|
disillusioned
with life?
Becoming
Disillusioned
What does disillusion mean? To most it means
to take away ideals & idealism & make disappointed, bitter, etc. To the few & far between it holds a much kinder definition; one that states being disillusioned is to be free from illusion or false ideas, to have a true perception, conception,
or interpretation of what one sees.
Society seems to be full of contempt for the disillusioned.
It views being jaded as sad & unfortunate. If life was as portrayed in Bizarro world, a world that existed in the Superman comics of the past, where
everything that happened in our world was the opposite on Bizarro world, the subordinate view would become the dominant.
Disillusionment would be honored & hoped for. Then the illusion filled masses occupying this current world would see the true beauty of not being
so veiled.
When someone reaches this state commonly known as disillusionment, congratulation cards should be sent. This could become a "waking up" celebration, in their honor.
It should be a right of passage like turning 21 or graduating from college.
It's true liberation to become disillusioned & should be rightly honored.
The reason this isn't so is because most of society wants their illusions,
guards them closely & will scold anyone who attempts to peel them away. Most of society wants to walk around wide
asleep, is content w/the status quo, with mediocrity.
This is why companies like Disney thrive w/the Disney vacation, travel
cruise, hotels, etc., why the slogan of Maybelline cosmetics is "Maybe she's born with it…” works.
The joke is when you view that commercial you know deep down, No! She's
16, that's why she has no wrinkles. It's not Maybelline, but people still buy it in the hopes of attaining the illusion.
10 years ago cosmetics were known as make-up but that is just too close
to the truth today so it's been renamed. Illusion is the biggest seller because nobody seems
to want reality. How sad.
Reality is beautiful once you realize there's no one to impress. Non-judgmental
awareness works wonders on self-esteem like no product or vacation can.
Some beautiful cultures of past had a tradition of mourning the birth
of a child to acknowledge all the hardships & challenges that were to be endured during her/his coming life.
In turn, they'd celebrate death instead of fear it, because the worries & pains had passed. They honored their family & friends with these traditions instead of always bitching that life wasn't fair. What an unobstructed view.
If you wish to begin your journey to wake up & walk the road of disillusionment, the way of a heretic, employ these few, simple steps:
Breathe Consciously: Breath is present moment awareness.
If you become aware when you breathe in & when you exhale, you'll notice it's pace & be able to manipulate that which previously controlled you. Life will slow down, tensions will become noticeable & deteriorate before they manifest.
Feel: From the inside out notice without judgment what is, if anything, causing difficulty with breathing deeply & calmly.
Relax: As you let the inspiration (the inhale) escape, muscle & mental stress, expectation & judgment, will follow the path out.
Watch: Your surroundings, the environment you're in, your physical body.
Notice
the details.
Allow: The images to permeate you & then let them pass thru.
Don't hold on to feelings or emotions.
Acknowledge them & release them with non-judgmental awareness.
Be free.
Okay... Being Disillusioned with Life... I've been there...
Done that... How about you? kathleen
I remember being a little girl...I loved to read. I read all of the fairy tales there were to read. I believed those fairy tales were reality. I was led to believe that life, in reality, was like a fairy tale.
I remember being a teenager....
I remember my first year of marriage..... I was somewhat
disillusioned.
After 8 years of marriage.... I was way beyond disillusionment when I tried to get a divorce. Someone had told me that the wife got the house, the car
& the kids. Someone told me that you'd get child support. Someone told me that a divorce would be the right path to go
if the two of you couldn't make things work out.
Nothing worked out like I thought it would in life. I was totally
disillusioned. I am the definition of the word, "disillusioned."
Feeling disillusioned begins
with a restlessness of sorts. I would say that restlessness is one of the first symptoms that appear. It's a very uncomfortable
restlessness that occurs. Everything in your life begins to blur, nothing is certain, fear begins to creep into your mind
first, then your body, and then you begin to feel panicky at times. Nothing is soothing. No one can console you.
Feeling disillusioned often causes me to feel nausea. My stomach
feels as though I have been poisoned. Poisoned with reality, is what disillusionment is
all about. Nothing is as you thought it was. Your mind begins to race, you question everything that you believe. You wonder
why your thoughts are jumbled. Nothing feels good. Nothing tastes good.
Putting
Humpty Together Again:
Reconciling the Post Affair Marriage
J. Lee Jagers
[This article originally appeared in the Journal
of Psychology & Christianity, 1989, Vol. 8, No. 4, 63-72]
Abstract
Seven issues of concern to the therapist working toward the reconciliation of a marriage torn by an affair are discussed. They include:
- options for the marriage
- ensuring closure of the affair
- trust
- amount of disclosure by the offender –
the term used here to refer to the unfaithful partner
- forgiveness
- individual issues
- renewing physical intimacy
God’s high view of marriage is set forth as motivation for the Christian therapist to favor reconciliation over other options for the marriage.
Introduction
The affair has been discovered. The shell of a marriage has fallen. That which had at least the illusion of wholeness has broken into a million pieces. The couple decides to “save the marriage” or to “make it work” for reasons
that are yet to be unveiled.
They come to a therapist that they trust has a high view of the sanctity of marriage & ask, “How can we put it back together again?”
It would be a very unusual therapist indeed who didn’t at one time wonder, “Can all the king’s horses
& all the king’s men put this marriage together again?”
By God’s grace, many marriages aren't merely patched up, but can be reconciled to a level of intimacy exceeding what either spouse had ever known before.
If God has made the family such an inviolable unit & if the quality of the marriage is so crucial to the health
of the family, then Christian therapists ought to have a unique passion for being a competent instrument of God to facilitate this healing process.
We need to be sensitive
to the key issues involved & to intervene in ways that optimize renewal of trust & vulnerability that will be lasting. Precious little is written on the practical aspects of doing therapy as compared to the statistics
of affairs, types of affairs, or dynamics of affairs.
While the motivation of the couple is a necessary condition for renewal, it isn't sufficient. “Wanting to” isn't always
enough to bring about self healing. The wisdom & skillfulness of the therapist’s interventions could be the added ingredient that enables the couple to
accomplish what they want to before the Lord.
This paper seeks to address the key issues in reconciliation & presents some ideas on how to deal with those issues.
No presumptions are made concerning
the ultimate completeness of these ideas, but hopefully they'll stimulate other therapists to think more completely, creatively & openly about their critical role.
It's toward this forum of shared experiences that this paper is written. Because most extramarital affairs are by the
husband’s unfaithfulness (Lawson, 1988), the pronoun “he” will be used, though “she”
is just as applicable.
