marriage is concerning people’s level of commitment to value each other and strive to create a relationship characterized by love, faith, hope, mutual effort, trust, fairness and cooperation. These grow from godly character and become godly interactions, empowered by the Holy Spirit, not technical wizardry, producing lasting change within couples. (Worthington 1999,

54).

In fact, the commitment of marriage is a particularly important type of commitment, a covenant lasting until death. The lifelong challenge of the marriage covenant is continually to find ways to value each other. Issues about which spouse differ are occasions of challenge in which love can grow but in which love is often bruised if partners fail to value each other. When people devalue each other the ratio of positive to negative interactions between the partners decreases. The couple has lost faith in the future of the relationship.

Counter that loss of faith to help the marriage survive. Marriages require work if they are to thrive and if they are to survive. When marriages lose love and then faith, partners stop working on the relationship. People hope that if they avoid conflict, the marriage will heal itself. Not likely. Without work, the relationship will get worse (Worthington 1999, 57-58).

Mason and the Miracle of Marriage

Mike Mason takes a seat at the table with his views on marriage as a miracle. He records the first miracle after Creation when “He brought the woman to the man”

(Gen. 2:22). Mason takes us back to the biblical focus of marriage as the most beautifully, inspired aspect for a relationship between man, woman and God. A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value (Prov. 31:10-11).

Mason’s interpretation of Proverbs as a whole is that “There is nothing in the world worse than a bad marriage, and at the same time nothing better than a good one” (Mason 2005, 43). Mason’s philosophy of the mystery of marriage supports the foundational scripture: “this is why a man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). It is because of this mysterious, compelling combination of identity and otherness.

After we have surveyed, as far as possible, all the other creatures in the world, eventually God presents us with one who is special, one who strikes a deeper chord in us than anyone else was able to do.

Although the person may be very unlike us in many important ways, still there is something inside us that recognizes the other as being bone of our bone

80 and flesh of our flesh, akin to us on a level far deeper than personality. “This is a blood tie, an affinity of the heart in every sense. It is as if we discover an actual kinship with the one, we love, which the marriage ceremony serves only to make official. To be married is to have found in a total stranger a near and long-lost relative, a true blood relative even closer to us than father or mother” (Mason

2005, 34).

Mason takes a more spiritual approach to compatibility than the other writers. He examines how conflict in marriage exaggerates the points of difference especially at the superficial level of personality or temperament. But this is so that a couple may come to know one another at the deepest level, at the only level that really matters; bone of bone, flesh of flesh. It is so that the wondrous surprise of the original encounter in the Garden of Eden may take place all over again. It is so that a couple may be reduced to sheer amazement that they are together at all, and that they may know that what has brought them together and what keeps them together is something entirely outside of themselves, something not natural but supernatural, something they themselves cannot control or produce at will. It is so that they may come to know God, “the

One who is supremely Other, but to whom, nevertheless, all people are profoundly related and bound in love” (Mason 2005,37).

John Piper finally gives us his interpretation on the aspect of conflict that leads to forgiveness. No other writer has explicated forgiveness for us yet. Piper asks the question why focus on forgiveness and gives three detailed answers to the underlying reasons surrounding why conflict exists in marriage.

1. Because there is going to be conflict based on sin and strangeness and you won’t be able even to agree with each other about what is simply strange about each other and what is sin. 2. Because the hard, rugged work of enduring and forgiving is what makes it possible for affections to flourish when they seem to have died. 3. Because God gets glory when two very different and very imperfect people forge a life of faithfulness in the furnace of affliction by relying on Christ. (Piper 2009, 48)

Piper connects forgiveness with forbearance. “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye (Col. 3:12-13).” This scripture depicts how forbearance and forgiveness works together. Piper brings it together this way when he states longsuffering represents patience, and we are treating the inner condition of patience and the outward demeanor or behavior as forbearance/forgiveness

(Piper 2009, 57).

Piper applies the inner condition of patience, followed by two things: first,

“bearing with one another” is what one Biblical translation uses; second, “if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other.” (Piper 2009, 57). In marriage this takes on the form of forbear or bear with which literally is endure or enduring each other. Examples in the Bible are when Jesus used it in Luke 9:41

“O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to bear with you?” Paul uses it again in 1 Corinthians 4:12 “when persecuted, we endure.” Become long suffering persons and endure each other. Forbear, “love bears all things,

82 believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. love never ends” (1 Cor.

13:7-8).

The other word forgive, in the New Testament charizomenoi means “freely or graciously give.” The idea is that when we forgive, we do not exact a payment.

We treat people better than they deserve. So, in marriage you forgive when you feel your spouse has wronged you and therefore, they are in debt to you. Justice says you have the right to extract some suffering from them in payment for the suffering they caused you. You as a spouse does not demand the payment, but you “freely give” good for evil. Your ordinary disposition is forgiving, you do not return evil for evil, but you bless (Piper 2009, 58).

Insight suggests both forgiveness and forbearing are essential for married couples to maintain life together. Forgiveness says: I will not treat you badly because of your sins against me or your annoying habits. Forbearance acknowledges (usually to itself): those sins against me and those annoying habits really bother me or hurt me! If there were nothing in the other person that really bothered us or hurt us, there would be no need for saying “endure one another” (Piper 2009, 58).

Allender and Longman

Dan B. Allender and Tremper Longman take on the challenge of changing one’s perspective of their spouse and to develop a deeper understanding of him.

“Marriages are the crucible not only for sin to be exposed but also for forgiveness to restore relationship and intensify our hope of heaven” (Allender and Longman

1995, 276). Allender and Longman agree with Gottman in improving

83 communication and resolving conflict. However, looking at deeper levels of intimacy that go into much deeper areas such as what Smalley described in his illustration of scuba diving “They need to see their option in life: they can choose either to live by pretense and self-righteousness or to be broken by their sin and surrender to the gospel” (Allender and Longman 1995, 276).

Allender and Longman tie in the spiritual commitment as Shevack examines the heart in the light of God when conflict occurs (Shevack 2003,100).

In order to contend with this choice, they must comprehend the importance of the curse (Allender and Longman 1995, 276). These writers take the position of conflict being a consequence of the curse. All the deceit, rebellion, and shallowness in the marital relationships spring from Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God. Their sin resulted in unimaginable tragedy for them and for all their countless descendants. Every tear that has ever been shed is due to their treason. Every moment of violence, death, divorce, and harm is the direct result of their choice to turn from the truth of God to trust in the deceit of evil. The account of the fall reminds us that we will never experience the kind of intimacy, passion, and union that God intended for husbands and wives to enjoy (Allender and Longman 1995, 277).

Curtis and Eldridge Speak of the Heart

Curtis and Eldridge disagree with Gottman’s scientific approach and focus on the “Centrality of the Heart.” In their perspective the heart has something missing, meaning the Christian life is a love affair of the heart. It cannot live primarily as a set of principles or ethics. It cannot be managed with steps and

84 programs. The truth of the gospel is intended to free us to love God and others with our whole heart (Curtis and Eldridge 1997, 8).

Larry Crabb supports Curtis and Eldridge stating:

Admonishment to do right becomes ugly pressure when it is not preceded and liberally accompanied by an attitude that says, I cannot make you do anything. But I believe there is something in you that knows what you’re doing is wrong and, if you belong to God, there is something in you that wants to do right. I believe in that life within you. I trust God’s work in you. And more than anything else, I want you to enjoy a taste of God’s gracious, loving heart in your relationship with me. (Crabb 1997, 33)

Larry Crabb, too, is of this opinion, and although he does not dispute

Gottman’s scientific theory his focus is on the power of relationships and their ability to connect. The power to meaningfully changed lives depends on connecting, bringing two people into an experience of shared life (Crabb 1997,

33). Crabb journeys more in depth to understand the power of relationships in his statement “People experience the life-changing force of healing relationships when something powerful comes out of one and touches something good in another” (Crabb 1997, 67).

Crabb further expounds on this concept before trying to connect with the good of the other person to first examine our words. Are they powerful enough to touch the good in someone else or does the opposite occur? Whether our words reach through the bad dynamics in another’s sinful heart and touch the holy appetites beneath depends largely on the answer to this: “Are we so empowered by the gospel that we are disposed to continue believing in another’s miraculously granted goodness, and to therefore find delight in the other, no matter what degree of ugliness we encounter?” (Crabb 1997, 70). Crabb

85 examines the probable responses of a spouse when they felt that they were being judged by their spouse.

When I sense that you want to discover what’s wrong with me and change me, I will either slide into passivity (“Go ahead! Fix me!”) or raise myself up to an arrogant height (“I can handle things. I’ll consider what you say, but I’ll make sure I don’t buy all of it!’). But when I know that you love me, that you believe in me, that you recognize something terrific in me that you long to see more released, I’m more inclined to receive you, to let you pour into my life. (Crabb 1997, 70)

Larry Crabb supports connection as the key to married couples being as one. Oneness comes from an interconnectedness when you desire the wellbeing and growth to take place and want to be there to share it with the mate. That is what soul mates are made of and what Allender connects with in Intimate Allies.

Nelson’s Stages of Marriage

In closing, Nelson focuses on the three stages of marriage as well as forgiveness with Piper. The first stage is the honeymoon period. This refers to a

“sweet month” marking the period of one stage of the moon to the next time that stage of the moon occurs, typically a full month and also to a month in the spring of the year usually May or June. During these spring months, flowers, shrubs, and trees bloom most profusely in most regions of the Northern Hemisphere, and the honeybees can be about their work with much productivity. In a marriage, the honeymoon period is the period of sweetness and kindness between two spouses, a time when all things seem new and fresh and exciting; about thirty days (Nelson 1998, 108). The second stage in marriage is called the disillusionment period, when illusions about the person you married disappear.

The third stage in marriage is the wonderful and long-enduring phase of

86 commitment, when you discover your soul mate fully and at the same time, commit to loving your mate in a Biblical manner for the rest of your days (Nelson

1998, 108-109).

Couples typically have difficulty with the commitment after the reality of love has taken place. This is when you see your spouse in his/her true self and there are no longer any mirrors or rose-colored glasses. This is where conflict begins in the disillusionment and commitment stages as they are marked by longer period of times. Nelson recommends in order to handle the disillusion stages, steps should be taken during the dating and courtship, and even during the engagement stages to increase your awareness of how things may change as you relate and interact with your mate. “Keep your discussions and conversations lively. Don’t stuff your emotions in fear that you will damage your relationship. Learn to fight fair” (Nelson 1998, 109). Nelson has a model of six stages of conflict and their resolution.

1. A feeling of harm, hurt, or injury on the part of both persons. 2. A change of heart on the part of the one who initiated the conflict. 3. A desire on the part of both persons for the conflict to end. 4. Communication 5. Forgiveness 6. Greater Closeness and Joy

Each of these first three stages deal primarily with conflict; an awareness of the conflict, a response to the conflict, and a desire in the heart to resolve the conflict. (Nelson 1998, 133)

Communication is a broad area where other categories exist such as failure to communicate, financial difficulties, sexual difficulties, problems with in- laws, or disagreements with child rearing (Nelson 1998, 133). There is not just one solution regarding communication but many tools to improve in this category.

In the area of forgiveness, much can happen in a very short period if one person will make a positive move toward breaking an icy silence or cooling off a heated discussion (Nelson 1998, 144). This is an important aspect of moving from conflict to forgiveness in marriage. Chapman, too, is of this opinion, and recognizes words of affirmation can also be expressed in forgiveness from his model on “Love Languages.” Forgiveness is not a feeling; it is a commitment. It is a choice to show mercy, not to hold the offense up against the offender.

Forgiveness is an expression of love. “I love you. I care about you, and I choose to forgive you. Even though my feelings of hurt may linger, I will not allow what has happened to come between us. I hope that we can learn from this experience. You are not a failure because you have failed. You are my spouse, and together we will go on from here” (Chapman 1997, 47).

Conflict will arise, and resolution can be achieved if done with free-flowing forgiveness and unconditional love as the central features of reconciliation. The resolution of conflict can result in a marriage that is stronger and more vibrant than before the conflict arose. In many ways, a strong marriage is the result of repeated, healthy conflict resolutions over time. Don’t be discouraged or fearful when conflicts arise. Use them as building blocks toward an even more wonderful marriage relationship. On the heels of this conflict and resolution we will see marriage at its most intimate level (Nelson 1998, 150).

In Chapter Four I will present the design, procedure and assessment of my project on moving from conflict to forgiveness in marriage.

CHAPTER FOUR

DESIGN, PROCEDURE, AND ASSESSMENT

The purpose of this project was to impact the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio. The participants were surveyed using an in-person assessment tool to gather information based on the areas where they were having trouble in their marriage. The project focused on the understanding of biblical principles as they relate to marriage. I met with the participants for eight weeks giving them strategies to improve communication styles, conflict resolution and forgiveness. I then analyzed the data collected to determine the progress of the participants in their marriage after the eight-week project completion.

Current issues concerning what is going on in marriages today are represented by “The current cultural crisis, is symptomatic of a deep-seated spiritual crisis that continues to gnaw at the foundations of our once-shared societal values. The solution likewise must be spiritual, not merely cultural”

(Köstenberger 2004, 1). In developing this project, I wanted to design goals that would help Christian married couples work towards maintaining their marriages in spite of the troubles they are having and to supply them with a biblical focus, applying techniques and strategies to develop cohesiveness and unity in their marriage. For this project the survey was designed to examine the capacity of these participants to follow biblical principles, establish effective communication skills, and resolve conflict to allow forgiveness to grow within them.

The project goals were:

1. To impact participants’ understanding about the importance of

cooperation in resolving conflict.

2. To impact participants’ ability to communicate more effectively their

needs in the marriage.

3. To impact participants’ understanding of values of the biblical aspect of

marriage.

4. To impact participants’ capacity to forgive their spouse.

5. To impact participants’ ability to value their spouse’s point of view.

6. To impact participants’ ability to respect their spouse.

7. The basic design of the project had a simple structured framework.

This framework involved conducting research and an initial assessment, developing a curriculum and analyzing the results. The research consisted of an initial interview with each couple. I introduced myself and my background as a licensed professional clinical counselor and my experience in marriage counseling. I also shared that I had been married for 21 years and how marriage was important to me. Couples were then asked to individually present their perspective of the problems they were having in their marriage. Couples were also asked to focus on their personal individual concerns and how they may be contributing to the problems in the marriage.

Context

Originally, I was scheduled to conduct my project at Second Ebenezer

Missionary Baptist Church. However, there were challenges in holding the workshop on a day that was available for married couples to meet for eight weeks. The Senior Pastor Rev. Dr. A.L. Owens made announcements from the pulpit regarding the marriage workshop and when it would occur and I placed flyers in the main vestibule. Unfortunately, there was not enough interest to hold the workshop at the church. I began to go outside of the church and include the marriage workshop on my website and other advertising media. I began to receive phone calls of interest from Christian couples who were having communication and conflict problems in their marriages. These are the couples that were chose for the project. I then moved the workshop from the church to my counseling office, Foundational Counseling Services, LLC.

The challenge existed in getting the couples to meet together at the same time for eight weeks. Therefore, I expressed this difficulty with Dr. Matthew

Brevere and Dr. Dawn Morton for approval to meet with the married couples individually for eight weeks. Approval was granted and my project took place at

Foundational Counseling Services, LLC., a local community counseling agency in the City of Bedford Heights, Ohio where I conduct outpatient counseling services for individuals, couples and groups on various aspects of mental and behavioral health. In addition, I also provide marriage counseling, anger management and domestic violence and parenting classes, workshops and training at this facility.

I provided a conference room setting for couples, as I took on the role of facilitator and instructor using a curriculum designed to move married couples from conflict to forgiveness in marriage. Surveyed participants were married

Christian couples, having difficulty in their marriages and wanted to improve their marriage by working through various aspects of communication, conflict, Biblical principles and forgiveness.

Each couple completed the pre-test survey before beginning the curriculum to have a base for where they were relationally at the beginning of the eight weeks and took the survey again at the end of the eight weeks to determine if any progress had occurred for them in the area of Biblical understanding of marriage, developing positive communication styles, making efforts to resolve conflict and the capacity to practice forgiveness.

Participants

The participants in this project were self-identified as Christian married couples who were having serious relational problems in their marriage but wanted to preserve their marriage. The demographics of the couples age ranged from 25 to 69 years old. The years of marriage ranged from 1 year to 30 years, and the number of years in their faith community ranged from less than 3 years to more than 15 years. The participants were all African American Christians.

The specific criterion in the selection process were Christian couples who were having problems in their marriage and willing to use Biblical principles as a foundation. Each couple expressed their desire to improve communication and decrease conflicts in their marriage to help them move towards forgiveness and

92 remain in the marriage. There was a total of eleven couples that self-selected.