Dealing with the options for the marriage
Each
partner eventually decides to follow 1 of 3 courses for the marriage:
At the early stages of therapy, it's important to clarify the attitude of each partner. The attitudes of the spouses toward therapy will influence their level of participation in the healing process.
Ables (1977) suggests that the 2 factors determining these attitudes are:
- the feeling of adequacy
vs. helplessness to improve their marital situation
- the degree of enthusiasm vs. pessimism that help can be achieved thru a third person” (p. 35).
The ideal situation is where each spouse wants to rebuild the marriage in line with God’s ideal. But what if one partner wants to work
& the other is more invested in looking good?
i.e., if the offender is inclined to simply tolerate the burdensome marriage to avoid hurting the spouse, he'll direct his energy differently from the working spouse. It isn't uncommon for a passive person to take this more short-term superficially compliant approach in order to avoid being decisive.
If I suspect this attitude, I talk to that person individually about the limitations of his approach. The presence of the spouse around this kind of compliant person inhibits much of the truthfulness of feelings that needs to come forth.
The offender hasn't yet let go of the idealizations underlying the affair & will most likely sabotage therapy. If the couple represents 2 differing attitudes toward the marriage, they need to make those differences clear before working further in therapy.
Another less than ideal situation that's very common is a marriage in which there's a severe discrepancy in power. Most deteriorated marriage relationships experience a tense power struggle that defies resolution.
The more negative attitude has the greater power. Even though it's not constructive power, it's nonetheless powerful. i.e., the more positive spouse who wants to rebuild the marriage is powerless in the face of the spouse wanting a divorce.
No amount of work one person does to bond the marriage will be effective as long as the other is determined to break the ties. Therefore, it's important to focus greater energy on the more negative spouse when the two positions differ.
If he's committed to divorce as an option, I work toward building a Godly, more attractive view of marriage, often separating
realities from fantasies & idealizations. To help facilitate this reorientation, I often recommend they read Petersen’s (1983) The Myth of the Greener Grass.
Conway’s (1978) Men in Mid-Life Crisis is also a helpful reference for men in that stage of life. During this period, the person’s developmental arrests will emerge
as he projects his deeply imbedded perceptions & associations.
Similarly, if he has decided to “grin-&-bear-it,” I try to highlight from his own material how incongruous
his superficial behaviors are in relations to his attitudes, which tenaciously cling to the idealizations of the affair.
When an objective therapist points out a client’s inconsistencies, the client usually experiences tension & may even feel phony. This discomfort can motivate his to give up his duplicity in favor of a more stable, single-minded attitude.
Hopefully, this nonjudgmental exposure to inconsistencies of his life will guide the negative person more toward the working orientation of his spouse.
Realistically, ambivalence is the more common position taken by a confused, angry & disillusioned victimized partner. Sally doesn't know if she wants to stay in the marriage. She isn't sure she loves Phil any more. She begins to wonder if she ever did, or if she ever could.
For this person, their Christian commitment may be the only “glue” to hold them in therapy. This is a time to praise a person’s faith for being willing to make a decision based on their faith alone, not on the weight of their circumstances.
It's also a time to discuss the purpose of marriage from a Christian view. One person offered the insight that God’s purpose for marriage isn't gratification, nor experience of love, nor sense of well-being; rather, it's for sanctification, or becoming more Christlike.
When the painful ordeals of rebuilding a marriage are seen in the light of maturing into more Christlikeness, reconciliation
may not seem so futile & James’ perspective on trials & growth can become more real.
I also have noticed that with even small gains in the genuine expression of caring, the ambivalent partner is often energized & motivated.
I've found that it's important to refrain from “preaching the truth” during these sessions. While the zealous therapist may derive a sense of gratification at exhorting the errant one,
moralizing isn't likely to be helpful for the development of the client’s personal convictions to do what's right.
I doubt that any Christian who has been involved in an affair is unaware of its wrongness. The offender is already in a mental attitude of opposition to what others (including God) say is the right way to be living. Overzealous exhortation at this point may even push the guilty party into deeper self-justification.
There's ample literature in Christian bookstores concerning God’s teaching about His desires & standards for marriage so that exhortation is usually not needed. Motivation by intimidation or shame yields only short-term
gains at best.
Although separation is often utilized as a stepping-stone to divorce, there are times when an objectively planned time
apart can be used to sort thru the issues more clearly. Particularly when a couple tends to escalate their conflicts into abusive combat, they may need a month or two apart while they work on control issues.
Separation would, in my opinion, always be designed to prepare for clarity of thought to maximize the chances of returning to the marriage. It should never be utilized as an opportunity for the
offender to maintain the relationship w/the lover.
Regardless which attitudes spouses embrace, some changes in orientation must be made if the marriage is to succeed. Tally (1985)
highlights two prerequisites to reconciliation. “First, you have to change roles” (p. 101).
i.e., if one spouse is relational & the other is task oriented, these roles must be exchanged. “Second, you have
to recognize the role of significance & security” (p. 103).
If reconciliation is to be effective, the woman must meet more of the man’s needs for significance & the man must meet more of the woman’s needs for security.
The issues that follow represent guidelines to dealing practically with these 2 prerequisite principles.
Dealing
with Ensuring Closure of the Affair
A sharp knife cuts clean & decisiveness leaves no frayed ends. I believe strongly that if the marriage is to have a chance to knit together again, the offender & the lover must first sever their ties completely.
Ables (1977) expresses this truth clearly; “Marriage, in terms of romantic charm, can't compete with an affair . . . the person having the affair
adds to marital discontent & drains off energy that could be directed toward improving the relationship” (p. 225).
He turns to his lover to feel good in much the same way an alcoholic turns to drink rather than facing a conflict directly. Willi (1982) concurs w/the importance of this value judgment by excluding the lover from therapy.
“Since I haven't yet found adequate evidence
to believe that a triangular relationship can evolve smoothly for all three members, I am inclined to support the demarcation principle” (p. 179).
Severing the ties may involve drastic geographical relocation. It certainly means cessation of verbal & written
communications. Since rationalization & idealized fantasy are so strong with affair participants, they're likely to minimize
the dangers of lingering emotional connectedness.
“We’re
just going to remain friends & keep in touch thru letters, but there's nothing sexual to it any more” is a commonly
heard rationale for maintenance of emotional ties. Maintaining active friendships & confidences allows the secret liaison
to flourish.
It's precisely this heart-level connectedness to a needy third party that stands in the way of unreserved dedication to the spouse.
This process of letting go often represents a deep-seated loss to the offender. Saying good-bye to an old life-style, no matter how destructive
it had been, can involve a grief process of major proportions. Therefore, the therapist should be sensitive to the possible need of the offender to do searching grief work.