However, four couples did not complete the eight weeks. Their data is not included in Chapter Five, resulting in seven couples who participated in the survey and project for the entire eight weeks.

The seven couples participated over the eight weeks with in-class discussions on issues and problems in their marriages that pertained to the topic in each session. Couples were asked how they could apply principles, techniques, and strategies to their situations in their marriages. Couples were transparent in revealing their struggles in their marriage and was genuinely concerned on how to repair their problems.

Procedure

I developed a 4-part curriculum on Biblical principles, communication, conflict and forgiveness to cover eight weeks which involved a teaching component, and experiential component and a spiritual component. All sessions began with signing in on an attendance sheet followed by prayer. Each session began with a review of the previous session and addressing any homework that was given.

In Session One, I met with each couple and I gave an introduction about myself, my education, training, and experience. I asked each spouse to give their perspective on what they believe the problems were in their marriage. I summarized what I heard them say their problem areas of concern were. Next, I explained the project to them and it focus on biblical principles, communication styles, conflict resolution, and forgiveness. Then I confirmed their willingness to

93 commit to two-hour sessions for eight weeks. This required class participation and completing homework assignments when given.

I tried to relieve any apprehension couples may have about sharing their problems with a stranger by modeling the expectation of transparency, cooperation and respect for the person speaking while in session. I shared that I had been married for 21 years and I understand personally the challenges in marriage. I stated to couples there is nothing too bad or too good they cannot share if they choose to. No pressure will be placed on them to disclose problems, and that I was not there to judge. As a Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor,

I shared with participants’ the rules of confidentiality, HIPPA and the duty to warn if abuse or danger is involved Then I gave the participants’ a consent form to sign. I informed them that session two, will begin the actual project. Initially it was stated in my proposal that the project would begin with a retreat and run for nine sessions. However, the retreat did not take place and the project was conducted over eight weeks.

In Session Two, participants were given a letter explaining the project which is included in the Appendix. An overview of the project was discussed including the expectations, such as attendance, participation, and homework assignments. Couples were then given the pre-test assessment to complete.

Each participant was supplied a manual on the Formational Counseling

Experience. The information covered three areas: Communication, Conflict and

Forgiveness. Communication topics included: An Essential Ingredient in

Marriage, The Four Components of Good Communication Skills in Marriage,

Friends and Enemies of Good Conversation Inventory, Marriage Communication

Covenant, Godly Relations, The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse; Criticism,

Defensiveness, Contempt and Stonewalling, with their Antidotes. Conflict topics were: 4 Steps to Resolve Conflict, Marital Conflict (Man’s Way versus God’s

Way), Relationship Skills, Conflict Negotiation, The Art of Compromise,

Processing Conflict Constructively, Conflict Styles, How We Deal with Our Anger,

The Anger Meter, How to Get A Handle on Anger, Fighting Fair the Only Way to

Fight. Forgiveness topics consisted of: How to Freely Forgive, Experiential

Exercise on Forgiveness, Four Parts of Forgiveness: Define Forgiveness, Duty of

Forgiveness, Doing of Forgiveness, Dividend of Forgiveness.

The manual consisted of biblical scriptures related to my project on marriage taken from Genesis 2:18, 21-24, and Ephesians 5:22-33. I also used various counseling concepts surrounding communication by Dr. John M.

Gottman and Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman (Gottman 2014). Other concepts evolved around conflict resolution and forgiveness (Matt. 6:14-15, Lk.17:4).

The pre-test assessment was administered at the beginning of the project and the post-test assessment was given at the end of the project. The assessments addressed the couples’ Biblical knowledge of principles concerning marriage, understanding their levels of communication, how they handle conflict and their ability to forgive. Both assessments consisted of quantitative questions to verify the reliability of the assessment instrument. The post-test assessment had the same quantitative questions along with three additional qualitative questions at the end. This assessment surveyed how the curriculum’s objective

95 impacted each participant’s knowledge of biblical principles regarding marriage, self-awareness of their negative thoughts, behaviors and actions in the marriage, and their willingness to forgive.

The curriculum incorporated a teaching, experiential and spiritual component of Communication, Conflict, and Forgiveness. The area of enhanced communication was used to foster more unity within couples who will then turn to each other in oneness; therefore, increasing participants’ awareness of unresolved conflict and the importance of working towards conflict resolution.

Lastly, when communication styles are enhanced and conflict is resolved couples are more willing to forgive each other.

Each session opened and ended with prayer. In Session One the couples participated in a pre-assessment of questions surrounding personal information on demographics, spirituality, communication, conflict and forgiveness. Each couple completed the pre-test assessment. Each couple introduced themselves, how long they have been married. The introduction began with an Ice Breaker about a couple who was married 69 years. For 69 years they shared life together and ended life together, sharing a room in the hospital holding hands as their lives came to an end. This ice-breaker illustrated to couples the commitment of oneness and unity in marriage.

Next couples were given biblical illustrations representing the importance of unity in a Biblical marriage based on the scripture, “Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh” (Gen 2:24). This scripture was used to help couples understand that

96 marriage is important to God and the foundation for the project. The focus of this scripture; 1. How two lives are united. 2. Two have become one flesh. 3. Two lives intermingled introduced the term covenant and its biblical meaning along with illustrations from the Bible. Couples were asked to write about two questions. First everything that attracted them to their spouse, appearance, personality, temperament, etc. Secondly, they were asked “what made me say, I am going to marry that man/woman.” Couples were to complete for homework due the next session.

In session two, couples shared their experiences about their attractions with each other and why they chose to marry. I introduced and explained both positive and negative communication styles. The focus was on identifying the negative communication styles using Dr. John M. Gottman and Dr. Julie

Schwartz Gottman’s the “Four Horseman of the Apocalypse.” Of the four negative communication styles only two were presented; criticism and defensiveness. The negative communication styles represent how damaging each person communication can be with his/her spouse using at least one of these. Each negative style has an antidote; a corresponding soft response using

“I” statements by stating how the person feels, then state the problem and end with want they want or need to happen.

Couples were asked to first identify the communication style they recognized in themself and then their spouse. This allowed them to recognize their communication patterns and receive a different perspective from their spouse they may not have been aware of. Couples were only introduced to these

97 two communication styles. Session Two ended with participants being asked to apply the antidotes of a soft approach with “I” statements to foster a language that is cohesive to promote safety and unity for homework to begin the experiential process.

Session Three commenced with couples and their feedback on incorporating the positive communication style using “I” statements over the past week. Some couples reported that it was challenging for them because they do not speak or communicate in that way, others reported benefits from it because it stopped arguments. Couples were then introduced to the remaining two negative communication styles; contempt and stonewalling along with the soft antidotes and “I” statements. Couples identified their styles as well as their spouses.

Session Three ended with practice and application as well as homework for the week.

In Session Four participants addressed the use of a soft antidote using “I” statements with the last two negative communication styles. Body language was also introduced as another form of communication. Conflict in marriage was the next topic to address. Couples were asked how is conflict resolved between them. Next, couples were introduced to steps on how to resolve conflict through communication, actively listening, reviewing options and trying to end with a win- win solution were introduced to the couples.

Couples were asked what roles do they follow in the marriage, Biblical, contemporary or something else. I then Introduce the biblical role model for marriage in Ephesians 5:21-33 that represents unity and oneness in marriage.

Couples engaged and interacted in the exercise of identifying the roles within the godly marriage structure depicted in Ephesians 5:21-33. The homework assignment was for couples to identify individually how they have been contributing to the conflict in the marriage.

Session Five addressed reasons why conflict exists in marriage. Some participants had difficulty in identifying the areas they were contributing to the conflict in their marriage, immediately identifying areas their spouse contributes to the problem; while others were able to identify and take responsibility for their actions. Wives were asked what were the areas of frustration for them, if they felt they were valued. Husbands were asked if there were areas, they felt they were not allowed to be the head of the household. Couples were asked if there was conflict in the areas of raising children, finances.

My next focus was to give the participants an introduction to the formational prayer model, including core longings that are meant to draw us near to God, and to embrace Him for rest, comfort and contentment. I then introduced the couples to the core longings: love, security, understanding, significance, purpose, and belonging in an attempt to move the individual from their own perspective of how things should be opposed to how we are shaped by our own experiences and perceptions. (Wardle 2013, 70). Participants identified their core longings and explained what they needed from their spouse in the marriage.

Next, participants were introduced to the “Art of Compromise.” They were asked if they can compromise with their spouse like he/she is someone you love.

Participants were to identify their inflexible area or core need on a certain issue

99 they were experiencing conflict with and then determine the area where they were more flexible on this issue. Couples were asked to answer the following questions on compromise together: Help me understand your flexible areas?

What do we agree about? What are our common goals? How might these goals be accomplished? How can we reach a temporary compromise? What feelings do we have in common about this? How can I help to meet your core needs?

(Gottman, Schwartz 2014)

Session Six was “Understanding Forgiveness.” It introduced how conflict may arise from wounds and trauma that have occurred in one’s life and they may be triggered in the marriage. Each person was to explore how the conflict they had with their spouse reminded them of something that took place in their life previously. Were they able to get past the prior hurt? Do they protect themselves and say that will never happen to me again? Have they healed from the experience or has it caused them not to trust anyone in that area or in general, a loss of trust?

Couples were asked to identify areas where trust has been broken and there is unforgiveness. Couples were to share what forgiveness means to them and if they had any biblical reference for forgiveness. Couples were asked if forgiveness is a onetime incident or an ongoing process? The goal was to help couples understand what forgiveness is and is not and that forgiveness is a process, that does not happen instantly. I had couples explore the wounds that have occurred in their marriage and their capacity to forgive their spouse. The model for forgiveness is found in Matthew 6:14-15 and Luke 17:4.

100

Session Seven had a unifying purpose. Its goal was to help couples understand how positive communication and conflict resolution provides cohesiveness that promotes forgiveness. Each person was to explore how he/she has demonstrated forgiveness in their marriage. Couples had to answer if they found it hard to forgive, and if so, why; did they gain freedom in forgiveness, and did they know the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation.

Session Eight was the final session. Couples participated in an activity which took them on a marriage retreat to a tropical island. Couples interacted together laughing, being creative with their imaginations and carrying out romantic ways to show their spouse love. We closed the session and project with feedback from couples, the post-test assessment and the Safe Place exercise.

On the last session of the eight weeks couples were introduced to

“Meeting the Lord in a Safe Place.” Participants engaged in the experiential as they began by 1. Have participants assume a comfortable position that allows for relaxation and openness to the Holy Spirit. Slow deep breathing and soft music was used to assist with relaxation. 2. Invoke the presence of the Holy Spirit and ask for His blessing and protection and for him to sanctify the imaginations of the participants. 3. Asking participants to allow their imagination to create a place that is serene, and peaceful, wonderful and beautiful. Allow time to rest in that place and nod their head when they have arrived. It could be somewhere they have been before or somewhere their mind has created. 4. Have the participant to reset in this place for a time, observing the sights, sounds, smells and feelings they experience there. Allow time in the safe place. 5. If participants feel safe in

101 doing so, prompt them to invite Jesus to join them in this place. Allow time for this meeting to develop. 6. Encourage participants to simply enjoy the presence of the Lord, abiding for a time with Him in this safe place He has provided. 7. Invite participants to listen for a word from the Lord’s heart to their heart. Allow them time to rest with this word from the Lord. 8. This will be the place where they begin, working on deep wounds (Wardle 2013).

Assessment

An evaluation tool was developed to assess the anticipated achievement of this project’s six goals. Therefore, both a pre-assessment and post assessment were designed to survey how the curriculum’s objectives impacted each participant’s biblical knowledge of principles concerning marriage, understanding their levels of communication, how they handle conflict and their ability to forgive.

The beginning process of my project began with development and set up of my assessment. I developed a 24-question survey that included a 7-point

Likert scale. The Likert scale was to determine the couples understanding of

Biblical principles and knowledge, the level of communication, the degree in which conflict occurs and their willingness to forgive. There were reviews and modifications made to ensure information gathered would accurately adhere to the goals of the project. After reviews and modifications of the assessment it was submitted for approval by Dr. Dawn Morton, director of the program. After approval was granted the sessions with couples individually began for nine

102 weeks. However, sessions actually consisted of eight weeks, and the retreat did not take place at the beginning of the project.

The Marriage Survey was presented to each couple to provide demographic and personal information. The demographic questions consisted of: present age, gender, years in your present Faith Community, years of marriage, married before and divorced/separated. The pre-test assessment was administered at the beginning of the project and the post-test assessment was given at the end of the project. The assessments addressed the couples’ knowledge and understanding of the project goals and curriculum objective.

Both assessments consisted of quantitative questions to verify the reliability of the assessment instrument. The post-test assessment had the same quantitative questions along with three additional qualitative questions at the end.

This assessment surveyed how the curriculum’s objective impacted each participant’s knowledge of biblical principles regarding marriage, self-awareness of their negative thoughts and how conflict occurs resulting in negative behaviors and actions in the marriage, and their willingness to forgive.

An agreement scale called The Likert Scale was used for the 18 quantitative statements. The same statements were used in both the pre - and post-assessments. The scale was based on asking the degree of agreement from low to high (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Moderately disagree, 3= Slightly disagree, 4=Neutral, 5=Slightly agree, 6=Moderately agree, 7=Strongly agree).

An example of a statement is: I can forgive my spouse without an apology.

103

Another statement is: I communicate to my spouse my need to trust him/her. The assessment instruments are incorporated in the appendix.

Chapter Five reports the results of this project. The chapter includes gathering, organizing, analyzing and reviewing data from the information given by the participants resulting from the pre- and post-assessments.

104

CHAPTER FIVE

REPORTING THE RESULTS

The purpose of this project was to impact the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio. The research question was; What is the impact on the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at

Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio.

The design of the project was discussed in Chapter Four. The survey assisted as a tool to determine the degree to which the research question addressed the six project goals. The project goals consisted of the following:

1. To impact participants’ understanding about the importance of cooperation in

resolving conflict.

2. To impact participants’ ability to communicate more effectively their needs in

the marriage.

3. To impact participants’ understanding of values of the biblical aspect of

marriage.

4. To impact participants’ ability to forgive their spouse.

5. To impact participants’ ability to value their spouse’s point of view.

6. To impact participants’ ability to respect their spouse.

The survey consisted of four forced-choice statements and one open ended question per project goal. The quantitative statements were measured on a seven-point Likert scale as follows: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately

105 disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = neutral, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = moderately agree, 7 = strongly agree,

In this chapter, the results will be presented as they correlate with the goals that were each designed to evaluate. Each goal will be presented in the order of prominence based upon the scoring of each answer. Both quantitative and qualitative results are arranged by goals. Goals are depicted by the degree of impact they had on each participant individually and will be exhibited in the order of their impact on each participant.

Goal #1: The Importance of Cooperation in Resolving Conflict

The goal that scored the highest in prominence and with the greatest degree of impact is represented by the responses in Goal 1 were: “To impact participants’ understanding about the importance of cooperation in resolving conflict.” This is a behavioral goal and the capacity to problem solve in relation to each other. The average score for the three quantitative statements was 5.42 with an increase in the composite score of 1.30 on a seven-point scale.

The three statements in assessing this goal were as follows: I listen to my spouse’s opinion when making decisions (#8). I cooperate with my spouse even when I do not agree with the decision (#5). When conflicts arise my spouse and I work together on a solution (#2). The individual scores are as follows.

106

Table #1: Understanding the Importance of Cooperation in Resolving Conflict

Average Statement Pre-Test Post-Test Change

2) When conflicts arise my 3.0 4.92 1.92 spouse and I work together on a solution

8) I listen to my spouse’s 4.50 6.07 1.57 opinion when making decisions

5) I cooperate with my spouse 4.85 5.28 .42 even when I do not agree with the decision

Composite 4.11 5.42 1.30______Note: The scores are mean scores based on the answers given by fourteen participants (7 couples) for each of these above statements (n=14). They responded on a scale from 1-7, with I being “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree.”

The response to statement #8 ranked the highest regarding this goal with a score of 6.07. Seven participants responded strongly agree, three moderately agree and two slightly agree. Two participants neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. The responses to the first statement revealed a positive 1.57 change in the post-test survey. The responses revealed couples are open to hearing their spouse’s opinion in the decision-making process.

The response to statement #5 and #2 scored second and third respectively. The results reveal that spouses cooperate even when they do not agree and work together on a solution. Statement #5 ranked the second highest with a score of 5.28 with a low increase of .42 in responses. Two participants responded strongly agree, four moderately agree and five slightly agree. Two

107 neither agree nor disagree and one slightly disagreed. The results also reveal in statement #5 that spouses are aware of their lack of cooperation when they disagree. The results also reveal spouses may have been unsure about how to cooperate when they disagree with their spouse.