This work would involve developing a keen awareness of all the positive sensations associated with the affair. i.e., it may mean saying good-bye to all the pleasurable feelings that he experienced w/out having to work very hard to achieve.
It may mean saying good-bye to a convenient escape, an alternative to the pain of working thru conflicted emotions. At this point of grief work, it's important to be subjective & non-judgmental, allowing the person to develop a clear picture of all the positive aspects of the affair as he perceived them, independent of the effect those experiences may have had on the marriage.
It's his subjective experience for which he needs to grieve the loss. Obviously, this work should be done on an individual basis.
The trust that the betrayed one needs to develop requires emotional fidelity from the spouse. The nagging questions, “Has he really let go of her & does he really want me?” underlies & controls the redevelopment of trust.
Simply stated, holding on to the lover in any form is evidence that the offender hasn't let go of the affair enough
to warrant or deserve the trust
of his spouse.
On the other hand, if the married couple will submit to a third party that will help maintain fidelity, they can minimize
the centrifugal forces of temptation & distrust. This accountability could be to a therapist, but also could be to a church group or another couple.
This strong-other person functions in much the same way as the sponsor of an alcoholic in Alcoholics Anonymous. Accountability is the key to fidelity.
Dealing w/the Anger & Rage of the Victim
Betrayal elicits rage. Kate “ . . . wanted to get out of the care, to run, but couldn’t. I threw my empty soda cup at
him & then took off my rings & threw them at him, too. Then I pulled the collar of my sweater up over my face &
cried” (Bryce, 1988, p.
60).
Kate’s intensity of rage isn't uncommon for one who discovers a spouse’s unfaithfulness. The effectiveness w/which the betrayed partner works thru rage profoundly contributes to the durability of the renewed ties.
Unresolved anger is like a rotten spot inside a tree limb. Even though the limb may look healthy in its grown-over state, it
can snap like a toothpick in a storm. The victim has been affronted at the level of his or her dignity. The shock of realizing that one’s object of trust wasn't worthy of that trust, will send tremors thru the bedrock of a person’s
orientation to life & self.
Consider that trust is one
of the first developmental issues put into place in a person’s psychosocial structure. Therefore, the anger is reasonable & must be channeled effectively.
Therapy techniques for rage reduction are well developed. The issue of concern for the therapist is to be attuned to the particular ways the client handles anger ineffectively. The person who denies anger & tries to deal with the problem cognitively needs help with emoting.
The self-punitive person who turns the anger toward himself needs help w/directive the energy outwardly & nondestructively. Encouragement to externalize the acidic & corrosive emotions in a safe environment is one of
the kindest & most helpful contributions a therapist can make.
On the other hand, to allow the counseling sessions to be reduced to badgering
the offender would be a serious mistake. I often teach basic communication skills in order to keep the interactions focused on issues of substance & to deal with some of the deeper, more personal causes of the marital discord.
There are times, however, when individual therapy is more productive than conjoint therapy (Willi, 1982). If the couple uses material uncovered in the conjoint session as ammunition for hurting each other, they may require the safety of individual sessions to begin to look at themselves.
I prefer to use individual sessions as remedial, returning to processing issues conjointly as soon as possible.
While working with the victim to manage the anger appropriately, the therapist can help the offender realize the extent & nature of hurt that the affair has caused. Typically in the mind of the spouse involved in the affair, admission of guilt marks the end of the matter.
Getting on w/business of the marriage is all that is left. There's no need to rehash history or to “beat old issues to death.” In the mind of the victim, however,
exposure of the affair marks the beginning of a long agonizing process.
For that person, issues need to be processed thoroughly. Values need to be clarified & reworked. It behooves the offender to use the anger of the offended spouse to guide his thinking into the very issues he tends to avoid dealing with.
i.e., what kind of affair was it (cf. Lawson, 1988, pp. 52-54)? How did the
offender perceive his spouse (& children) during the affair? How did the offender go about deceiving his spouse to keep the affair secret?
What character flaws led to the offender’s self-oriented behaviors w/such insensitivity to the spouse? (“How could
you do such a thing?”)
As the issues of anger are cleared away, the issues of trust emerge more prominently. Anger at being deceived is the main barrier to trusting another because these two dispositions are mutually exclusive.
Dealing w/Trust in the Aftermath of Betrayal
The
offender who is willing to rebuild the marriage is on probation. His actions & statements are going to be scrutinized
against the criterion of genuineness. Since he has a history of saying things that were in the service of ulterior motives, he will not be taken
at face value.
All this is as it should be. The offender needs to realize the probationary nature of his position without, on the one hand, becoming defiant & oppositional
or, on the other hand, becoming too contrite & placating so as to encourage the spouse to become demanding.
The victim, in contrast, is naturally inclined to seek information that will justify the withholding of trust.
More often than not, the victim is not looking for information at all, but simply wants to extract vengeance. After the appropriate
grieving over the betrayal, this person needs to be encouraged to look for reasons to trust again & be willing to reinvest herself.
How does a person build trust?
By doing what he says he will do. How does a person tear down trust? By not doing what he says he will do. If Jane says she will be home from her appointment at 6:00, but she doesn’t
come until 6:45, then Jack’s trust has been eroding by the corrosive effects of his imagination for 45 minutes.
If Jane then resents having to explain the lapse in time, she further contributes to his suspicion. He begins to recall other times she was secretive or evasive about
where she had been while he was being deceived.
The pattern to recovery is clear. While Jane works on allowing her probationary life to be scrutinized, Jack needs to work on seeking information that will serve to justify his potential trust,
not to continue to seek prosecution & punishment.
Control issues become particularly sensitive during
this probationary period. The offended spouse “wants to dictate what can & can't be done rather than what can or
can't be tolerated” (Ables, 1977, p.233).
That spouse’s hurt will come across as anger that is punitive & controlling, restricting the movements of the offender. Since the preservations of autonomy is so often a salient preoccupation
of the offender, he'll most likely react to these controls defensively & even aggressively.
Consequently the basic issues of hurt & disillusionment in the offended spouse aren't recognized or resolved. The therapist can help the offended spouse to communicate hurt as hurt (not as vengeful, controlling rage) & to use language of limits & tolerance (not ultimatums).
The therapist can help the offender then to be sensitive to the hurt & distress that lay behind the controlling statements. The offender can therefore manage his behaviors responsibly & autonomously in light of his spouse’s
feeling, not being controlled or determined by those feelings.