Statement #2 ranked the lowest of the quantitative statements with a score of 4.92, but the highest increase of change at 1.92. This goal revealed overall spouses’ capacity to work together to resolve conflict. One participant responded strongly agree, eight moderately agree. Two neither agree nor disagree and one slightly disagreed. One moderately disagrees and one strongly disagree. Results also reveal couples may not know how to work together on a solution.

The first qualitative question associated with this goal was an open-ended question: “What can Foundational Counseling Services do to help you and your spouse work together to resolve conflict. Give two or three suggestions.”

108

Table 1a. Goal #1: The Importance of Cooperation in Resolving Conflict

Question Responses What can Foundational Training 6 Counseling Services do to help Understanding 5 you and your spouse work Focus on problem areas 4 together to resolve conflict. Give Individuality 4 two or three suggestions. Mentorship 3 Biblical passages 3 Communication 3 Transparency 1 Continued sessions 1 Prayer 1 Forgiveness 1 Other 1

Total Responses 33 14 out of 14 participants responded to Qualitative Question #1

All fourteen participants responded to this statement and gave two or three suggestions. The results also revealed that training scored the most prominent way that participants wanted help in resolving conflict. Understanding scored as the second most prominent way that participants wanted to be understood in resolving conflict. Focus on problem areas and individuality scored as the third prominent way that participants gave as suggestions in resolving conflict. Transparency, continued sessions, prayer, and forgiveness scored as the least prominent ways of the suggestions that participants wanted to resolve conflict. The other responses include: no additional suggestions and

Foundational Counseling Services is doing a phenomenal job.

Goal 5: Participants Ability to Value Their Spouse’s Point of View

The goal that scored second in prominence was: “To impact participants’ ability to value their spouse’s point of view.” This is a value and moral principle-based

109 goal depicting changes in the participants responses to their spouse’s point of view. The average score of the three quantitative statements was 5.95 with a positive increase in the composite score of 1.09 on a seven-point scale.

The three quantitative statements in assessing this goal were as follows: I value my spouse’s point of view even when I do not agree (#7). I recognize the differences in opinions of my spouse’s point of view (#16). I value my spouse’s point of view even if I think he/she is wrong (#10). The individual scores of each statement are listed below in Table 2.

Table #2: Value their Spouse’s Point of View

Average Statement Pre-test Post-test Change

10) I value my spouse’s point of view 3.71 5.50 1.78 even if I think/he/she is wrong

7) I value my spouse’s point of view 4.78 6.28 1.50 even when I do not agree

16) I recognize the differences in 6.07 6.07 .00 opinions of my spouse’s point of view

Composite 4.85 5.95 1.09

Note: The scores are mean scores based on the answers given by fourteen participants (7 couples) for each of these above statements (n=14). They responded on a scale from 1-7, with I being “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree” The response to statement #7 ranked the highest regarding this goal with a score of 6.28. Seven participants responded strongly agree, five moderately agree and one slightly agree. One participant neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. The responses to the first statement revealed a positive change of

110

1.50. The responses revealed most participants value their spouse’s point of view even when disagreeing.

Statement #16 ranked the second highest with a score of 6.07 with .0 change in the post-test survey. Six participants responded strongly agree, four moderately agree and three slightly agree. One participant neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. The results reveal most participants recognize the differences in opinions of their spouse’s point of view. The results also reveal that some spouses may have been unsure of how to address the differences of their spouse’s point of view.

Statement #10 ranked the lowest of the quantitative statements with a score of 5.50, but the highest increase of change at 1.78. One participant responded strongly agree, seven moderately agree and four slightly agree. Two participants neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. The results reveal overall participants value their spouse’s point of view even if they think he/she is wrong. There was not a corresponding qualitative statement to goal 5.

Goal 6: Ability to Respect Their Spouse

The goal that scored third in prominence was: “To impact participants’ ability to respect their spouse.” This goal was to increase awareness and identify feelings as they relate to their spouse. The average score for the three quantitative statements was 6.23 with an increase in the composite score of .95 on a seven-point scale. The results were not as strong as previous goals. The three quantitative statements were as follows:

111

I give my spouse respect with encouraging words (#18). I show my spouse respect by listening to him/her (#4). and I show my spouse respect by fulfilling his/her requests (13#). The individual score for each statement is as follows.

Table #3: Ability to respect their spouse

Average Statement Pre-test Post-test Change

4) I show my spouse respect by 4.78 6.21 1.42 listening to him/her

13) I show my spouse respect by 5.28 6.07 .79 fulfilling his/her requests

18) I give my spouse respect with 5.78 6.42 .64 encouraging words

Composite 5.28 6.23 .95

Note: The scores are mean scores based on the answers given by fourteen participants (7 couples) for each of these above statements (n=14). They responded on a scale from 1-7, with I being “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree” The response to statement #18 ranked the highest regarding this goal with a score of 6.42. Seven participants responded strongly agree, six moderately agree and one slightly agree. The responses to the first statement revealed a .64 change. The responses revealed couples may have been unsure about how to use encouraging words with their spouse.

Statement #4 ranked the second highest in this goal with a score of 6.21.

The goal received a positive increase of 1.42 change in responses. The goal revealed that overall spouses increased their respect by listening to their spouse.

112

Six participants responded strongly agree, six moderately agree and one slightly agree. One participant neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

Statement #13 ranked the lowest in this goal with a score of 6.07 with a smaller increase of .79 change in responses. Even though it ranked the lowest, there is some evidence that spouses show respect by fulfilling his/her requests.

The results also reveal that feelings and emotions which may affect their capacity to respect their spouse. The results also reveal that some spouses may have been unsure of how to fulfil the requests. Six participants responded strongly agree, four moderately agree and three slightly agree. One participant neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. There was no qualitative question corresponding to goal 6.

Goal 2: Communicate More Effectively Their Needs in The Marriage

The goal that scored fourth in prominence was: “To impact participants’ ability to communicate more effectively their needs in the marriage.” This is a communication goal. The average score for the three quantitative statements was 5.83 with an increase in the composite score of .68 on a seven-point scale.

Three quantitative statements were used in assessing this goal: I communicate to my spouse my need to be considered in the decision- making process (#11). I communicate to my spouse without using language that is harmful (#15). I communicate to my spouse my need to trust him/her (#6). The individual scores of each statement are listed below.

113

Table #4: Communicate more effectively their needs in the marriage

Average Statement Pre-test Post-test Change

11) I communicate to my spouse 5.14 6.14 1.0 my need to be considered in the decision making process

15) I communicate to my spouse 5.14 6.00 .85 without using language that is harmful

6) I communicate to my spouse 5.14 5.35 .21 my need to trust him/her

Composite 5.14 5.83 .68_____ Note: The scores are mean scores based on the answers given by fourteen participants (7 couples) for each of these above statements (n=14). They responded on a scale from 1-7, with I being “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”

For this goal, participants ranked statement #11 the highest at 6.14 and a positive increase of 1.0 change in responses. The results revealed that overall participants communicate to their spouse their need to be considered in the decision-making process. Six participants responded strongly agree, five moderately agree and two slightly agree. One participant neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

114

Statement #15 ranked the second highest in this goal at 6.00 and a positive increase of .85 change in responses. On average participants communicate to their spouse without using language that is harmful. Five participants responded strongly agree, five moderately agree and three slightly agree. One participant neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

Statement #6 ranked the lowest in this goal at 5.35 with a positive increase of .21 change in responses. Six participants responded strongly agree, three moderately agree and two slightly agree. One participant slightly disagreed with the statement and two participants with no responses. Overall, couples communicated to spouses their need to trust him/her. However, some participants were not able to decide if they were communicating to their spouse their need to trust him/her. Some participants did not respond.

The qualitative question for this goal was: Identify two or three ways you communicated more effectively your needs in the marriage over the past eight weeks.

115

Table 4a. Goal 2 Communicate More Effectively Their Needs in Marriage

Question Responses Identify two or three ways Positive communication 9 you communicated more Using “I” statements 4 effectively your needs in the marriage over the past Realistic expectations 2 eight weeks. Patience 2 Considerate 2 Explain feelings and needs 2 Listening 1 Intimacy 1 Other 2

Total Responses 25 14 out of 14 participants responded to Qualitative Question #2

All fourteen participants responded to this statement. The results reveal that positive communication is the most prominent way that participants have communicated more effectively their needs in the marriage over the past eight weeks. Using “I” statements was the second most prominent way that participants have communicated more effectively their needs in the marriage over the past eight weeks. Realistic expectations, patience, considerate, explain feelings and needs are the third most prominent ways that participants have communicated more effectively their needs in the marriage over the past eight weeks. Listening and intimacy are the least prominent ways that participants have communicated more effectively their needs in the marriage over the past eight weeks. The other responses include: compromise and prayer.

116

Goal 4: The Capacity to Forgive Their Spouse

The goal that scored fifth in prominence was: “To impact participants’ capacity to forgive their spouse.” This is an awareness goal of the participants’ capacity to forgive their spouse and any underlying contributing feelings. The average score for the three quantitative statements was 5.54 with an increase in the composite score of .63 on a seven-point scale.

The three quantitative statements were: I can forgive my spouse after an argument (#17). I can forgive my spouse when he/she does not understand me

(#12). I can forgive my spouse without an apology (#1). The individual score for each statement is listed below. The purpose of these statements was to increase participants awareness of their capacity to forgive and give up the offense or resentment that may accompany it. Table 5 below shows the individual responses.

117

Table #5: Ability to forgive their spouse

Average Statement Pre-test Post-test Change

1) I can forgive my spouse 4.14 5.00 .85 without an apology

17) I can forgive my spouse 5.42 6.07 .64 after an argument

12) I can forgive my spouse 5.14 5.57 .42 when he/she does not understand me

Composite 4.90 5.54 .63

Note: The scores are mean scores based on the answers given by fourteen participants (7 couples) for each of these above statements (n=14). They responded on a scale from 1-7, with I being “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree” For this goal, participants ranked statement #17 the highest with a score of 6.07. The goal revealed a positive increase of .64 change in responses. The results reveal that on average couples were able to forgive their spouse after an argument. Seven participants responded strongly agree and four moderately agree and one slightly agree. One participant neither agree nor disagree with the statement and one slightly disagree.

Statement #12 ranked the second highest in this goal with a score of 5.57.

The goal revealed a positive increase of .42 change in responses but was the lowest increase on this goal. Three participants strongly agree, and four moderately agree. Five slightly agree and two neither agree nor disagree. Even though it ranked the lowest in change in responses there is some evidence that spouses can forgive each other even when they do not understand them. The

118 results reveal that feelings and emotions may affect their capacity to forgive their spouse. The results also reveal that some spouses may have difficulty in forgiving their spouse when he/she does not understand me.

Statement #1 ranked the lowest in this goal with a score of 5.0 and a positive increase of .85 change in responses. Two participants responded strongly agree, five moderately agree and four slightly agree. One neither agree nor disagree. The results show that some couples can forgive their spouse without an apology. However, there are other couples who are not fully sure if they have done so or not. It is important to note the ambiguity presented in the results.

The qualitive question was: How have you been able to handle forgiveness in your marriage? Give two or three examples.

119

Table 5a Goal 4 Ability to forgive their spouse

Question Responses How have you been able to Recognize no one is 4 handle forgiveness in your perfect

marriage? Give two or three Mistakes happen examples. 4 Understand 3 Apologize 3 Listen 3 Let it go 2 Pray & love 2 Do not hold grudges 2 Spirituality 2 Respect feelings 2 Other 2 2

29 Total Responses 14 out of 14 participants responded to Qualitative Question #3 All fourteen participants responded to this statement. The results reveal that no one is perfect, and mistakes happen are the most prominent ways participants handled forgiveness in their marriage. Understand, apologize, and listen, were the second most prominent ways participants handled forgiveness in their marriage. Let it go, pray and love, do not hold grudges, spirituality, respect feelings, and other are the least prominent ways participants handled forgiveness in their marriage. The other responses include: walk away, say nothing and be quiet.

120

Goal 3: Understanding Values of The Biblical Aspect of Marriage

The goal that scored sixth in prominence was: “To impact participants understanding of values of the biblical aspect of marriage.” This was a value- based goal about spirituality. The average score for the three quantitative statements was 6.11 with an increase in the composite score of .57 on a seven- point scale.

The three quantitative statements were: I understand that the Bible provides illustrations representing the importance of unity in a Biblical marriage

(#14). I have found specific passages in the Bible which have helped in my understanding of a Biblical marriage (#3). Specific passages in the Bible help me to understand that marriage is important to God. The individual scores of each statement are listed below.

121

Table #6: Understanding of values in the Biblical aspect of marriage

Average Statements Pre-test Post-test Change 3) I have found specific 5.35 6.07 .72 passages from the Bible which have helped in my understanding of a Biblical marriage

14) I Understand that the Bible 5.71 6.21 .50 provides illustrations representing the importance of unity in a Biblical marriage

9) Specific passages in the 5.57 6.07 .50 Bible help me to understand that marriage is important to God

Composite 5.54 6.11 .57

For this goal, participants ranked statement #14 as the highest at 6.21.

Ten participants responded strongly agree and two responded moderately agree.

One participant responded neither agree nor disagree, and one strongly disagree. Overall, most participants understood the Bible provided illustrations representing the importance of unity in a biblical marriage. Some participants were unsure of where to locate those illustrations in the Bible and wanted more guidance. The goal revealed a positive increase of .50 change in responses.

Statement #3 and #9 both scored the second highest for this goal at 6.07.

Participants are open to specific Bible passages in understanding marriage.

122

Statement #3 had an increase in the composite score of .72. Statement #9 had a positive increase of change .50 in responses. Nine participants responded strongly agree, two participants responded moderately agree, and one participant responded slightly agree. One participant responded neither agree or disagree and one participant responded strongly disagree. When considering all of the contributions concerning this project, it is evident that participants answered the quantitative statements on a Likert scale. Some participants’ responses to the open-ended qualitative statements gave insight and application on various topics.

Whereas, some appeared as though they misunderstood the statement. Overall, participants engaged in the Likert statements and qualitative statements.

The project was beneficial for several reasons. First, there is an increasing amount of Christian married couples that are having difficulty in their marriages.

Second, the assessment revealed there is a need for interventions and guidance.

At the conclusion of the project, they demonstrated improvement in the areas of communication, conflict resolution and forgiveness.

123

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY AND REFLECTIONS

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated, I could only imagine how his wife Jacqueline must have with feelings of emptiness, as though someone physically went inside and removed part of her heart. No one could ever imagine the depths of pain Coretta Scott King felt when her soul mate, Martin Luther King

Jr. was killed. I could relate to these women when my husband died from cancer. I could not believe it was happening. The love two people have for each other and share in marriage throughout their time together feels endless until something happens to shatter or destroy what God has ordained. My world was turned upside down. The man who was my best friend, lover, and soul mate was gone from my life after twenty-three years of friendship. Everything I knew as two, was now only one, full of memories for two, but operating as one.

My husband and I served a good life together in holy matrimony. Just like any couple we had our good times, our bad times; but the most important times were the peaceful loving times where we truly connected as one. There were many challenges to get to the oneness of marriage and begin to honor what God had ordained in a covenant relationship with Him and each other. The more challenges we faced the more I was drawn to God to help us through the difficult times.

God began to reveal to me through the scriptures the underlying reason we were having problems in the marriage and that we were not alone. “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;

124 he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen.

3:15-16). Both partners are involved in the conflict and must accept their consequences. Then affective communication can begin (Shevack 2003, 99).

There were many commonalities for couples in the areas of communication, resolving conflict and being able to forgive each other. The Holy Spirit led me to

Genesis 2:18 “And the LORD God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him” (Gen. 2:18 KJV).

I wanted to impart on other couples the depth their marriage vows. God’s ordinance in the holy estate of matrimony; and it should not be a burden to love, comfort, honor and keep each other in sickness and in health, in spite of the challenges and hardship in forsaking all others and enjoy keeping themselves only to each other so long as they both live (Hiscox 2010, 164). To understand

God as the creator of marriage and the significance of the covenant relationship that exists. The idea of marriage as a covenant provides guidelines for modern- day marriage counselling and affirms the importance of marriage for the health of society and especially for the church (Jones and Tarwater 2004, 11).

Therefore, I created a study to examine the effectiveness of a Formational

Counseling Experience impact on Christian married couples. The purpose of this project was to impact the capacity of Christian married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness in marriage through a Formational Counseling Experience at Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio. This project’s

125 research results indicated the Formational Counseling Experience to be effective in understanding the importance of cooperation in resolving conflict.

I reflect back on the notable events of helping respondents understand the challenges that get in the way when connecting as one. I was surprised to learn resolving conflict ranked the highest among all the goals. The barriers truly existed in this area, and I wanted participants to understand how communication was a large contributing factor in conflict. Michael Shevack’s theory on how conflict began in the Garden of Eden with three concepts; blame, responsibility and innocence, which I have experienced in couples counseling (Shevack 2003,

99).

The focus of communication was to enhance and foster more unity within couples. The desire was to increase participants awareness of unresolved conflict and the connection to forgiveness. I was surprised to learn how communication was interrelated to all six goals, yet ranked fifth with a composite change of .68. In reflecting back on this one of the things I would have done differently was to have a goal focused solely on communication in the marriage. I believe that would have ranked higher assisting participants to understand this core area of functioning surrounding.

There were six goals used to develop the project’s effectiveness for individuals to be fluid within the marriage as it pertains to their spouse’s needs.

Each goal is addressed starting with the goal that was the most prominent that respondents reacted to and demonstrated the most fluidity. Other goals were addressed in decreasing order of their effectiveness. Conclusions are noted as a

126 result of the project’s findings. I am concluding with my personal development and growth as it relates to my personal goals and reflections for ministry along with areas of further study.

Project Goals

My purpose statement “Moving from Conflict to Forgiveness in Marriage” was verified by the assessment results that married couples face conflict in their marriage. It appears to be a consistent factor in communication, unresolved conflict and unforgiveness. The respondents recognized when these areas are not focused appropriately, they negatively impact their closeness and ability to operate as one in the marriage, therefore obstructing their ability to move from conflict to forgiveness. The project goals are listed in order of prominence:

1. To impact participants’ understanding about the importance of

cooperation in resolving conflict.

2. To impact the participants’ ability to value their spouses’ point of view.

3. To impact the participants’ ability to respect their spouse.

4. To impact the participants’ ability to communicate more effectively their

needs in the marriage.

5. To impact the participants’ ability to forgive their spouse.

6. To impact the participants understanding of values of the biblical

aspect of marriage.

On a seven-point forced-choice survey, all the goals were scored, and each goal was analyzed, beginning with the goal that had the most prominent

127 findings, followed by the remainder of the goals in descending order of prominence.

Goal One: The Importance of Cooperation in Resolving Conflict

The goal that scored the highest was: “To impact participants’ understanding about the importance of cooperation in resolving conflict.” The average score for the three quantitative questions was 4.0, on the pre-test, however the post-test was higher by 1.31. The three quantitative questions were as follows: I listen to my spouses’ opinion when making decisions (#8). I cooperate with my spouse even when I do not agree with the decision (#5).

When conflicts arise my spouse and I work together on a solution (#2). This indicates the extent participants believe cooperation is important in resolving conflict to be true.

Of the three quantitative questions #2 ranked the lowest in responses. I was surprised by the low codes on the responses to the quantitative questions regarding resolving conflict especially Q2 rating a 3.0. Evaluation of the rating scale (Q2 = 3 and Q5 = 4.85) identifies the participants from “strongly disagree, moderately disagree and slightly agree” to “moderately agree” when conflicts arise my spouse and I work together on a solution. Evaluation of the rating scale

(Q8 = 4.5) discloses movement from “slightly agree” to “strongly agree” regarding listening to my spouses’ opinion when making decisions. The rating of +1.30 depicts the most prominent impact of change among the participants.

I would have liked to have seen higher numbers overall, which could be indicative of a low success rate in resolution. I noticed from the study when the

128 wife became angry with the husband for any reason, he would in turn become angry with her for her reaction towards him thus resulting in negative influences towards each other. This would prohibit any progress in resolving the problem. I noticed if there was one spouse that had a heavier concentration on a negative state resulting in more negative behaviors, and cognitions he/she negatively influenced their spouse causing a “circular causality” to exist. In other words, each person’s behavior is affected by the other without positive outcomes

(Gottman 1999, 31).

Participants gave feedback regarding the information they obtained throughout the eight weeks as well as the personal situations they were experiencing. Some of the most notable experiences were when respondents returned after completing the experiential exercise and were able to communicate how they used the tool or exercise and how it impacted them.

When that happened respondents would joke and use the experiential freely during session which led to more positive influenced moments of interaction between them. Married partners who allow their spouses to influence their decisions by taking their opinions and ideas into consideration have happier marriages. Statistics show when there are power struggles and no consideration is given towards the other spouse, 81 percent of marriages result in divorce

(Gottman and Silver 1995, 116). I noticed the respondents that were not successful with the experiential continued to engage in negative states and their influences were negative.

129

Quantitative responses suggested the importance of understanding their spouses’ feelings and position in the matter as well as an increase in self- awareness and personal triggers. In addition, that being open to listening to their spouse, would increase their understanding and develop different ways to resolve the conflict. An observation I had regarding the participants verbalizing their openness to resolve conflict was that they wanted their spouse to change, rather than adapt their way of doing things. A notable event involved wives wanting their husbands to validate their feelings and listen to them more and respond to their ideas. Question 8 showed an increase of 1.57 in response to listening to my spouses’ opinion when making decision. Attunement to emotions is one being aware of the occurrence that led to the emotions and the ability to respond accordingly, which was demonstrated in the wives wanting more attunement of emotions, than their husbands. It involves an acronym that represents all the components of the emotions experienced in attunement.

Stated by Gottman as follows: Awareness, turning towards the emotion,

Tolerance of the experience, Understanding, Nondefensive listening, Empathy

(Gottman 2011, 91)

The qualitative data supports these results and gives additional information. The first qualitative question associated with this goal was an open- ended question: “What can Foundational Counseling Services do to help you and your spouse work together to resolve conflict”? The responses from the qualitative question; The request for more sessions to extend longer than eight weeks, to learn how to resolve conflict and learn more about how to introduce

130 new ideas they may have to their spouse without causing conflict. Emphasis was placed on understanding the individuality each person brings to their marriage and there is no “cookie cutter” style that fits everyone and every marriage.

Other areas that came out for respondents were to be transparent and point out faults in order to address them and more time spent on their individual problems. The qualitive question also led to respondents wanting to understand each other and communicate more effectively. Keeping God in the marriage along with prayer and a mediator were more helpful tips given on conflict resolution. Other areas were changes to make within themselves not only what they see in their spouse, and understand the differences in cognitive processes.

Things I would have done differently; is to extend the sessions from eight weeks to twelve weeks to allow the participants more time in expressing their individual concerns and after each experiential learning exercise, follow up to see how they used it on their problem areas as well as a new technique and what insights they develop from it. I would also have the participants focus on a particular issue that is presently causing the conflict between them and have them work together to resolve it over a specified period of time. During that time other problems may surface however, the couples focus is to stay on the initial problem and not the other issues that develop from it. It is important for respondents to recognize the progress they have made on that issue before moving on to something else. It is important to emphasize the positives that develop within the conflict so that resolutions can form.

131

Goal Five: Participants Ability to Value Their Spouse’s Point of View

The goal that scored second: To impact the participants’ ability to value their spouses’ point of view. Respondents indicated that the issue of understanding their spouses’ point of view was important. The composite score increased from the pre-test of 4.85 (neutral and slightly agree) to the post-test of

5.95 (moderately agree to strongly agree). The increase in the rating scale of

+1.09 illustrates movement in participants understanding and the degree to which participants value their spouse’s point of view and were strongly impacted by it.

Goal 5 is a value and moral principle-based goal depicting changes in the participants responses to their spouse’s point of view, noted in three statements:

(1) I value my spouse’s point of view even if I think he/she is wrong. (2) I value my spouse’s point of view even when I do not agree. (3) I recognize the differences in opinions of my spouse’s point of view. The extent to which participants value their spouses’ point of view is true and codes high.

Respondents indicated they value their spouses’ point of view and there was a slightly higher view of the respondents’ perspective on valuing their spouses’ point of view even when they do not agree. It was slightly lower when the recognized the difference in opinions of my spouses’ point of view.

I noticed on this goal women respondents had positive uninfluenced states leading to welcomed positive influenced states by their husbands (Gottman 1999,

31). Women respondents did not want their spouses to be quiet and not voice their opinions. Wives stated they want to know what their husbands are thinking and welcome more input and expression of feelings. Wives stated they want their

132 spouses to share more of their thoughts and feelings. Husbands don’t always agree with their wives’ point of view and may try to correct differences, but become discouraged in their efforts due to the degree of expectations that are placed on them resulting in a negative influenced state.

This may have attributed to the ranking on this goal as second as the wives welcoming the emotional input from their husbands. They want more identification of feelings and expression of those feelings as well. The wives engaged in the emotional aspect of connecting more than the husbands. The wives wanted the husbands to share more of the personal concerns that were causing them stress and were troubling for them at work as well as home, they wanted to hear their fears and challenges from a moral and value level with them. I noticed eighty percent of the wives wanted their husbands to be vulnerable with them; however, the husbands expressed the expectations by their wives were too high and felt unsure of where things could lead if they shared their emotions or opened themselves up to attack.

Goal Six: Ability to Respect Their Spouse

The goal that scored third: To impact participants ability to respect their spouse. Respondents indicated their ability to respect their spouse. Goal 6 was to increase awareness and identify feelings as they relate to their spouse. Goal 6 identifies their feelings and emotions which may affect their capacity to respect their spouse. The assessment of this goal was carried out using the following three statements which are stated in order of prominence. (1) I show my spouse respect by listening to him/her. (2) I show my spouse respect by fulfilling his/her

133 requests. (3) I give my spouse respect with encouraging words. Participants responses to questions Q4, Q13 and Q18 increased from 5.28 “slightly agree” and “moderately agree” to 6.23 “moderately agree and strongly agree.” The difference from the pre-test ratings to a heavier concentration in the post-test to

.95 “moderately agree and strongly agree” resulted in a moderate overall increased score.

I recall one wife commenting she does not listen to her husband. She went on to say he is not patient with her and he yells a lot therefore she does not listen to him. The findings support a low 4.78 on Q4 on the pre-test suggesting the level of disrespect in some areas. The post-test Q4 increased by 1.42 in the respondents’ answers. This finding suggests that after participants were able to process some of their feelings and emotions it allowed movement for them closer to forgiveness displayed in the post-test. This is an example of the husband having a negative uninfluenced state. He enters the marriage with negative behaviors, perceptions and physiology which results in negative influences towards his wife. As a result, the circular causality develops and the wife moves in a negative influenced state as well, circular causality continues with the wife operating negatively towards the husband. This was addressed with the respondent and when suggestions were made to change behavior his position was that he had already tried those strategies and nothing works.

Respondents shared feelings of anger, frustration, and disappointment just to name a few that negatively impact their respect for their spouse and their inability to show respect. Women displayed more deeper feelings of hurt and

134 anger then men. It would have been beneficial for the couple to spend more time on the area of anger and wounds. I would like to have helped them discover which feelings they were experiencing that reminded them of the past, and when did they notice these feeling before. Thus, helping them to see the root of their core hurt may not necessarily be connected to their spouse. Additionally, I would want to increase one’s own self-awareness, not one’s spouse. I was surprised to learn how much anger spouses harbored for each other through the years of their marriage which impacts their ability to forgive.

Goal 2: Communicate More Effectively Their Needs in The Marriage

The goal that scored fourth: Goal 2 a communication goal displays an increase in the degree of impact represented by the responses. The responses to this goal indicated the participants capacity to communicate effectively their needs in the marriage. Three statements were used in assessing this goal: (1) I communicate to my spouse my need to be considered in the decision-making process. (2) I communicate to my spouse without using language that is harmful.

(3) I communicate to my spouse my need to trust him/her. All questions including

Q11, Q15 and Q6 had an average pre-test score of 5.14. with Q11 having the highest increase of 1.0 with respondents in the post-test. A composite change of

.68 overall from all three questions in the post-test was achieved.

This study indicates the communication goal displayed areas where respondents have significant challenges and not a lot of progress. Initially couples reported not having the tools to improve communication between them

135 which resulted in needs not being met. One male respondent stated he only speaks up “when I need to be understood, in a disagreement.”

However, the qualitative question revealed specific strategies respondents use to get the outcomes they desire. How do you communicate your needs to your spouse in the marriage? One respondent stated “first you have to understand yourself, pray, and ask God for help and some things you can never say.” This can be seen as a negative uninfluenced state, where the male never speaks up unless he has an important or specific reason. Therefore, the wife is influenced negatively as well and her responses towards him become negatively communicated. Other responses were “try to be delicate with her voice and use I statements and sometimes the respondent reports if I kiss more often, the outcome is better.” Another respondent stated, “I sit him down and express exactly what I need from him.” Yet another stated “I try to verbally communicate then I try writing letters and notes when verbal communication is not successful.”

I will try asking for quality time without interruptions and give my spouse time to respond to me so that I may receive him better. Other responses are verbally communicating, and talk issues out. Others, I sit down and express my feelings and I talk using “I” statements try not to be harsh and insensitive.

Based on what the study revealed respondents have significant challenges in the area of communication. Does this suggest this is a major obstacle in couples’ ability to unite as one? Do couples trust each other enough to communicate their feelings? As I stated earlier in the reflections, I was surprised to learn how communication was interconnected to all six goals yet,

136 ranked fifth with a composite change of .68. One of the things I would have done differently was to have a goal focused solely on communication in the marriage. I believe that would have ranked higher with a higher degree of change as well. In addition, it would have helped participants to understand the core area of functioning surrounding communication.

I was surprised by those who had trouble using the communication tools in the experiential exercise. Does this suggest an unwillingness for self-examination and change? I was surprised by some of the answers’ respondents gave wanting specific solutions to their specific problems more in the form of advice as well as specific problem-solving scriptures. Does this suggest they did not feel the scriptures that were used met their needs? The answers from the men respondents were more from examining the entire process on conflict in their answers, whereas the women were more detailed in their answers. Things I would have done differently would be to have respondents communicate what they believe their spouse’s needs and concerns are to facilitate communication and draw their attention to improving listening skills.

Goal 4: The Capacity to Forgive Their Spouse

The goal that scored fifth: Goal 4 is an awareness goal of the participants’ capacity to forgive their spouse and underlying contributing feelings. Goal 1 reflects the importance of working together to resolve problems that arise between spouses and goal 4 reflects their capacity to forgive those differences in behaviors that may result in problems. The following three questions assessed this goal: (1) I can forgive my spouse without an apology. (2) I can forgive my

137 spouse after an argument. (3) I can forgive my spouse when he/she does not understand me. The purpose of these questions was to increase participants awareness of their capacity to forgive and give up the offense or resentment that may accompany it. In Q1 a moderate rating of 4.14 where couples strongly or moderately disagree there was an increase of .85 on the post-test and an overall composite change of +.63.

The findings seem to support the respondents’ answers by the low scores.

Sixty percent of the answers given by husbands wanted their wives to move past the hurts and lack of trust to forgiveness. However, the wives were unable to forgive without a pattern of changed behavior from their husbands.

One male respondent stated “what about forgiveness, we have seen three other counselors to work on those problems and you are still holding on to the past. I thought we were past those problems, but you are not trying.” His wife stated “it’s not an overnight thing. I just can’t go to sleep and say yes, I forgive you and I forget about it. It’s not going to happen overnight. I’m working on it, it’s a process. I am still working on trusting you and I don’t know what my husband will and will not do, I don’t know.” This probably means based on this information respondents are aware of their underlying feelings but not what is negatively driving them. I would like to have explored what core belief was impacted in a negative way blocking the ability for forgiveness to occur for their spouse.

The qualitative response “How have you been able to handle forgiveness in your marriage?” One of the participants reveals she has been negatively influenced by something that had occurred with her husband and it continues to

138 surface in their interactions. This response supports the low score in that it appears she has not forgiven her husband, and could be impacting forgiveness in other areas as well. Different ways to approach this is to explore the core belief that has been disrupted. Weigh the costs versus benefits to uncovering it, as well as addressing the underlying betrayal and or fear that is masking it. Assist other respondents as well with exploring and understanding core hurts in areas that maybe hindering the forgiveness process.

I would have focused more on those underlying feelings that appear to not have been resolved after previous occasions spent in counseling that are negatively impacting forgiveness to occur. It appears those feelings resurface for the respondent in new problems they experience. What are the underlying feelings and emotions the husband is not attuning to with his wife? Are they turning towards the emotions and having tolerance and understanding, or are they becoming defensive when the topic surfaces? I would have liked to explore the core hurts that continue to get ignited for her and other women. I would have the couples focus more on understanding each other and their expectations surrounding it.

Women focused more on the expectations and significance where the men focused more on correcting and understanding. This supports what I found in this study when there is unresolved conflict it results in unforgiveness, in addition unforgiveness in the marital context also needs reconciliation to move forward past the experience. I was surprised to learn couples may not reconnect

139 with each other after the conflict had damaged the core belief, even after years have passed.