Another problem pattern in the renewing marriage is the victim’s suspicious association with certain cues. i.e.,
if Jane acts withdrawn & quiet, Jack my be convinced that she's thinking about her lover & that she may rendezvous with him soon.
In therapy, Jack needs to learn how to accept behaviors for what they are, resisting his tendency to read Jane’s mind or to project
his own fears onto Jane’s behaviors. He will also have to work hard at believing what Jane says about her inner thoughts or motives.
Naturally, this process is often slow & arduous because Jack probably had been overlooking too many signs of trouble
during the affair. In this resolve to “never let it happen again,” he's prone to overreact.
The therapist’s role is to encourage balance with a view to reality orientation. Considering the probable lack of good reality testing with individuals
involved in an affair, this role of the therapist is one of the most important & pervasive functions in the healing process.
Tally (1985) devotes an entire chapter in his book to suggest techniques in facing reality. In it, he says, “To help you inject
sanity into how you react & what you do, you must get with someone who'll be honest w/you. You don't need a cover-up; you need reality” (p.
105).
Dealing w/the Disclosures of the Offender
The last thing the offender wants to do is to lay
open the dynamics of the affair after it has ended. Discussing the affair with the one from whom he has kept it secret for
so long is even more difficult. If he had been comfortable with that level of openness, trust & vulnerability in the first place, he probably wouldn't have found himself in
an affair.
Also, he probably never thought about many of the personal issues his spouse is interested in. So even if he were willing to disclose, he may
not have the necessary insight into his true motives to satisfy his spouse.
Further, he is emotionally invested in making the entire affair a “closed case” as soon as possible. Yet
it's precisely his willingness to be open, above board & honest, that the victim is looking for as a basis of a renewed
level of trust.
Thus, the therapist must help the couple get past the seeming impasse of the one’s unwillingness to disclose pitted
against the other’s critical need to know.
Guidelines need to be established to ensure that the information that is shared does, indeed, need to be known in order
to rebuild trust & that the information is in the service of building intimacy. I have often had several individual sessions with the reluctant offender to clarify these guidelines before continuing the
conjoint therapy modality.
The first guideline that needs to be clarified is “How much does the victim want to know & need to know?” Some individuals don't want to know anything because they're aware of their own inability to handle such sensitive information about such a repulsive situation in their life.
When this is the case, however, they need to be reminded that as they grow in their ability to cope with more truth, they may at a later time want to ask for more information. On the other hand, if the victim wants to know
about factors that contributed to the betrayal he has a right to know.
Further, knowing about these factors can be used effectively to rebuild trust & to ensure prevention of a recurrence.
The second guideline is that the particular behaviors & events that took place as part of the affair
shouldn't be discussed. Such details as where we met as lovers, where we slept, what we said to each other & how we were
physical serve only to feed the mental imagery of the victim.
The victim will be hampered by these “burn-in” mental pictures, which are usually embellished by fantasies.
The third guideline is that comparisons should never be made. Knowing what the offender found attractive
about the lover that he didn't find attractive about the spouse serves only exacerbate the victim’s sense of inadequacy & powerlessness.
The fourth guideline is that any open discussion that'll help expose the unconscious needs of the offender that left him vulnerable to the affair can be very helpful.
When Steve realized that he had a deep need to be told repeatedly how fine a person he was, he became aware of why his lover was so enticing & why he tended to withhold emotions from his more critical wife.
Therapy can then focus on the realistic need for praises & enhancing statements & on resolving the inordinate aspects of Steve’s needs for someone to inflate his sagging self-esteem. All this can be done without getting into the comparison trap.
This context can be conducive to explore the splitting that typically takes place in an affair. Explore how Steve allowed
his potentially holistic relationship with his wife to reduce to a dreaded partial relationship with a “bad other.”
Also explore how he fleshed out his fantasies to make a partial relationship into an idealized relationship with a “good other” lover. The limitations of the affair need to be clarified, lest the affair become a model against which the adequacy of the marriage partner is
measured.
Realizing that no spouse could ever compete with an idealized partial relationship can help promote the transition back to reality.
The fifth guideline is a delicate one to keep in balance. The victim must see a willingness on the part of the offender to disclose & to manifest an attitude of exploration for the sake of understanding & resolving the many confusing issues. If he's inclined to limit his responses to short, carefully worded responses to his spouse’s interrogation, the spouse will be inclined to wonder, “What is
he withholding?
The only way I'll get the information I need is to ask specific, penetrating questions that have no loopholes thru which we can squirm. Therefore,
I will intensify my interrogation & leave no stone unturned.”
On the other hand, if the offender is participating in a mutual effort to explore patterns, the victim is likely to
relax the intensity of the interrogation & be more inclined to trust the “I don’t know” kinds of statements.
Each couple will have to work out their own version of custom-made guidelines based on their own needs & capacity to cope w/the forthcoming information. Ultimately, the goal of disclosure is to understand why it happened so the couple can be in control of preventing a reoccurrence as well as knowing personal growth areas for the intimacy enhancement of their own relationship.
Dealing w/Forgiveness
Infidelity is
a severe breach of trust that causes
offense to the betrayed party. No one would argue that forgiveness is the bridge crossing the chasm of broken trust.
Surely, apology for the offense must be offered & regret expressed. But how is this done? When is it best negotiated? Premature & superficial forgiveness can result in the preservation of unresolved hurt, increased guilt over lingering anger & perpetuation of an ingenuine level of toleration that can actually inhibit the development of needed intimacy & honesty.
The statement, “I am sorry,” can reflect a wide range of possible meanings, which must be clarified. If
the statement means, “I regret getting caught,” or “I regret that you got offended,” the person is reflecting very little personal remorse for the offended spouse.
The solution to the problem that this person would offer, then, would be for all these other people who have been offended to simply dismiss their anger & to overcome their hypersensitivity.
That is, others need to change while I remain the same. This attitude will obviously frustrate the efforts of therapy to establish a balanced intimacy. On the other hand, if the statement reflects a truly broken & contrite heart, the ground is prepared to proceed with a lasting forgiveness.
Three aspects of forgiveness are important to bear in mind. For it to be healing & lasting, forgiveness
- must be offered in view of the offense
- is a process & not an isolated act or
transaction
- may be multi-level (i.e., forgiveness may be increased if a more severe offense has been discovered.)
Forgiveness must be connected to an offense that's being forgiven. When God offered forgiveness in Christ, He was well aware of the full extent to which our sin offended His holiness.
But a betrayed spouse may require some time to realize the many ways they have been offended by the affair & to what depth the hurt has penetrated. At the same time the spouse asking for forgiveness should be able to link the forgiveness with the specific offenses.