One of the respondents expressed that her husband did not defend her honor with another family member who crossed a boundary. The husband stated he did have several conversations with that person and ended their friendship because of his inappropriate actions towards his wife. The wife stated in session,

“my husband did not handle the situation correctly.” There were different points of view on this matter that was still impacting their marriage after five years had passed. I would like to have focused on the expectations that were not met for the wife, and on forgiveness and reconciliation with both respondents.

Goal 3: Understanding Values of The Biblical Aspect of Marriage

The goal that scored sixth: This was a value-based goal about spirituality.

The goal was assessed using the following three statements: (1) I understand that the Bible provides illustrations representing the importance of unity in a biblical marriage. (2) Specific passages in the Bible help me to understand that marriage is important to God. (3) I have found specific passages from the Bible which have helped in my understanding of a Biblical marriage. A composite score of 5.54 depicting the participants ratings from a heavy concentration of “slightly agree” on Q3 in the pre-test to “strongly agree” on the post-test. This is based on their understanding of the importance of Biblical principles in marriage showing an increase of .72. The impact in achieving this goal is also supported with the responses to Q14 and Q9 which are reflected in the post-test with an increase of rating in “strongly agree.” Both have a change of .50 respectively. This value-

140 based goal demonstrates how respondents relied on spirituality to be the model for their marriage.

I was surprised to learn respondents support biblical principles, stating they were aware of them but scored lower on Q3 from 5.35 pre-test regarding using specific scriptures in the Bible which has helped in their understanding of a

Biblical marriage. I was also surprised by a respondent’s statement, “Help direct us through Biblical truths.” This statement supports the 5.35 score on the pre- test with an increase of .72. The increase supports the respondent’s comment but also indicates their awareness and perhaps understanding was increased in the areas presented such as the biblical passages on the foundation for marriage, and the roles with Christ and the church as His Bride; also, how God intended for the covenant to be the foundation for marriage. However, they wanted more biblical passages on how to handle their individual issues of conflict and making changes within themselves, and how to understand each other and communicate more effectively.

I presented these areas over the eight weeks, but what I am perceiving is a desire for more in-depth biblical study on the specific areas they are having trouble with. I have learned and would do differently in the area of spirituality.

When participants bring up issues they are having in the marriage, I would use

Biblical passages as a guide on how to handle the situation. I would focus more on the respondents understanding of the scriptures, not just their awareness of the scriptures. I would also focus on the intended meaning of the scripture, and

141 their understanding of it and how they would apply it to themselves and then to their marriage.

The positive uninfluenced state of an individual with a Biblical foundation could influence positive behaviors, perception and physiology of their spouse.

The husbands who accept their wives influence, decrease the probability of them becoming harsh with their wives when discussing a problem in the marriage. This also increases the probability of positive growth in the marriage (Gottman and

Silver 1999, 120).

Some clues are definitive as to an unwillingness to accept the influence of the spouse. Emotions can get out of control and the conflict escalates bringing in more harmful communication styles. When the spouse accepts the positive influence of the other, marriages are better equipped to survive the difficult challenging times of disagreement where anger and frustration sets in. Emotions such as anger and frustration can cause the discussion to take on more damaging areas from which it is hard to recover. When one spouse becomes upset and has a mild response, but is met with more harsh and destructive reaction it can lead to irreparable harm. It would be wise for the one spouse to tone down and try to not match the degree of negativity and never go beyond it to solve the conflict creating an additional intensity of problems (Gottman and Silver

1999, 120).

The answers to the qualitative question, What can Foundational

Counseling Services do to help you and your spouse work together to resolve conflict, indicates where the most help was needed. The top three responses

142 showed there was a need for training in the area of how to resolve conflict with an emphasis on understanding, individuality, with focus on the problem areas.

Application

My involvement in this project with married couples and the Doctor of

Ministry program has allowed me to apply this project to my counseling practice,

Foundational Counseling Services, LLC. where I have been a psychotherapist for over thirteen years. During that time, I counselled married couples as well as others, which is very important to me as I have a passion for helping others. That is my purpose in this world and I am blessed to be able to counsel individuals and couples in the psychological, emotional, and social, areas of their lives through the helping profession. I have been using the tools from this project in my practice to help couples with improving their communication styles, resolve conflict and identify underlying feelings to assist them with forgiveness and reconciliation. The Doctor of Ministry program has helped me to facilitate learning and teaching to a higher level in helping others.

This project revealed the challenges married couples experienced to stay committed in the marriage together and the participants expressed their desire for more in the areas of spirituality, teaching and more experiential learning to assist them with the problems as they occur in their marriage. The responses from participants have demonstrated to me the need for continued counseling, workshops and seminars to assist married couples in resolving their conflicts. I am committed to continue to apply the following curriculum to assist couples to move from conflict to forgiveness in marriage.

143

I will continue to use the following manual and tools developed in this curriculum for Christian couples. The findings suggest in the area of spirituality couples wanted more Biblical references about marriage. Therefore, I will continue to use the following: “What the Bible says about Marriage”, Biblical illustrations and passages of scriptures representing marriage and its importance to God, and the unity, along with the meaning of covenant.

Participants demonstrated a need for more teaching which leads me to include: “How do I communicate with my spouse?”, The four Horsemen of the

Apocalypse; Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt and Stonewalling and the corresponding antidotes. An Essential Ingredient in Marriage, The Four

Components of Good Communication Skills in Marriage, Friends and Enemies of

Good Conversation Inventory, Marriage Communication Covenant, Godly

Relations, The Five Love Languages, Constructive Conflict, 4 Steps To Resolve

Conflict, Marital Conflict (Man’s Way versus God’s Way), Relationship Skills,

Conflict Negotiation, The Art of Compromise, Processing Conflict Constructively,

Conflict Styles, How We Deal With Our Anger, The Anger Meter, How To Get A

Handle On Anger, Fighting Fair The Only Way To Fight, How to Freely Forgive, and Exercise; Set Yourself Free. I will use various counseling concepts on marriage from experts in the field such as Dr. John Gottman, and Dr. Julie

Schwartz Gottman, Dr. Gary Chapman, Dr. Gary Smalley, Dr. Larry Crabb and

Dennis and Barbara Rainey.

Experientials will be used to help participants apply what they have learned from the teaching component. In order to measure the progress, I will

144 continue to use the pre-test and post-test assessment to measure the progress of the couples and receive feedback for further study. Additional findings showed me there was a need to include the following scriptures and authors on marriage:

Genesis 2:18, 21-24, Ephesians 5:22-33, and I Corinthians 13:4-7.

Other concepts that I will continue to use evolved around conflict resolution and forgiveness (Matt. 6:14-15, Lk. 17:4). Analyzing participants responses on the qualitative questions has given me insight to make adjustments to the sessions such as increasing it from eight to twelve weeks, perhaps incorporating a break after the eighth week and resuming for processing and application of what couples have learned and how they understood the concepts and experientials as well as how they showed up in their application. Other areas to consider are: to increase concentration of couples understanding of concepts and application of individually in the marriage; to follow up and check in more with couples on their efforts and understanding of the process, and to spend time with processing underlying feelings of, core hurts, core beliefs and trauma.

Eventually, it is my desire and hope to develop a Marriage Clinic. Here couples can come to obtain help when they are experiencing unresolved conflict for mild, moderate or severe marital issues. I will discuss this matter in the section on Further Study.

Further Study

Areas that warrant additional research that would be beneficial in the

Marriage Clinic will focus on the area of trauma. Trauma occurs on all levels of neglect, abuse, rape and sexual molestation. It is an experience that has

145 occurred either physically, mentally or both resulting in emotional, psychological stress or mental discomfort (James 2008, 163).

Another area for further study would be Formational Counseling. I will focus on the six areas of core longings and brokenness resulting in core wounds from past trauma; 1. Love 2. Belonging 3. Safety 4. Significance 5. Purpose 6.

Understanding. I will use the structures of inner healing, developed by Dr. Terry

Wardle to assist couples along the path to well-being. (Wardle 2001, 136). The structures of inner healing would be used in the application of marriage to identify the different layers of pain and wounding that result in negative patterns of behavior. The first layer of pain is called the life situation. It can be described as the outer layer of context where the person experiences pain and difficulty. An example of that would be an addiction. The layer beneath life situation is dysfunctional behaviors that represents the unhealthy responses; such as people pleasing. The next level is emotional upheaval in one’s life situation, “the emotions that drive the actions” (Wardle 2001, 138). The layer following emotional upheaval is lies and distortions, that are driven by the wounds that first occur. “Unaddressed wounds create a great deal of pain and give shape to distortions in the way people view themselves, others and God. The lives give birth to emotional upheaval that is debilitating and distracting” (Wardle 2001,

138).

I have counseled couples with wounds that have resulted in life situations such as addictions that have brought them in for treatment. Formational

Counseling allows me to focus on the deep core wounds in other areas such as

146 grief, trauma, and mental health. When focusing on the inner healing process interventions that are affective, in psychotherapy, and formational counseling will be incorporated into the counseling sessions. Research will be needed to explore how the spouses were impacted by the “spokes of interconnectors.” The interconnectors help to determine the areas which have caused the most detrimental impact to the marriage.

Personal Goals

As stated in Chapter One, my personal experience with marriage has placed me on this path of helping married couples address the communication problems and the resulting conflict they experience which prevent them from resolving it and moving towards forgiveness. I have developed three personal goals as a result of taking on this project. I will address each of my goals as follows:

Personal Goal Number One I Will Increase My Quiet Meditation Time Daily

During this process since writing the proposal began many changes have taken place for me, resulting in an increase in my quiet meditation time. One change that took place for me was my oldest brother Mark S. Aaron, passed away September 18, 2017. Two months after the Lord called him home, then the love of my life my husband, Minister Wm. Reginald Woods made his transition on

November 15, 2017 and three years later my last living brother Walter Michael

Aaron on June 26, 2020. After these painful occurrences in my life, I needed to know God more and quiet meditation was a key factor for me during this process, so that I could hear from the Lord. I was at a place in my life where I could not

147 forge through my experiences, I had to take time out for quiet meditation with the

Lord. I found when I did not, I was trying to accomplish things in my own power and my own will. However, I discovered through my time with the Lord that He is with me leading and guiding me and I have grown because of using this discipline in my life daily.

Personal Goal Number Two I Will Increase My Frequency of Entering into Safe Place Weekly

My personal goal, entering into safe place, helps my focus on the purpose

God has for me and where He wants me in this life. I needed to know how I was going to make without my husband of twenty-one years of marriage. I needed

God to sustain me and give me direction on why I am doing my dissertation on marriage after my husband has passed on to be with the Lord. Practicing Safe

Place and this doctoral project have helped me to position myself and understand His purpose for me and for marriage. I have come to understand through my practice of safe place, that moving forward with this project has no effect on whether I am married presently or not. I can continue to carry out this assignment because the covenant marriage that I began with my husband and

God to honor Him is still effective. It is not relevant that my husband transitioned during this process, I will continue to seek God and move forward. I see myself soaring to higher heights as He expands my territory and renews my perspective.

Personal Goal Number Three I Will Embrace My Core Longings and The Love of Christ

My third goal, I will embrace my core longings and the love of Christ every time I encounter anxiety concerning my performance. I believe my core longings

148 can change over time. During that time in my life my core longings were love, belonging and purpose. Love represented my husband Reggie. We grew together for twenty-three years. He allowed me to become my husband’s caregiver in his illness with stage IV cancer. Seeing your soul mate go through an experience that is draining every ounce of life from within him takes you to the end of life with him. I truly understood what oneness had become for me. Nothing else mattered on this earth but Reggie and the Trinitarian God. I experienced true love from God and from my husband Min. Reginald Woods.

I would say today my core longings have slightly changed. Love is still present for me, along with purpose, however security has been added. I know that I cannot allow myself to become worried, or anxious but to become secure and at peace in Christ. I know nothing can separate me from the love of God and my needs are and will be met in Christ Jesus.

Conclusion

God uses marriage to disciple us. “After we have surveyed, as far as possible, all the other creatures in the world, eventually God presents us with one who is special, one who strikes a deeper chord in us than anyone else was able to do” (Mason 2005, 34). Marriage can bring to the surface the past: wounds, brokenness and fears. If we respond correctly with Biblical truths and being intentional in the relationship honoring God and the marriage it can be as a discipleship and spiritual growth.

In my initial session I shared an experience about a couple who had been married for sixty-nine years and ended life together. This illustrated a “blood tie”

149 relationship, a kindship of the heart with the one we love. “Marriage is to have found a soul mate in someone that you never had a tie with before, and yet they become closer to you than any relative could ever be” (Mason 2005, 34).

150

APPENDIX ONE

ASHLAND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

MARRIAGE: MOVING FROM CONFLICT TO FORGIVENESS

A PROJECT PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ASHLAND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY

BY CYNTHIA E. AARON WOODS

ASHLAND, OHIO April 18, 2018

151

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this project is to impact the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio. The research question is: What is the impact on the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at

Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio?

Overview

The focus of this project is to impact the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience in

Bedford Heights, Ohio. The specific focus of this impact study is to impact married couples who experience conflict in their relationships and have difficulty forgiving each other with the challenges they face in their relationship by using the image of marriage God designed in Gen. 2:18, 21-24.

The goal is to impact couples in the way they currently function to help them to resolve conflict in the relationship and transform their marriage to the biblical image of marriage one flesh or oneness. Over the course of eight weeks this project will impact married and cognitively and behaviorally transforming from conflict to forgiveness in marriage. This impact study uses a qualitative assessment tool and conflict resolution skills to help couples retain oneness in marriage.

152

Foundations

My experience as a married Christian woman for twenty years has been comprised of two very different individuals with different upbringings, backgrounds, and environments where we were taught our entire lives to be independent and successful. We found each other through life’s circumstances, fell in love, and married, and now are faced with the challenge of two becoming one. To become one flesh and retain oneness. As a Christian, I have learned the importance of understanding how to love my husband, and put forth my best efforts in resolving conflict in my marriage and moving to forgiveness as the Lord forgives me. Is there a perfect marriage? The world believes that Christian marriages are ending up in divorce at a rate as high as or higher than non-

Christians. Marriage has taken on a new dynamic; the new philosophy of today is if you are not happy in your marriage get a divorce. It appears as though the commitment and vows made publicly and to God, no longer have social relevance. They are no longer practical and apply to modern marriages; it appears as though the challenges in today’s society take precedence. In spite of the negative views of marriage today, marriage is a covenant relationship with each other and with God. It is a sacred and lifelong promise, reflecting our unconditional love for one another and believing that God intends for the marriage covenant to reflect His promise to never leave us nor forsake us.

Many variables cause conflict in marriage and without Jesus Christ as the center, husband and wives move away from the purpose of marriage as God designed it. The lack of Christ centeredness, forgiveness, and understanding of

153 oneness in marriage as God designed for marriage holds couples’ hostage in conflict seeking ways out and leading to divorce. Forgiveness and reconciliation are keys for marriages to survive. The foundations will include a brief summary of my personal experience in marriage to clarify the relevance and passion for this study. The foundations will also include: a biblical and theological summary of marriage and the image of marriage as God designed it biblically; a historical context of marriage; conflict with reference to love and reconciliation, and a contemporary view of marriages and conflict today, in addition to using conflict resolution skills to help couples retain oneness in marriage.

Personal Foundation

Before I married, I recall asking the Lord to send me that man that I can love freely, uninhibited, and not withhold anything from him; I wanted to give him all of me. In addition, I wanted to be free to be the independent person that I was raised to be and wanting to find the person that I could depend upon to love me in return. Mike Mason in The Mystery of Marriage writes,

Whatever a person’s temperament or circumstances might be, it seems to me that the conflict which marriage uncovers is always essentially this same one: It is always some version of this tension between the needs for dependence and for independence, between the urge toward loving cooperation and the opposite urge toward detachment, privacy, self- sufficiency. (Mason 2005, 20)

Through this conflict of dependence and independence I have learned even in a marriage built on godly principles, conflict still exists and that conflict is a natural occurring aspect of relationships. There are times when I have a yearning to be with my husband, he is on my mind throughout the day. However, when I arrive home to be with him the yearning disappears and I become distant

154 and unable to give myself freely to him. I sense tension between us, but I do not understand why. There has not been any previous bickering, but when I arrived home there was something holding me from intimacy with him, keeping me at bay, not allowing me to be submissive to him and allowing him to have authority over me. In all honesty, I wanted to rule over him. I could not understand these feelings I was experiencing after wanting nothing more than to be with him and be overwhelmed by his love. Dan Allender in his book Intimate Allies writes about how this is a result of the fall in Genesis 3:11-14, and the curse God placed on

Adam and Eve representing mankind Gen. 3:14-19. “But the Fall did not merely affect relationships. The fallout of sin also affected the internal life of the man and the woman” (Allender 1995, 279).

I believe that is the divine order of marriage, to be one flesh. My husband and I are living that out presently in our lives since his illness began in June 21,

2016. My husband, Reggie loves and knows the Lord, and who shows me gentleness, kindness, and affection. We have a marriage built on a foundation of love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness and faithfulness (Eph 5:22

NIV). I recognize my husband as being bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh at a much deeper level than any other relationship. “After we have surveyed, as far as possible, all the other creatures in the world, eventually God presents us with one who is special, one who strikes a deeper chord in us than anyone else was able to do” (Mason 2005, 34).

Marriage is dear to my heart and just within this past year the Lord has shown me a side to love that I had not experienced before. He allowed me to

155 share and join my husband in his illness with stage IV cancer. Seeing your soul mate go through an experience that is draining every ounce of life from within him takes you to the end of life with him. I truly understood what oneness had become for me. Nothing but the Lord could save both my husband and I. Nothing else mattered on this earth but Reggie and the Trinitarian God.

His divine presence was of utmost importance to me. All I wanted was to hear from the Lord, and He did indeed speak to me. His words were “this is not unto death, but a long process.” I was so consumed by “not unto death” that was all I heard, not realizing the magnitude of anything else just that my soul mate will not die and live.

Married life has been different for me ever since the Lord spoke to me on the day of my husband’s surgery, December 9, 2016, the day transformation of my marriage took place, from my design to God’s design. I want to help couples understand there is no perfect marriage even when both individuals are

Christians; conflict is predestined. The Lord spoke about the conflict in Genesis

“your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). God has a divine order in marriage with Jesus Christ as the center in order to fulfill our covenant relationship in marriage. The only way to address what the creator has created is through the creator Himself. The focus should not necessarily be on each other but on Christ Jesus, honoring Him with our marriage and not ourselves.

I have been married once before and through the grace of God I survived that unfortunate experience. It was a marriage not founded on the Word of God,

156 and it was abusive. I learned what a bad marriage is and what a godly marriage is. “There is nothing in the world worse than a bad marriage, and at the same time nothing better than a good one” (Mason 2005, 32). As I began to develop a personal relationship with the Lord through that failed marriage, He gave me grace with a second chance at finding the soul mate that I connected with on a deeper level and is my husband today. The Lord has allowed me to experience a bad marriage and a good one and I truly know the difference between the two.

Reggie and I have a good marriage that is transforming into a godly marriage. I remember when Reggie and I were planning our wedding and how the Lord blessed our decision to get married. He continued to shower us with gifts and give us favor with the arrangements and costs of the wedding. People were donating food, and giving us extras at no additional cost to what we had already purchased such as an additional tier for our wedding cake, discounts on the limousine, and having my wedding gown and Reggie’s suit designed and tailor made. I have come to understand even in a good marriage there will be conflict, but in a godly marriage there will be conflict and forgiveness demonstrated as unity and oneness in the midst of conflict.

It is my intention in this project to help both married and pre-married couples understand the importance of the image of marriage that God designed in the Bible. With all the challenges that married couples face with identity and otherness, unity and oneness are essential for forgiveness and reconciliation to take place and Christian marriages to be viewed differently from what is seen in society today. “We commit ourselves to live in mutual harmony and accord with

157 one another, delighting in each other, being of the same mind and united in spirit”

(Copeland 1997, 229). Mutual harmony and unity of spirit are aspects of love that marriage is built on. Love is the foundation of marriage as I will address in my project; “to impact the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness in marriage.” There are key central themes of this project that I will focus on; marriage, creation, love, conflict and forgiveness. Love is so important to God that it is mentioned throughout the Bible, 131 times in the New Testament and 179 times in the Old Testament (Leitch1996-2014, Word Count). The supporting biblical scriptures that I will use for this project come from passages in

Genesis 2:18, 21-24, Ephesians 5:22-33. The theological foundation will address

God’s plan for marriage, the forming of marriage and the impact of conflict.

Biblical Foundation

The biblical foundations of this project focus on two key passages of scripture, which are: Genesis 2:18, 21-24, and Ephesians 5:22-33. The first scripture, Genesis 2:18 describes God’s view of the state of man it was “not good” for man to be alone. This is the image of marriage that God created with man and woman. The union of taking this woman from man symbolically represents one flesh. The two are one, complete as God’s design for marriage.

The design was for oneness. God formed woman from man to operate together in oneness in marriage. There is no place for separation individuality, yes but united to God and with each other. An example of oneness and united in marriage is seen in Ephesians 5:31, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

158

Markus Barth gives four reasons for the meaning “for this cause.” In Gen.

2:24 the word itself refers back to the creation of Eve out of Adam, and to Adam’s joyous recognition of her as part of himself (Gen 2:21-23). Secondly, Barth refers back to Genesis, stating why He creates man and woman in his own image.

Thirdly, the author looks at “for this cause” as a futuristic marriage of the lamb and lastly Paul proclaims that “in the church and in the Messiah” the miracle predicted in Gen 2:24 is fulfilled; now God is praised as the one whose promise and power prove effective in us” (Barth 1974, 638-639).

These scriptures support the foundation for marriage and creation.

“Explicit covenant terminology is conspicuously absent in the creation narrative . .

. however this does not preclude the possibility that God established a covenant in the context of creation” (Alexander 2003, 141). This passage of scripture represents the first marriage, a divine marriage that supports the reason for marriage today. Couples would benefit greatly if they had this information during the pre-marriage process understanding why God said “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18).

Jean-Ivy Lacoste viewed marriage not as a religious act, but as a secular matter not having any special or differentiating qualities as far as the church was concerned. Eventually, however, it became an “authentically ecclesiastical institution, both in the West and the East” (Lacoste 1998, 990). Lacoste viewed marriage in the Jewish community as entering into a holy covenant and is celebrated by a blessing either in public or in private between the man and the women (Lacoste 1998, 984). The Hebrew word for woman is Ishshah which has

159 two basic meanings, woman and wife. Ishshah connotes fiancée or bride designating a higher status for woman if they are betrothed or married (Holman

2013). During those times in the Jewish community the only violation of marriage was adultery and was regarded as an offense against the law of God.

Another area where conflict may arise is from wounds and trauma that occurred in one’s life. Those wounds may affect one’s beliefs, emotions and behaviors that impact the marriage resulting in conflict. Conflict can be a struggle, battle or fight and The Stages of Healing in Formational Prayer address how those life situations lead to dysfunctional behaviors and cause emotional upheaval resulting in false beliefs and the wounds that are brought into the marriage. Conflict exists in marriage because of the individualism and uniqueness of each spouse. Sometimes these differences can result in unmet expectations, frustration, anger, demands, defensiveness, and noncompliance which may have resulted from distorted thoughts and dysfunctional behaviors.

Some of those distorted thoughts and dysfunctional behaviors that lead to conflict in marriage can be a result of the way a person was brought up, the rules, values and morals he has been taught.

In the formational prayer model, there are core longings that are meant to draw us near to God, to embrace Him for rest, comfort and contentment. These core longings are love, security, understanding, significance, purpose, and belonging” (Wardle 2013, 70). When married couples are experiencing conflict these core longings can become magnified as spouses seek each other for validation and fulfillment oppose to seeking God. Here the distorted thoughts and

160 dysfunctional behaviors have plotted a course which may look like the model for

Stages of Healing in Formational Prayer:

Life Situation Dysfunctional Behaviors Emotional Upheaval False Beliefs Wounds (Wardle 2013, 14)

In Dr. Seamands book on “Wounds that Heal” he notes that bringing our wound and hurts to the cross can be a very difficult process. Deep wounds require deep healing which may be a long slow process. Resentment and bitterness towards offenders exist internally which give way to unhealthy responses towards spouses along with destructive habits precipitated by emotional pain have become comfortable. “To come to the cross, it is a must to confront and deal with these issues” (Seamands 2003, 12-13).

Theological Foundation

The theological foundation will consider the following three themes in theology that connect to the project. The themes are: The Divine Marriage, The

Covenant Relationship, and the Sinful Nature. In God’s view of the Divine

Marriage, Thomas Whitelaw, proposes man’s incompleteness by his lonely nature but there was a need for its completion, physically, intellectually, and socially. Therefore, man’s need and woman’s power to satisfy that need, is laid in the foundation for the divine institution of marriage (Whitelaw 1977, 50).

Jean-Yves Lacoste believes the forming of the divine marriage begins with the exchange of vows. “What was essential in order for a marriage to be valid was the free and responsible exchange of consent to be joined to one another indissolubly and irreversibly” (Lacoste 2005, 986). Throughout the Bible we see

161 that marriage is very important to God. Joseph Blenkinsopp suggests that God views marriage as important as His relationship with Israel (Blenkinsopp 2003,

236-237). Fahlbusch agrees with Blenkinsopp and illustrates the importance and relevance of marriage to God as a parallel picture of the relationship between

Him and His people.

The basic theological thrust is his own inviolable partnership with Israel or the church, and with the human race as a whole. But only biblically grounded theological reflection, rather than individual texts, provides the basis for this view. The differences that emerge here find expression only too clearly in the different denominational concepts of marriage. (Fahlbusch and Lochman 2003, 411)

Colin Warner believes the covenant relationship originates from the covenant community of both Jewish and Gentile believers from the Old

Testament. The importance is the relationship between the covenant community as the divine bride of Christ and God (Warner 2013, 88-89). J.M. Vorster also highlights the concept of the covenant as a major theme in biblical revelation. He believes the “special relationship between God and humankind and between people, and is deeply embedded in creation” (Vorster 2016, 1). There were many covenants established in order to restore humankind to God in relationship.

Vorster describes the covenant of works as the relation between God and humankind that became distorted with the fall in sin and replaced by the covenant of grace. The covenant of works represented God as Creator and Lord, and in the covenant of grace, as Redeemer and Father (Vorster 2016, 1). Both

Eastern churches and Latin West churches resisted the doctrine of marriage as a sacrament during the first millennium (Bromiley 1999, 983). However, they embraced marriage as a biblical institution (Vorster 2016, 3). Marriage was

162 founded in the theology of creation and was valued in Christian communities.

Ceremonies were formed to celebrate and honor the life the life of couples. This began in the era of the Roman Catholic doctrine that established the components of the wedding ceremony for marriages. J.M. Vorster states his idea about how previous theologians and scholars such as Luther and Johnson viewed and interpreted the original marriage representing creation should take place

(Johnson 2005,129).

Vorster supports marriage as a covenant to be the central most important vow two people can make in a life-long commitment and a functional differentiation in marital roles and responsibilities as stated in Eph 5:22-33.

The phrase “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” represents the oneness and unity of two becoming one and the intimacy they share together. One flesh coming together in a sacred covenant, a vow to honor God and each other.

Being able to sanctify themselves from the worldly nature of the flesh and bind themselves together with cords of love representing what is holy and beautiful before God and the world with everyone as a witness to this union. The union of one flesh also provides benefits of sexual intimacy and J.M. Vorster quotes

Andreas J. Köstenberger on a “new kinship relationship between two previously unrelated individuals by the most intimate of human bonds” (Köstenberger 2004,

90). Jean-Yves Lacoste suggests theological supports for the divine first marriage by “God are representative of the text “one flesh” the union of a man and is an image for the participation of believers and an image of the relationship between Christ and the church, his spouse” (Lacoste 1998, 984).

163

In conclusion, I agree with the viewpoint of the divine marriage and covenant relationship. If the divine marriage was one man and one woman, then the sexual intimacy of polygamy is a result of the fall and partaking in sin. were similar recurring themes surrounding the divine marriage, and covenant relationship, and monogamy represented the divine marriage.

Historical Foundation

Themes that emerge historiographically in marriage are the social practice of families concerning marriage, symbolism and religion, and the time periods in which views about marriage began to change.

Kimberly Schutte writes about the culture of Aristocrats from the sixteenth century to the twentieth century with emphasis on the importance of marriage and marrying well. This culture believes in intermarrying within their own culture to preserve their social class, rank, and status. It was their practice to ensure that their daughters were able to make a good marriage or find a fitting match by focusing on wealth and status, religious affiliation and age. The focus was not on the desires of the couples but on the family as a whole to determine the best mate to marry in order to maintain or enhance their wealth, political and economic interests. “Marriage determined their standard of living” (Schutte 2014,

2). The Aristocratic culture associates’ shame and disgrace to daughters who do not marry and marry well. There were few alternatives for her in society during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries if she did not. This era occurred from

1485 to 2000, where Aristocrats considered themselves elite persons, “conferred either by wealth, birth, or power, qualifies them for membership in the very

164 uppermost echelons of society” (Schutte 2014, 4). The main theme here has emphasis on preserving the lineage of wealth, status, rank and social class by allowing the family to choose which family will join together in marriage to further the heritage.

David d’Avray asserted there was a shift in families that resulted in how marriages began changing. The change from requesting a dowry during the middle ages better known as the Medieval period of 500 to 1500, to religion and symbolism in the marriage. “Central to the meaning of marriage, symbolism eventually became part of marriage law and changed behavior through law, the decades around 1200 marking a turning point” (d’Avray 2005, 2). During this turning point religion began to change the family value system from property and polygamy to a sacred marriage and monogamy. Marriage views began to evolve into love and religion. Lawrence Stone emphasized the family type and images changed from the “open lineage period of 1450 to 1630 is characterized by remote relations between family members.” The next era or family type after the reformation was the “restricted patriarchal nuclear family between 1550 and 1700 which represented the reformed religious movement and loyalty to state, where the values and ideals began shifting and parents allowing their children to marry based on love. Stone gives another period he titles “closed domesticated nuclear family” where the social shift from concerns about neighbors, kinsmen and contracts to a broader scope about reform and the state and parents’ values began to change concerning marriages and they were based on “love and sexual

165 compatibility between spouses which was valued as sexuality” occurring around

1620 (Stone 1977, 309).

In the history of the Church the form of marrying has been unchanged and emphasis is placed on and throughout time about moral demands which society has added as cultural ceremonies evolve throughout history. Erwin Fahlbusch contends there has not been a specific dogmatic and ethical direction in Christian history to establish the original form of marriage as monogamy or polygamy or whether one form developed into the other (Fahlbusch 2003, 414). Marriage has been held in high esteem with no set rules other than tradition and secular law.

Historically, the history of marriage in the Old Testament and Intertestamental periods begins with an account of two periods, which Glenn Olsen illustrates

(Olsen 2001, 1).

The first historical time period in the Bible represents the classical division of biblical history further delineated into the periods of the two covenants. The first covers the period from approximately 1700 B.C. to the end of the first century A.D., and is divided into two subsections of the Old Testament. They correspond to the period of Israelite history before and during the exile (1700-520 B.C.), and the post-exilic, or second temple period (520 B.C.-70 A.D). The second part covers the New Testament period, roughly up to the year A.D. 100. (Olsen 2001, 1)

It is my assertion and Fahlbusch states it well, “It appears as though there is an understanding among primitive and civilized cultures about religious and or culture weddings and marriage beliefs and monogamy has been the order existing in the institution of the Church” (Fahlbusch 2003, 413). God’s divine order and will is preeminent over any other aspect in the history of marriage.

166

Contemporary Foundation

Current issues concerning what is going on in marriages today are represented by “The current cultural crisis, is symptomatic of a deep-seated spiritual crisis that continues to gnaw at the foundations of our once-shared societal values the solution likewise must be spiritual, not merely cultural”

(Kostenberger 2004, 1). “Today the term conflict denotes a wide variety of collisions, of impulses, interests, powers, and groups on the psychological, social, political, and international levels with or without a use of force and with or without a symmetry of the conflicting interests or parties” (Bromiley 1999, 646).

I will also examine this project from a counseling perspective to determine appropriate best practices and interventions best used to help facilitate the husband and wife’s capacity to move from conflict to forgiveness in address issues troubling couples today. Joseph A. Ostenson examines conflict as a contemporary and inevitable aspect in marriages. In his article,

Reconceptualizing Marital Conflict: A Relational Perspective, the focus is on how to help couples move from the negative aspects of conflict to the positive implications of conflict. Additionally, analyzing ways to construct to assist the individual from not taking on individualism that result from conflict when experienced by married couples (Ostenson 2014, 229). Elana C. Graber focuses on the predictors of relationship quality and stability and the beginnings of the marital relationship during the honeymoon phase surrounding “positive interactions of love and negative interactions of conflict (Graber 2011, 541).

During this time, early prevention is critical in helping to form and implement long

167 lasting relationships. Various counseling programs exist to help marital couples overcome negative conflict in relationships. Mark Cummings, uses data from a study: Evaluating a Brief Prevention Program for Improving Marital Conflict in

Community Families. The findings from this program will be used in this project to improve marital conflict in couples (Cummings 2008, 193).