In other words, he needs to have a clear view of what he is asking forgiveness for.
While the process of forgiveness need not drag on indefinitely, the couple would do well to allow for reexamination of issues at a later time
if some additional offenses are discovered. This process can be likened to a dentist cleaning out the decay from a cavity
before filling it with amalgam.
Usually one treatment will suffice. But in the event that some decay is left remaining under the filling, or if some
additional decay develops, the distasteful process of reopening the infected area must be engaged.
Pretending that the forgiveness is a once-&-for-all act, never to be dealt with again, can lead to a festering decay in the marriage. On
the other hand, a decayed relationship that has been cleansed by a thorough - going process of forgiveness is free to progress to higher levels of honesty, trust & intimacy.
Sometimes a person discovers some hurt that had as yet been undiscovered. What are they to do in response to that deeper offense? Should they refuse to admit that
it is real, since they have already forgiven the other person?
Should they assume that the original forgiveness wasn't genuine? Instead, they should validate the work that has already been accomplished & simply be willing to forgive more deeply for an offense that has been recognized more deeply.
Dealing w/Individual Issues
The affair isn't
just the problem of one person. The affair, like any marital problem, is a manifestation of individual problems that have
developed out of the particular chemistry of the couple.
It's helpful to reframe the affair as an opportunity to look closely at each person’s areas of needed personal growth. In the early stages of therapy, this is very difficult to do because both individuals are inclined
to think in terms of blame & responsibility.
i.e., Frank was unwilling to examine any of his behaviors that contributed to Betty’s vulnerability,
because he saw that as equal to admitting to his being responsible for her affair.
“It was her doing & she's the only
one who needs to change anything,” is a typical comment. Frank struggled hard against the final realization that being a contributing factor
is different from being the cause.
He was able to make significant progress when he broke thru this barrier. i.e., he discovered
that he demonstrated very little affection or kindness toward his wife, but demanded sex frequently, criticizing her harshly for her lack of enthusiasm.
He even admitted telling her that her body wasn't her own, that it was intended for his pleasure. He could then begin to look at issues of his own insecurity & powerlessness.
Some of the key personal issues that relate to such a broken marriage are self-esteem, power, security, dependency, reality orientation, moral development, locus of control & connectedness. It is important to link deficiencies in these areas to deficiencies in the person’s psychosocial development.
The patterns & dynamics of the affair are fundamentally manifestations of unresolved developmental conflicts. The affair is the symptom of the problem, not the core of it. If the deeper problems go unexamined, the residual
pattern will simply emerge again at another time with a few variations.
Strean (1980) provides an example of linking these patterns back to the classical
psychoanalytic stages – “the oral, anal, phallic, oedipal, latency, pubertal, adolescent & genital periods
of development” (p. 21).
An excellent resource for the cognitive therapist is Talley (1985), who offers practical steps to bring about reconciliation. I think the specific theoretical orientation isn't as critical as the consistency of thought & penetration to the meaning under the manifest level of behavior.
Renewing Physical Intimacy
Patience, understanding & self-control will be in high demand for this phase of rebuilding. The emotional & physical vulnerability
involved with sexual intercourse provides a prime target for unloading any salvos that might be left from unresolved anger or vengeance. Setbacks & disappointments will be frequent.
The tendency to hold the marriage partner responsible for anything that goes wrong will be strong. But if both partners are willing to proceed slowly with realistic expectations, the renewed physical intimacy can help contribute to the broader trust issues.
In some marriages, the physical relationship may be the strong point that initially holds the couple together. In other
marriages, it may be the last aspect of the relationship to develop.
Often, problems with intimacy that have been present in the marriage all along will emerge with greater-than-ever intensity, but the couple may be better
able to deal with them in their current disrupted state.
Useful Scripture Passages & Concepts
Marriage, from
the Christian perspective, is a sacred bond. It reflects the relationship between God & His people. The husband is reflective
of God while the wife is reflective of the people of God (Ephesians 5:22-33).
The sanctity of the marriage contract is maintained by sexual fidelity. Any other sexual involvement is a perversion
of God’s design. Hence, Christians have a point of reference by which to orient their lives & guide their decisions.
Alternative arrangements, though justifiable according to some people’s rationale, can't possibly be Christian. i.e.:
“Under some circumstances, extramarital sex can be constructive to the marriage. It’s possible for two people who have a rich & rewarding
relationship in almost every way not be on the same sexual wavelength. An outside liaison may enable a spouse to release some
sexual tension & take a lot of pressure off the marriage” (Singer,
1980, p. 172).
Scripture is particularly helpful in providing attitudinal orientation to confused & hurting people who are churning in the midst of an emotional tornado.
i.e., most people evaluate “good” on the basis of comfort & “bad” on the basis of pain. In order to go thru the excruciatingly painful process of reconciliation,
the couple needs to understand that
they are experiencing a painful process that is good in God’s eyes.
Many times they'll continue working only because they believe that God wants them to. God honors that kind of faith.
Romans 5:1-5 & James 1:2-5 provide a glimpse of God’s view of how suffering can be a positive experience. Philippians 3:10 shows that suffering is apart of knowing Him, the highest goal & purpose of man. In particular, Christ’s sufferings involve dealing with rejected love.
Even though His love was perfect & was rejected on such a grand scale with such profound implications for all mankind, we can know Him more experientially by
seeing our rejected love similar to His. The entire book of Hosea shows how God, by example, honors his commitment to an adulterous nation.
Matthew 18:21-22 gives us the “seventy-times-seven” guideline for forgiveness. Genesis 1-2 & Ephesians 5:22-33 provide the basis for God’s purposes & ideals for marriage.
The theme of reconciliation provides a common thread throughout all these passages. For God clearly wants those who
are distant from Him to draw near & those who are alienated from one another to unite in a bond of love.
“Now all these things are from God, who
reconciled us to Himself through Christ & gave us a ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18, NASB).
How appropriate that we, who'll be among the blessed “who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb”
(Revelation 19:9, NASB), should participate now in this ministry of reconciliation.
References
Ables, B.S. (1977). Therapy for couples.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bryce, H. (1988). After the affair: A wife’s story, Leadership. 9 (1), pp.
58-65.
Conway, J. (1978). Men in mid-life crisis. Elgin: David C. Cook Publishing Co.
Lawson, A. (1988). Adultery: An
analysis of love and betrayal. New York: Basic Books.
Petersen, J. A. (1983). The myth of the greener grass. Wheaton; Tyndale
House Publishers.
Singer, L.J. (1980) Stages. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
Strean, H.S. (1980) The extramarital
affair. New York: The Free Press.