Spirituality is a necessary component in formational counseling and in order to get into underlying issues and faith-based structures it is important to understand how spirituality impacts the roles of husbands and wives in their relationship and to what degree it impacted their interactions with each other

(Rauer 2015, 239). Forgiveness is key in helping couples heal from destructive communication approaches and manage the “feelings of resentment and anger related to being hurt” (Navidian 2014, 658). A. Navidian focuses on mixing the hope and forgiveness in addition to cognitive behavioral interventions in therapy to reduce family conflicts. “These are two modern approaches for resolving conflict for married couples.” (Navidian 2014, 658). The Church can learn from psychological theories such as; psychoanalysis which sees human development as driven by conflicts between inner impulses and outer obstacles. Conflicts between needs and moral rules and prohibitions, which once recognized can be resolved. If the conflict is latent or suppressed it can produce both latent and physical disturbances (Bromiley 1999, 646). Behaviorism investigates this type of conflict. It sees every conflict as a clash of behavioral trends that arise through attraction to the outside world (Bromiley 1999, 646). Sociology has taken into account the stabilizing function of conflicts and analyzed their causes, intensity

168 and forms. Although the church can learn from these theories, it has promoted the popular negative view of conflict with its reference to love and reconciliation, and it has also contributed indeed to the avoidance of conflict.

Mike Mason, author of The Mystery of Marriage introduces the concept of

“a blood tie, an affinity of the heart . . . it is as if we discover an actual kinship with the one, we love, which the marriage ceremony serves only to make official.

(Mason 2005, 34). Authors Hendrix and Hunt write “when we meet our Imago partner, we are unconsciously drawn to the similarities of our parents in hopes of fixing our painful childhoods” (Hendrix 1994, 197). In Les Carter’s book,

Imperative People, understanding why we communicate the way we do and how it impacts our closest relationships. Les helps individuals and couples identify their need to always be right (Carter 1991, 21). Michael Shevack, Adam and Eve:

Marriage Secrets from the Garden of Eden consider the perspective of marriage based on the scriptures in the Garden of Eden, the first divine marriage affecting all humanity (Shevack 2003, xviii). K. Magnuson points to John Piper, in his book on This Momentary Marriage and how he explores the “chasm between the biblical vision of marriage and the common human conception” (Magnuson 2010,

561). Dan Allender addresses the importance of identity, purpose and how to carry it out, in his book Intimate Allies. “How to translate those questions into the marriage relationship” (Allender 1995, xx).

Context

The desired participants will be Christian couples, pre-married or married, varied by age, years of marriage, and or if previously married with a desire to

169 follow the image of marriage that God has designed. To further define that decision, married couples have chosen to live as one flesh in oneness and unity, and by doing so this is further defined as choosing to follow the will of God for their marriage. “Conformity to God’s will is the correspondence of a morally good action with the divinely intended good” (O’Brien 1979, 873).

This impact study uses a qualitative assessment tool and conflict resolution skills to help couples retain oneness in marriage. The focus is on resolving conflict in the marriage and moving to forgiveness by using conflict resolution skills and solution focus interventions to help couples stay attuned to the needs of their independence and dependence in the marriage with maintaining their unity and otherness.

Definition of Terms

To Cleave, Cling- Keep close. Used in modern Hebrew in the sense of “to stick to, adhere to, “loyalty, devotion” (Vine 1976, 37).

Conflict – “It is always some version of this tension between the needs for dependence and for independence, between the urge toward loving cooperation and the opposite urge toward detachment, privacy, and self-sufficiency” (Mason

1985, 20).

Conformity to God’s will – “is the correspondence of a morally good action with the divinely intended good . . . more concretely, conformity to God’s Will is inherited in the meaning of charity: a union in will with God is love for God”

(O’Brien 1979, 873).

Apartness – Separate unit, distance, independent.

170

Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh – “She was bone of his bone, and he saw that she was covered with his own flesh. She was his own flesh and blood”

(Mason 1985, 34).

Oneness – Being completely united with someone.

Otherness – The quality or state of being other or different.

Unity – A condition of harmony. God ordained union between man and wife

(Mason 1985, 82).

Project Goals

It is the purpose of this project is to impact the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio. The research question is: What is the impact on the ability of married couples to move from conflict to forgiveness through a Formational Counseling experience at

Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio?

This section includes the goals related to the project.

7. To impact participants’ understanding about the importance of cooperation in

resolving conflict.

8. To impact participants’ ability to communicate more effectively their needs in

the marriage.

9. To impact participants’ understanding of values of the biblical aspect of

marriage.

10. To impact participants’ capacity to forgive their spouse.

11. To impact participants’ ability to value their spouse’s point of view.

171

12. To impact participants’ ability to respect their spouse.

Design, Procedure, and Assessment

Foundational Counseling Services in Bedford Heights, Ohio? The project will begin with a retreat where an impact survey/assessment distributed to married couples. This survey will gather information relating to my project goals. All materials for survey participants will gather survey data from a minimum of 6 couples in the impact survey.

Use of a pre- and post-survey to determine how clients handle conflict in marriage and to determine the effectiveness after the nine weeks. The first section will ask for demographic information, most of which will be required in order to proceed to the rest of the survey. The demographic data will provide assurance that only data from the targeted population will be included in the final assessment.

After selecting and developing materials for a teaching/training event, the following sections will provide questions to assess and determine the following; awareness of displaying certain negative behaviors and the effect on the spouse.

Learn and use of conflict resolution skills, understanding empathy and how to forgive. This impact study uses a qualitative assessment tool with open ended

172 questions to allow thought out responses based on project goals. A 7-point Likert scale will be used to measure the degree of impact or effectiveness; ranging from totally agree to totally disagree to determine effectiveness of teaching and exercises. Meeting with the participants every other week for 9 weeks to process data and conduct teaching/training: exercises and discussion using Formational prayer. Final meeting will use the post-survey, and then process the experiences of the couples and how things went for them.

Personal Goals

This journey has taught me how to trust and see the Lord in all aspects of my life and to increase my awareness of His presence. As I continue to grow spiritually, I want to mature in the area of being more Christ centered and less self-centered. I plan to accomplish this by the following personal goals.

My personal goals are as follows:

1. I will increase my quiet meditation time daily.

2. I will increase my frequency of entering into safe place weekly.

3. I will embrace my core longings and the love of Christ every time I encounter

anxiety concerning my performance.

Calendar

Month Year Action

March 2017 Project Proposal Completed

173

April 2017 Attend DM 919 – Writing Class

May 2017 Biblical, Theological, Historical Foundations Completed

June 2017 Contemporary Foundation Completed

August 2017 Assessment Completed

September 2017 Assessment Results Completed

October 2017 First Draft of Final Paper

November 2017 Second Draft of the Final Paper

January 2018 Final Draft of the Final Paper

March 2018 Defense

Core Team

Advisor: Dr. Jacquelyne Bailey Ashland Theological Seminary, Ashland, Ohio (to be assigned)

Field Consultant: Dr. Benjamin Franklin, Professor in Theology, Ashland Theological Seminary, Ashland, Ohio

Dr. Allan R. Bevere, Professional Fellow in Theology, Technical Writing/Editor, Ashland, Ohio

174

Support Team

The Lord, who said He would never leave me or forsake me.

Minister Reginald Woods, My husband and spiritual director

Flora Ann Smith, Chaplain and prayer partner and intercessor

Reverend Dr. A. L. Owens, Pastor and spiritual director

Bishop B. L. Owens, Pastor and spiritual director

Reverend Linda Gant, prayer partner

Reverend Linda Carr-Whitehead, spiritual leader and prayer intercessor

Minister Salisa Bruce, prayer partner and intercessor

Life Management Plan

My purpose for this journey is to receive additional training and skills to help marriages and individuals in the area of formational counseling within the kingdom of God. I am creating a life management plan to assist me in developing this research project for marriages to guide me through the process of staying on task and meeting my goals. My focus is on increasing and maintaining margins in my life to allow me to stay healthy emotionally, physically, financially, and incorporate time management to allow me more time to complete this project. It is essential that I develop this plan to monitor my progress, maintain my spiritual disciplines with the Lord, balance out family time, and my career responsibilities along with ministry responsibilities and goals.

175

My plan will consist of time management techniques to assist me in managing myself and my responsibilities. Last year in June, my husband was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and our lives have changed tremendously.

Unbeknownst to me that was the reason for my decreasing my hours to part-time at the agency in March 2016. This has allowed me to continue to devote my early morning time with God in devotion, meditation, and prayer along with exercise and spend more time caring for my husband. I was working for the agency three days a week Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday from 8:30am to 2:30pm. And then head to my private practice treating clients until 6:00 or sometimes 7:00pm.

For the past forty days, I have been on Family Medical Leave from the agency which allows me to care for my husband all day until evening appointments with clients for three or four hours. I technically have more time to spend on my research project until April when my FMLA will end and I return to part-time with the agency if that is the will of God. Presently, I am available for my husband during the day and I have the mornings to devote to my research project. As he continues to recover and things are stable for him, theoretically I will have more time to work on my project. I am an early riser at 5:00am, sometimes earlier for my quiet time with the Lord. After that is the best time for me to work on my project when I am refreshed after a good night’s sleep and exercising my disciplines, and from 6:00am to 10:00am, sometimes later when my husband is sleeping, I can work on my project.

At my practice, I see clients three to four hours a day: Monday through

Wednesday and six hours on Thursday and Friday. I have a flexible schedule

176 allowing me to work on my project at the office either mornings or weekends. I will develop and use a monthly work plan that consists of my weekly obligations and projects and goals. I am a visual person and this process allows me to see my present obligations along with future obligations to decrease urgency and stress. The result is that I will become more goal focused and oriented, and make better decisions concerning the use of my time to increase margin, and decrease stress and disorganization. Unfortunately, since my husband’s illness I have taken a leave of absence from my ministerial obligations and goals, but God is able to do exceedingly to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us. (Eph. 3:20)

177

August 3, 2017 Participant, Welcome to Foundational Counseling Services. Thank you in advance for your willingness to participate in this survey. I am a Doctor of Ministry candidate at Ashland Theological Seminary at Ashland, Ohio in the Formational Counseling program. I am a clergy member and a licensed professional clinical counselor. As part of my dissertation research, I am conducting a survey of married couples to determine how they handle conflict and forgiveness in their marriage. This survey has been designed for simplicity and ease of completion. It includes a Likert Scale rating of 1-7, as well as a few open-ended questions. There are no right or wrong answers. I am requesting an honest response to each question so that a truly authentic assessment of the issues we face in marriages today are addressed. I value the privacy and sensitive matters that each couple may have. Please know that this survey is voluntary and your answers are confidential and anonymous. It is my hope that this anonymity will inspire you to be transparent in your answers. Completion of the survey instrument indicates your willingness to be a part of the study. I certainly want to encourage you to be a part of the study. An increased participation will provide for a better assessment and more useful conclusions. If you have any questions about my project in the Doctorate of Ministry program of Formational Counseling, please contact Dr. Dawn Morton, Dean. Please read the questions below, circle the answer that best fits you and your spouse. Thank you for taking the time to assist me in this endeavor as well as gain insight into resolving conflict and enhancing forgiveness in your marriage. Sincerely,

Cynthia E. Woods, MA LPCC-S Doctor of Ministry Candidate Foundational Counseling Services, LLC.

178

APPENDIX THREE

Assessment Tool Please provide the following personal information: Present Age: ❑ 18-24 ❑ 25-32 ❑ 33-39 ❑ 40-49 ❑ 50-59 ❑ 60-69 ❑ 71-79 ❑ 80- up Gender: ❑ M ❑ F Years in your present Faith Community: ❑ Less than 3 ❑ 3-5 ❑ 6-10 ❑ 11-15 ❑ More than 15 Years of marriage: ❑ Less than 1 yr. ❑ 1-5 ❑ 6-10 ❑ 11-20 ❑ 21-30 ❑ More than 30 Married before: ❑ No ❑ Yes Divorced/Separated ❑ No ❑ Yes

179

Marriage Survey

Please circle the number that pertains to your level of agreement on the statement. See scale below. Likert Scale 1- Strongly Disagree 2- Moderately Disagree 3- Slightly Disagree 4- Neutral 5- Slightly Agree 6- Moderately Agree 7- Strongly Agree

1. I understand that the Bible provides 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 illustrations representing the importance of unity in a biblical marriage.

2. Specific passages in the Bible help me to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 understand that marriage is important to God.

3. I have found specific passages from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bible which have helped in my understanding of a biblical marriage.

4. I communicate to my spouse without using 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 language that is harmful.

5. I communicate to my spouse my need to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 considered in the decision-making process.

6. I communicate to my spouse my need to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 trust him/her.

7. I listen to my spouses’ opinion when 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 making decisions.

180

8. I cooperate with my spouse even 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 when I do not agree with the decision.

9. When conflicts arise my spouse and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I work together on a solution.

10. I can forgive my spouse without 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 an apology.

11. I can forgive my spouse when 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 he/she does not understand me.

12. I can forgive my spouse after an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 argument.

13. I show my spouse respect by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 listening to him/her.

14. I show my spouse respect by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 fulfilling his/her requests.

15. I give my spouse respect with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 encouraging words.

181

16. I value my spouses’ point of view 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 even if I think he/she is wrong.

17. I value my spouses’ point of view 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 even when I do not agree.

18. I recognize the differences in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 opinions of my spouses’ point of view.

182

Please take a moment to complete this last section. Your answers are very important.

1. What can Foundational Counseling Services do to help you and your spouse work together to resolve conflict. Give two or three suggestions.

2. How do you communicate your needs to your spouse in the marriage? Explain.

3. How have you been able to handle forgiveness in your marriage? Give two or three examples.

183

APPENDIX FOUR MARITAL HANDOUTS MARRIAGE COMMUNICATION COVENANT 1. I will listen and will try not to answer until my mate has finished talking. (Proverbs 18:13)

2. I will be slow to speak. I will try to think first and not be hasty in my words. I will attempt to speak in such a way that my mate can understand and accept what I say. (Proverbs 15:23, 28, 21:23, 29:20, and James 1:19)

3. I will speak the truth to my mate in love. I will not exaggerate. (Ephesians 4:15, 25 and Colossians 3:9)

4. I will not use silence to frustrate my mate. I will simply explain why I am hesitant to talk at this time.

5. I will not become involved in quarrels. I know it is possible to disagree without quarreling. (Proverbs 17:14, 20:3, Romans 13:13 and Ephesians 4:31)

6. I will not respond in anger, but will use a soft and kind response. (Proverbs 14:29, 15:1, 25:15, 29:11 and Ephesians 4:26, 31)

7. When I am wrong, I will admit it and ask for forgiveness. (James 5:16)

8. I will not nag. (Proverbs 10:19, 17:9)

9. I will not blame or criticize my mate but restore, encourage and edify him/her. (Galatians 6:1 and 1Thessalonians 5:11)

10. If I am verbally attacked, criticized or blamed, I will try not to respond in the same manner. (Romans 12:17, 21:1, Peter 2:23, and 3:9)

11. I will try to understand my mate’s opinion, allowing him/her to be different. I will be concerned about their interests. (Philippians 2:1-4 and Ephesians 4:2)

I hereby agree to try my best to keep these promises throughout this entire marriage mentoring process.

Signature of Wife______Signature of Husband ______

184

GODLY RELATIONSHIPS

Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another. Romans 12:10

Godly relationships are those in which there is a willingness to say. “I don’t have to have things my way all the time. I’m willing to submit my desires to your desires, my preferences to your preferences.” Certainly, we are never called to compromise our values, our faith in Christ Jesus, or with evil. We also are never to give up our entire identity just to please another person or to become a doormat on which he walks. We are, however, to mature to the point that we are more concerned about what happens to another person than we are concerned about what happens to us. We are willing to allow our friends the freedom of expression, and we are willing to value their choices, their ideas, and their desires.

Charles Stanley

185

FREELY FORGIVE

If anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. Colossians 3:13

Forgiveness means that we are willing to let go of the pain we feel, and give it to God. We are willing to place every hurt and injustice into the hands of

God and trust Him to heal our hearts and deal with those who have wounded us. We must always forgive. There is never any situation in which unforgiveness can be justified before God. Forgiveness does not mean that we deny our injuries, dismiss our pain, or lay aside all claims to justice. It does mean that we must release that person from our own judgment and let go of any bitterness or feelings of revenge.