Tally, J. (1985). Reconcilable differences: Mending broken relationships. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Willi, J. (1982). Couples in collusion. New York: Jason Aronson.
Author
J. Lee Jagers (Th.M., Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University of North Texas) is a
psychotherapist in a private practice in Dallas, Texas. He holds a diplomat status in the American Psychotherapy Association.
His specialties include couples therapy, individual psychotherapy, and treatment of chemical dependency.
disillusioned with politics, love or war?
For Marines,
a Frustrating Fight
Some in Iraq Question How & Why War Is Being Waged
By Steve
Fainaru
Washington
Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 10, 2004; Page A01
ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq - Scrawled on the helmet of Lance Cpl. Carlos Perez are the letters FDNY. After the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks on New York, the Pentagon & western Pennsylvania, Perez quit school, left his job as a firefighter in
Long Island, N.Y. & joined the U.S. Marine Corps.
"To be honest, I just wanted to take revenge," said Perez, 20.
Now, 2 months into a 7-month combat tour in Iraq, Perez said he sees little connection between the events of Sept. 11 & the war he's fighting. Instead, he said, he is increasingly disillusioned by a conflict whose origins remain unclear & frustrated by the timidity of U.S. forces against a mostly faceless enemy.
"Sometimes I see no reason why we're
here," Perez said. "First of all, you can't engage as many times as we want to. Second of all, we're looking for an enemy
that's not there. The only way to do it is go house to house until we get out of here."
Perez is hardly alone. In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81's" expressed in blunt terms their
frustrations with the way the war is being conducted & in some cases, doubts about why it's being waged. The platoon, named for the size in millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of
the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah, 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.
The Marines offered their opinions openly to a reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines during operations last week in Babil province, then
expanded upon them during interviews over 3 days in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward operating base.
The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past 2 months. Their assessments differ
sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government & the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain
- if bumpy - course toward peaceful democracy.
"I feel we're going to be here for years
& years & years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence
& then start being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."
The views of the mortar platoon of some 50 young Marines, several of whom fought during the first phase of the war last
year, aren't necessarily reflective of all or even most U.S troops fighting in Iraq. Rather, they offer a snapshot of the
frustrations engendered by a grinding conflict that has killed 1,064 Americans, wounded 7,730 & spread to many areas of the country.
Although not as highly publicized as attacks in such hot spots as Fallujah, Samarra & Baghdad's Sadr City, the violence
in Babil province, south of the capital, is also intense. Since July 28, when the Marines took over operational responsibility for the region, 102 of the unit's 1,100 troops have been wounded, 85 in combat, according to battalion records.
4 have been killed, 2 in combat.
Senior officers attribute the vast difference between the number of killed & wounded to the effectiveness of armor
- bullet-proof vests, helmets & reinforced armored vehicles, primarily Humvees - in the face of persistent attacks. As
of last week, the Marines had come upon 61 roadside bombs, nearly one a day. 49 had detonated. Camp Iskandariyah was hit by
mortar shells or rockets on 12 occasions; 21 other times, insurgents tried to hit the base & missed.
Realities on the Ground
Several
members of the platoon said they were struck by the difference between the way the war was being portrayed in the United States
& the reality of their daily lives.
"Every day you read the articles in the
States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better & better,' " said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg, Pa.
"But when you're here, you know it's worse every day."
Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he thought government officials were reticent to speak candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections. "Stuff's going
on here but they won't flat-out say it," he said. "They can't get into it."
Maio said that when he arrived in Iraq, "I didn't think I was going to live this long, in all honesty." He added, "it ain't that bad. It's just part of the job, I guess."
As a reporter began to ask Maio another question, the interview was interrupted by the scream of an incoming rocket
& then a deafening explosion outside the platoon's barracks. Pandemonium ensued.
"Get down! Get down!" yelled the platoon's
radio operator, Cpl. Brandon Autin, 21, of New Iberia, La., his orders laced with profanity. "Get in the bunker! Get in the
bunker now!"
Members of the platoon raced out of their rooms to a 5 by 15 foot bunker, located outside at the end of the one-story
building. The dirt-floor room was protected by a low ceiling & walls built out of four-foot-thick sandbags. Once in the bunker, several Marines lit cigarettes, filling
the already-congested room with smoke.
"The reality right now is that the most
dangerous opinion in the world is the opinion of a U.S. serviceman," said Lance Cpl. Devin Kelly, 20, of Fairbanks, Alaska.
Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones, 20, of Ball Ground, Ga., agreed: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong,"
he said. "We're catching them in a lie."
Senior officers said they shared many of the platoon's frustrations but added that it was difficult for low-level Marines to see the larger progress being made across Iraq.
Maj. Douglas Bell, the battalion's executive officer, said "one of the most difficult things about the insurgency is identifying
the enemy."
Bell said it was frustrating for "every Marine in the battalion" to search for insurgents on a daily basis, only to be attacked repeatedly
with bombs & mortars detonated or launched by an invisible enemy. "You want to get your hand around his frigging collar
& kick his ass," Bell said. "But they slip away."
Bell said Marines offering dire predictions for Iraq weren't taking into account the training of the new Iraqi security
forces. He said the installation of the new Iraqi army, Iraqi National Guard & police across the country would lay the
foundation for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
"That's how we're going to get out of
Iraq," Bell said. "That's how America is going to get out of Iraq."
The Marines acknowledged that the elusiveness of the insurgents was frustrating. "You don't really know who you're fighting. You're more or less fighting objects," said Elston, the
lance corporal from New Jersey. "You see something on the side of the road. It blows up."
But the Marines said their frustrations run deeper. Several said the Iraqi security forces who are supposed to ultimately replace them were nowhere
near ready & may never be.
"They can't take care of themselves," said Lance Cpl. Matthew Combs, 19, of Cincinnati, who added that he didn't think the National Guardsmen "can do anything. They just do what we tell them to do."
The Price of Precaution
The
Marines also expressed frustration that they were unable to fight more aggressively because of restraints in the rules of engagement imposed by senior commanders.
The rules, which require Marines to positively identify their target as hostile before shooting, are cumbersome in the face of urban guerrilla warfare, several of them said.
"When we get called out, we'll sit there
staging there for an hour," Maio said. "By the time we're ready to move, they're up & gone. A few weeks ago, the Iskandariyah
police station was under attack. We staged for damn near an hour before we went out. It's stupid. You have to wait to get
approval & all this other stuff."
Kelly, the lance corporal from Alaska, said he understood the need to protect civilians but that the restraints were jeopardizing American lives. "It seems as if they place more
value on obeying the letter
of the law & sacrificing our lives than following the spirit of the law & getting the job done," he said of his commanders.
Bell said the Marines' frustration was understandable but that it was extremely difficult to make a determination of hostile intent following a roadside bombing that might have been detonated by anything from a remote-controlled toy car to
a cell phone. "That's a pretty difficult decision to make for a 19-year-old kid," he said.
Lance Cpl. Jeremy Kyrk, 21, of Chicago, said the insurgents took advantage of the limitations imposed on U.S. troops. "They don't give us any leeway, they don't give us any quarter," he said. "They catch
people & cut their heads off. They know our limits, but they have no limits. We can't compete with that."
A Decision to Serve
Perez
said the frustration inherent in the war became apparent almost immediately after he arrived in Iraq in late July. A Colombian immigrant,
he said he decided to join the Marine Corps after attending the funeral of a friend who had died in the Sept. 11 attacks.
The friend, Thomas Hetzel, was a volunteer firefighter at the Franklin Square & Munson Fire Department on Long Island,
where Perez also volunteered.
At the time, Perez was studying criminal justice at Nassau Community College. "While I was at the funeral I was looking
at his little daughter cry," he said. "He had a pregnant wife & 2 kids. I just said, 'All right, this is what I want to
do.'"
But Perez said he came to think that war in Iraq was unrelated to his anger. "How do I put this?" he said. "First of all, this is a whole different thing. We're supposed to be looking
for al Qaeda. They're the ones who are supposedly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This has no connection at all to Sept. 11 because this war started just by telling us about all the nuclear warheads over here."
Snyder, who was listening, added: "Pretty much I think they just diverted the war on terrorism. I agree with the Afghanistan war & all the Sept. 11 stuff, but
it feels like they left the bigger war over there to come here. And now, while we're on the ground over here, it seems like
we're not even close to catching frigging bin Laden."
Casual Sex
Leaves Many College Women Disillusioned
By Jeanie Lerche Davis
WebMD Medical News
Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD
Sept. 28, 2001 -- The Woodstock generation knew it as free love.
To today's college students, it's booty
call, hooking up, or friends w/benefits. But a new study shows that no-commitment sex - although rampant on college campuses - still leaves women in their 20's feeling disillusioned.
The 18-month nationwide study, sponsored by the Independent Women's Forum, looked at sexuality, dating, courtship &
marriage & involved in-depth interviews w/a diverse group of 62 college women on 11 campuses.
These were supplemented by 20-minute telephone interviews w/a nationally representative sample of 1,000 college women.
"The mantra of the sexual revolution
was that women can be just like men," says Kate Kennedy, a spokeswoman for the Independent Women's Forum, the study's sponsor.
That translates today into what's known as hooking up or friends w/ benefits: "a guy & girl getting together
for some form of physical encounter, ranging from kissing to having sex, w/no expectations of anything further," she tells WebMD.
In reality, "women are losing out," she tells WebMD. "Women can act like men, but women don't react like
men."
MTV relationship expert Drew Pinsky, MD, concurs. "The culture doesn't allow women to express themselves honestly about their needs.
It tells women there's something wrong with you if you can't accept this lack of commitment. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with hooking up. It's not a moral issue. I just don't
think women are happy."
It's an age-old problem, Pinsky tells WebMD. College-age men are looking for sex only -"that's their predominant preoccupation.
Women at that age want a meaningful interaction with someone; sex isn't their priority. As men approach their 30's, they become
very different, give much higher value
to real relationships."
Yet over 60% of college women in the study say they'd like to meet their future husbands in college, says Kennedy. "Well
over a majority view marriage as an important aspiration & think that they'll be able to find that person in college," she tells WebMD.
"And that makes sense. Where else are
you going to be surrounded with so many opportunities to meet people that you have so much in common with, so many common
experiences?"
But the odds are against them, she says. Since 1980, women are beginning to outnumber men on college campuses. "When
you throw in this social phenomenon of 'hook-up' culture & no expectation of commitment, then women are losing at the end of the day," says Kennedy.
It's not that women are victims, Kennedy tells WebMD. "It takes two to tango & that's especially true when we talk
about hook-ups. These are intelligent, thoughtful young women who are masters of their own fate & they're making the decisions to engage in these kinds of actions.
Sometimes they're the ones to initiate these encounters. It's not at all the guys' fault here.
"We're seeing a group mentality," she
says, "that no one hangs out on a one-on-one basis anymore, that everybody goes out in packs. And there's the presence of
alcohol that loosens the inhibitions. People are out in groups at bars, at fraternity parties & pairing occurs. They go off & do their thing."
Kennedy remembers her own freshman year. "I remember thinking, is this it? Is this all there is? I was taken aback by how superficial it all was, at how intimate the actions were, yet it still remained on a superficial level," she tells WebMD.
For girls especially, deeper feelings sometimes develop from hook-ups, Kennedy says. "It's not that a nice, solid relationship doesn't develop, but
it's rare. It's always the girl who ends up asking, 'what are we?' That can be a very frightening question."
"The men are bewildered," Pinsky tells WebMD. "They thought they had a deal: you're a friend, we had sex. How did you let yourself have feelings? How did that happen to you? She says, of course I had
feelings. She wants something more intimate, more of a relationship.
She just wants to know she's valued."
It's not that dating doesn't exist anymore, says Kennedy. Some couples do pair off: they call it "joined at the hip."
But that's rare, she says.
"We found that if a guy has been asking
a woman out on dates, they would say 'he's too nice,'" Kennedy tells WebMD. "Well, you need to look in the mirror & figure out what you really want."
Kennedy remembers the few dates she had in college. "They were absolutely nerve-wracking. It was almost as bad as taking
a final exam. The stress factor -oh my gosh, I have to be one on one with this person, we have to communicate, we have to think of intelligent things to say. I can understand why it doesn't occur more often. I can understand why women just want to go out as friends, keep it low-key."
That's the draw of the hook-up, she says. "You don't have to talk. It can be fun.
"We're not here to prescribe any moral
solutions but to draw attention to it," says Kennedy. "Girls get so caught up in the pattern of it, that they don't think to question it. It's so pervasive, so prevalent & there's no alternative, they truly do think this is it. This is all there is. I think that has a lot to do with it."
Her message to young women: "If you're not happy with the scene & if enough people aren't happy with the scene & if they excuse themselves, then you'd think it might stop & something else would take its place.
It can't be done overnight, by just a few college girls. We think of it as a wake-up call. If they start to demand more respect, demand more out of the relationships collectively, as a group, then chances are they'd get it."