God’s Way Day by Day Charles Stanley

186

REFERENCES

Agana-Nsiire Agana 2018. Difficult Texts: Genesis 2.18 and 2.24 Theology Vol. 121.6 437-440 DOI: 10.1177/0040571X18794143journals.sagepub.com/home/tjx Source: ATLA accessed 11/2019

Alexander, Desmond T. and David W Baker., 2003. Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch. A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Allender, Dan B., and Tremper Longman, 1995. Intimate Allies: Rediscovering God’s Design for Marriage and Becoming Soul Mates for Life. Dallas TX: Word Publishing

Atkinson, D. Edgar. T. 1990, "Divorce Dissolves the Marriage 'Bond' and Covenant," 126; “Covenants are not Necessarily Permanent," H. Wayne House, ed., Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. 137 Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990;

Barth, K., 1960, Church Dogmatics, vol. III: The Doctrine of Creation, pt. 2, transl. H. Knight, G.W. Bromiley, J.K.S. Reid & R.H. Fuller, Clark, Edinburgh. Barth, K., 1961, Church Dogmatics, vol. III: The Doctrine of Creation, pt. 4, transl. A.T. Mackay, T.H.L. Parker, H. Knight, H.A. Kennedy and J. Marks, Clark: Edinburgh.

Barth, Markus. 1974. Ephesians. Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4-6 Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 2003. The Anchor Bible: Isaiah 56-66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 19B. New York, New York: Doubleday

Bromiley, Geoffrey, David Barrett and Jaroslav Pelikan ed. 1999. Volume 1, The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman Publishing Co.

Browning, Don. S. 2011. A Natural Law Theory of Marriage*. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 46(3), 733–760. https://doi- org.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01209.x (accessed March 2020)

187

Brunner, Emil and Karl Barth, 2002. Natural Theology. Eugene, OR: WIPF and Stock Publishers. Quoted in Don Browning’s Christian Humanism: A Natural Law Theory of Marriage. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 46(3), 733–760. https://doi- org.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011. 01209.x (accessed March 2020).

Carter, Les. 1991. Imperative People: Those Who Must Be In Control: How To Keep Your Greatest Strength From Becoming Your Greatest Weakness. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishing.

Chapman, Gary. 1992. The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate. Chicago: Northfield Publishing.

______. 1997. Five Signs of a Loving Family. Chicago: Northfield Publishing.

Christensen, Katherine. 2008. “To Have and to Hold: Marrying and Its Documentation in Western Christendom, 400-1600.” Journal of Church and State 50 (1): 166–68. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=reh&AN=ATLA00 01658000&site=ehost-live.

Crabb, Larry. 1997. Connecting: Healing for Ourselves and Our Relationships. Nashville: W. Publishing Group

Cummings, E. M., W. B. Faircloth, P. M. Mitchell, J. S. Cummings and A.C. Schermerhorn. 2008. Evaluating a Brief Prevention Program for Improving Marital Conflict in Community Families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(2), 193-202. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.193

Curtis, Brent, and John Eldredge, 1997. The Sacred Romance: Drawing Closer To The Heart of God. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishing Co. d’Avray, David. 2005. Medieval Marriage; Symbolism and Society. Oxford: OUP

Dyson-Hudson, Rada and Meekers, Dominique 1996 ‘The Universality of African marriage reconsidered: Evidence from Turkana males’, Ethnology, Vol. 35, no. 4, p. 301. 2. John Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, second revised and enlarged ed 133 Oxford: Heinemann

188

Fahlbusch, Erwin. ed. 1986. Marriage and Divorce. Vol. 3 of The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdman Publishing Co.

Fuller, Reginald H. 1981 Lectionary for Weddings. Worship. 55(3):244-259. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=reh&AN=ATLA00 00783923&site=ehost-live. Accessed November 11, 2019.

Graber, E. C., J. Laurenceau, E. Miga, J. Chango, and J. Coan 2011. Conflict and Love: Predicting Newlywed Marital Outcomes From Two Interaction Contexts. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 541- 550. doi:10.1037/A0024507

Gottman, John M. and Nan Silver. 1999a. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Harmony Books/Crown Publishing Group

______. 1999b. The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically-Based Marital Therapy. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Company

______. 2011 The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton and Company

Gottman, J, Notarius, C., Gonso, J., Markman, H., 1976. A Couple’s Guide to Communication. Champaign, IL: Research Press Publishers

Haines, Michael R., “Singulate Mean Age at First Marriage, by Sex, Race, and Nativity:1880–1990.” Table Ae489-506 in Historical Statistics of the United States, Earliest Times to the Present: Millennial Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ISBN- 9780511132971.Ae1-51310.1017/ISBN-9780511132971.Ae1-513

Haflidson, Ron. 2016. “Outward, Inward, Upward: Why Three Goods of Marriage for Augustine?” Studies in Christian Ethics 29 (1): 51–68. doi:10.1177/0953946815596293.

Hamer, Colin. 2018 Genesis 2:24 and the New Covenant: A Profound Mystery. Unio Cum Christo, [s. I.], v. 4, n. 2, p.63-80, 2018. Disponivel em: https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx? direct=true&db=Isdah&AN=ATLAiGOV181: live. Acesso em: 15 dez. 2020.

Hay, Peter. 2005. The American “Covenant Marriage” In the Conflict of Laws. In Covenant Marriage in Comparative Perspective. 294–316. Grand Rapids: Michigan. Retrieved from http://proxy.ashland.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/logi n.aspx?direct=true&db=reh&AN=ATLA0001538498&site=ehost-live

189

Heitler, Susan. 2001. Combined Individual/Marital Therapy: A Conflict Resolution Framework And Ethical Considerations. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration. 3, (Fall) 349-383.

Hendrix, Harville, and Hunt, Helen. 1994. The Couples Companion: Meditations and Exercises for Getting the Love You Want. New York: Pocket Books

Hiestand, Gerald L. and Wilson, Todd. 2017. Beauty, Order, and Mystery: A Christian Vision of Human Sexuality. Center for Pastor Theologians Series. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=22 28074&site=ehost-live.

Hiscox, Edward Thurston. 2010. The Star Book for Ministers, second revised edition Gift edition. Valley Forge: Judson Press.

Hochschild, Arlie. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home: 3-4. New York: Viking Penguin, Inc.,

Holder, Rodney. D. 2001. “Karl Barth and the Legitimacy of Natural Theology” Themelios 26 (3): 22-37, http://proxy.ashland.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebschost.com/login. aspx? Direct=true&db=isdah&AN=ATLA00014490070&site=eds-live.

Hugenberger, Gordon Paul. 1994. Marriage as a Covenant. A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum: V. 52. E.J. Brill. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat02005a&AN= ash.b1181391 &site=eds-live.

James, Richard. K. 2008. Crisis Intervention Strategies, Sixth Edition. University of Memphis: Thompson Brooks/Cole

Johnson, D.J. 2005. ‘Watu Wa Amani (People of Peace): An African theology of liberation and reconciliation from the historic peace churches in Africa’, Brethren Life and Thought 52(10), 16–31.

Johnson, J.T., 2003, ‘Marriage as Covenant in Early Protestant Thought: Its Development and Implications’, in J. Witte & E. Ellison (eds.), Covenant marriage in Comparative Perspective, pp. 124–152, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

190

Jones, David, W. and Tarwater, John K. 2004. “Are Biblical Covenants Dissoluble? “Toward A Theology of Marriage.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 47 (1): 1–11. https://search-ebscohost.com.proxy.ashland.edu: 2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=reh&AN=ATLA0001600289& site=ehost- live.

Keener, Craig S. 2005. 1-2 Corinthians. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=13 2355&site=eds-live.

Kranson, Rachel. 2020. “Sexuality in American Jewish History: The State of an Emerging Sub-Field.” American Jewish History 104 (4): N.PAG. doi:10.1353/ajh.2020.0048.

Koehler, L.1956 "Problems in the Study of the Language of the Old Testament," Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1906): 4-7. Halle: Max Niemeyer

Köstenberger, A. & Jones, D. 2004 "There is Reason to Believe That Marriage Covenants Can Be Broken," God, Marriage, and Family Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation 239,246; Lowrey, Covenant Marriage, 102; Marriage as a Covenant, 83. Wheaton: Crossway Quoted in Jakobus M. Vorster. Marriage and Family in View of the Doctrine of the Covenant. Hervormde Teologiese Studies, 72(3), 1–8. https://doi-org.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/10.4102/hts.v72i3.3218

Lacoste, Jean Yves 1999 Dictionnaire Critque de Theologie Encyclopedia of Christian Theology - Marriage /, editor Paris Presses Universitaires de France, published with the participation of the French Ministries of culture National Book Center Published in 2005 by Routledge, 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Published in Great Britain by Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Leupold, H. C. 1946. Exposition of Genesis the Hebrew Expression for “Making a Covenant' in Pre-Israelite Documents" Grand Rapids: Baker

Lewis, C.S. 1960. The Four Loves. EPub. Edition February 2017. Version 02052019. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2017 Originally Published as the Four Loves in New York in 1960 by Harcourt Brace. Identifiers: LCCN 2016030639 | ISBN 9780062565457 (e-book)

Lewis, Robert and Hendricks, William 1998. Rocking the Roles: Building a Win-Win Marriage. Colorado Springs: NavPress Publishers.

191

Mace, David and Vera Mace. 1977. How to Have A Happy Marriage: A Step-by- Step Guide to An Enriched Relationship. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Madden, Sandra. 2019. “Ephesians 5:22-33: Rethinking Submission.” Lutheran Forum 53 (2): 19–22. http://proxy.ashland.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/logi n.aspx? direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLAiREM190916000835&site=eds- live.! --Additional Information: Persistent link to this record (Permalink): http://proxy.ashland.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscoh ost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLAiREM190916000835 &site=eds-live End of citation-->

Magnuson K. 2010. This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence. Religion Collection, 35 no 3 (Winter) 559-561.

Maller, Allen S. Is marriage obsolete? The Reconstructionist. 1974;40(1):7-10. Https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATL A0001519016&site=ehost-live. Accessed November 9, 2019.

Mason, Mike. 1985, 2005. The Mystery of Marriage: Meditations on The Miracle. Colorado Springs: Alive Communications, Inc.

Meagher, Paul Kevin, Thomas C. O’Brien, and Consuelo Maria Aherne, Sisters of St. Joseph of Philadelphia. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion. Washington D.C.: Corpus Publication

Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” The Biblical Archaeologist 17, no. 3 (1954): 50. doi:10.2307/3209151. ATLA source Accessed 11/2019

Moo, Douglas J. 2020. “‘Because of His Mercy.’” Bibliotheca Sacra 177 (205): 3– 14.http://proxy.ashland.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/ login. aspxdirect=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLAi5IE200622000033&site=ehost-live.

Navidian, A. and F. Bahari. 2014. The Impact of Mixed, Hope and Forgiveness Focused Marital Counseling on Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions of Couples Filing for Divorce. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 21(7), 658-666. doi:10.1111/JPM.12058

192

Nelson, Tommy. 1998. The Book of Romance: What Solomon Says About Love, Sex, and Intimacy. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Olen, Glenn, ed. 2001. Christian Marriage – Historical Study. New York: A Herder and Herder Book.

Ostenson, J. A. and M. Zhang. 2014. Reconceptualizing Marital Conflict: A Relational Perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34(4), 229-242. doi:10.1037/A0034517

Payne, B. J. 1976 "Covenant," in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. 1:1002; Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Piper, John. S. 2009. This Momentary Marriage A Parable of Permanence. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Poole, Matthew. 1990 Published May 1st 1990 Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible 3 Volume Set Hendrickson Publishers (first published October 1st 1985) 0917006283 (ISBN13: 9780917006289.

Rainey, Dennis & Barbara. 2002. Two Hearts Praying as One. Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, Inc.

Rauer, A. and B. Volling 2015. The Role of Relational Spirituality in Happily- Married Couples’ Observed Problem-Solving. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7(3), 239-249. doi:10.1037/REL0000022

Rees, Geoffrey 2002. “‘In the Sight of God’: Gender Complementarity and the Male Homosocial Signification of Male-Female Marriage.” Theology & Sexuality 9 (1):19–47. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login. aspx?direct=true&db=reh&AN=ATLA0001505350&site=ehost-live.

Roberts, C.C., 2007. Creation and Covenant. The Significance of Sexual Difference in the Moral Theology of Marriage, London: T &T. Clark

Schutte, Kimberly 2014. Women, Rank, and Marriage in the British Aristocracy, 1485-2000: An Open Elite? Studies in Modern History. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Scobey, Annemarie. 2020. Language of Love. U.S. Catholic 85 (2): 43–44. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=reh&AN=ATLAiG 0V200131000848&site=ehost-live.

193

Seamands, Stephen 2003. Wounds That Heal. Bringing Our Hurts to the Cross. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Schafer, Steven. 2019. Marriage, Sex, and Procreation: Contemporary Revisions to Augustine’s Theology of Marriage. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e093mww&AN=2 577562&site=ehost-live.

Shevack, Michael. 2003. Adam and Eve: Marriage Secrets from the Garden of Eden. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press

Smalley, Gary. 2000. Secrets to Lasting Love: Uncovering the Keys to Life-Long Intimacy. New York: Simon and Schuster

Smith, Janet E., “The Universality of Natural Law and the Irreducibility of Personalism,” Nova et Vetera 11 (2013): 1129-47. See also Karol Wojtyła (the future Pope John Paul II), Love and Responsibility, trans. H. T. Willetts (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1981)

Spence, H.D.M., and Joseph S. Exell. 1977. Genesis. Vol.1 The Pulpit Commentary, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Erdmans

Stackhouse, Max, 2005. ‘Covenantal Marriage: Protestant Views and Contemporary Life’, in J. Witte & E. Ellison (eds.), Covenant Marriage in Comparative Perspective, pp. 153–181, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans

Sterrenburg, Sharon Jean, 2012. The Woman’s Study Bible pp.14, 1629 TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers

Vine, W.E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr. 1984. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary: Of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Vorster, Jakobus. M. 2007. Christian Attitude in the South African Liberal Democracy. Potchefstroom Theological Publications, Potchefstroom.

______. 2014. Christelike etiek in ŉ sekulariserende samelewing, AOSIS, Cape Town. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.4102/aosis.ceiss.2014.01

______. 2015. ‘Die Christelike huwelik – ŉ sosiale konstruk of ŉ verbondsgegewe?’, In Die Skriflig 49(2), Art.#1957, 10 pages. http//dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids. v49i2.1957

______. 2016. Marriage and Family in View of the Doctrine of the

194

Covenant. Hervormde Teologiese Studies, 72(3), 1–8. https://doi- org.proxy. ashland.edu:2648/10.4102/hts. v72i3.3218

Wardle, Terry. 2001. Healing Care Healing Prayer. Helping the Broken Find Wholeness in Christ. Abilene TX: Abilene Christian University Press.

______. 2013. Formational Prayer Seminar. January 13-16, 2016. Ashland, OH: Healing Care Ministries.

Wang, Wendy. 2020. The U.S. Divorce Rate Has Hit a 50-Year Low. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-year-low

Warner, Colin. 2013. Romans: The Divine Marriage: A Biblical Theological Commentary. The Evangelical Quarterly, 85 no 1 Jan 2013, 88-91 http://www.paternosterperiodicals.co.uk/users/sign-in

Warner, Megan. 2017. “Therefore a Man Leaves His Father and His Mother and Clings to His Wife”: Marriage and Intermarriage in Genesis 2:24. Journal of Biblical Literature 136 (2): 269-88. Doi:10.15699/jbl.1362.2017.241017.

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena Zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1927); This work was later published in English as Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (New York: Meridian, 1957). See Ernest W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 3-27.

Wenham, Gordon J. 1987. Genesis 1-15. Waco, TX: Word, 70. Quoted in Colin Hamer, Genesis 2:24 and the New Covenant: A Profound Mystery. Unio Cum Christo, [s. I.], v. 4, n. 2, p.63-80, 2018. Disponivel em: https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx? direct=true&db=Isdah&AN=ATLAiGOV181: live. Acesso em: 15 dez. 2020.

______. 1989. “Marriage and Divorce in the Old Testament.” Didaskalia 1 (1): 6–17. https://search-ebscohost- com.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdah&AN=ATLA 0000832144&site=ehost-live.

Witte, John Jr. 2007. The Reformation of Rights: Law, Religion, and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

______.2015. ‘Why two in one flesh?’, Christianity’s Mixed Contributions

195

to Children’s Right. Emory Law Review 64, 1675–1746. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Quoted in Jakobus M. Vorster, Marriage and Family in View of the Doctrine of the Covenant (Hervormde Teologiese Studies, 72(3), 1–8. https://doirg.proxy.ashland.edu:2648/10.4102/hts.v72i3.3218).

Worthington Jr., Everett L. 1999. Hope-Focused Marriage Counseling: A Guide to Brief Therapy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic

Yves Lacoste, Jean. ed.1998. Encyclopedia of Christian Theology. Vol.2 982- 990, no New York, London: Routledge

196