College men & women need more social alternatives, says Pinsky. "Joined at the hip, friends with benefits, hooking up - it's not a sufficient
range of choices. It's not healthy.
"Those in the very transient, disconnect hook-up experiences get gratification," he tells WebMD, "but that doesn't give them nourishment. It doesn't build them toward what they really want. "Women need to start asking for a little more," Pinsky says. "If they're not happy, they need to get things reorganized, establish some different sort of understanding,
whether it's just having dinner as opposed to hooking up."
Now & Forever
by Harvey & Kathy Corwin, Family Ministries & Sabbath School Oregon Conference of Seventh-day Adventist, Clackamas,
Oregon
"Till death
do us part"
Marriage is one of the
greatest relationships in the world. But like any event you have to prepare for it. Most engaged couples prepare more for
their wedding day than they do for their marriage.
Marriage often brings two people together w/very different backgrounds,
tastes & desires & places them in such close proximity that every detail & flaw will eventually show.
The great challenge is to live joyfully with the one you "love"...Ecclesiastes 9:9
That's a tough assignment for most when it seems everything works against
love in our relationships. Under incredible stress, it's easy to drift apart ever so slowly & even unintentionally. Yet, few things in life are as rich, as
meaningful & important as a good marriage. Healthy relationships find their strength in God.
However, the "til death do us part" of the marriage
vow rings increasingly ironic. We have this epidemic going on in the U.S. today where at the very least, if current trends
continue, 66% of all marriages this year will end up in a separation or divorce. We know that 200,000 new marriages each year
end prior to the couple's second anniversary.1
Equally startling as the predictions & statistics, however, is the
fact that less than 1/5 of all marriages in America are preceded by some kind of formal marriage preparation. And since 3
out of 4 U.S. marriages are blessed by a member of the clergy, columnist Michael McManus has come to call churches "blessing
machines...2
Think about it. Most engaged couples prepare more for their wedding day
than they do for their marriage. The millions of bridal magazines that are sold each year can testify to that. They're filled
w/information about wedding ceremonies & honeymoons, but rarely have a sentence on marriage itself.
Most marriage experts agree that divorce is epidemic & choking our
society. For too many of today's new couples, marriage has become "til divorce do us part."
Why do these people get married?
Many of them marry because they believe that the institution of marriage - the event will take care of their deep, pressing personal issues. Marriage will not do that! Marriage doesn't take care of those deep personal
issues.
It actually provides more problems, more challenges. To think that marriage all of a sudden will fix your low self-esteem, or that it means you won't be lonely any more, or that
it will create a deep, highly developed purpose
for life, then you're going to be disappointed. That's why approximately 1/2 of all divorces happen within 2 or 3 years after the wedding. People are so disillusioned, because marriage didn't solve their
personal problems.
Counselors & ministers need to become familiar w/what the most typical reasons are for divorce & the most typical reasons for great
marriages. And have those as solid in their heads as their own telephone numbers.
When the counselor or minister sees red flags in their premarital counseling,
they need to say "this doesn't look
to me like it's going to work at this time."
Too many times counselors have been afraid to offend someone.
Researchers say the chances are 5 in 10 that a marriage will end in divorce.
If one or both partners are still teenagers, they say the odds for divorce are even higher. If either partner witnessed an
unhappy marriage at home, the odds increase again.
If one or both partners come from broken homes, the odds rise yet higher. If either partner has been divorced, the odds soar again. If there has been regular
sexual involvement before marriage, or if either or both partners abuse alcohol or drugs, the odds sky rocket.
Working in pastoral & Family Ministries since 1970, we have seen countless
couples fall in love, get engaged, marry & hope for the best.
But we also have witnessed our fair share of wedding bell blues, marital
separations & fractured families. That's what has motivated us to develop the new preparing for marriage manual "NOW & FOREVER" & Leader's Guide.
"By
wisdom a house is built," says Proverbs,
"& thru understanding it is established; through knowledge its rooms are filled with rare and beautiful treasures" (24:3-4). A house is built on understanding & knowledge. And that's the purpose of "NOW & FOREVER". To build understanding
& knowledge by using marital inventories & communication exercises to help them discover the "beautiful treasures
of marriage."
1. National Center for Health for Health Statistics
2. M. McManus, MarriageSavers, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994)
What's Up
With Unconditional Love?
By Sam Stevens
To tell you the truth, I'm
a little disillusioned with the term unconditional love, lately. It's just not "natural". The phrase has been used for decades, by psychologists, therapists, A.A. types
& the overall spiritually minded to describe how one should cope with impossible behavior."
The original principle behind the concept, was to help the person who is being abused accept the circumstances & not have to live in a perpetual state of resentment towards their partner. You, as the codependent (i.e., the one who is always hurt) is supposed to see your partner as "sick" & not blame him or her for their actions.
You're supposed to love & care for the adulterer, batterer, gambler, manic depressive or alcoholic the same way you would someone who has the flu.
Husband comes home drunk? Sober him up with cups of black coffee & a dose of your eternally burning, unconditional love.
Boyfriend unfaithful? That's O.k., because you have unconditional love for him that will last for an eternity.
Girlfriends rack up your credit cards again with her compulsive shopping? You'll take care of the bills because you're love for her is undying & unconditional & you've told yourself ""I'll always love her no matter what ...."
Those of us who have been there know that we can only comfort ourselves w/the concept of unconditional love for so long until the relationship becomes too expensive, emotionally, socially & financially. This
is often more serious then the kind of consequences we pay when someone is sick with "the flu."
Plus lately, after talking to many clients, many of whom are still paying in one way or another for the
irresponsible behavior of a full grown adult, I'm starting to conclude that when the person w/the "ism" or "recently diagnosed personality
disorder" is on to us then out comes the term unconditional love.
If we say no or object to the behavior, he or she can always turn around & go "but I thought you said your love was me was unconditional!!!"
This puts us on the defense because it implies that we are the ones who are unloving & unlovable. I think the appropriate response is "well then why don't you go out & find someone who will agree to co-sign your
B.S.!!'" If they're A.A. trained they'll probably snap back with "that's what you get for having expectations or preferences of me...you know I'm sick!"
I think love is conditional. One of those conditions is "trust." If you have unconditional love for someone, it's implicit you don't trust them, especially if you've condemned yourself to a lifetime of loving him or her "no matter what."
Love is a natural thing, like a flower, that one should expect to bloom & it's o.k. to be disappointed if it doesn't. The nature of love is to grow, compound & multiply & not destroy. The next time you fall in love, put terms & conditions on it & demand a 200% return on your investment. It's your precious energy!
Sam Steven's metaphysical articles have been published in many high-standing newspapers & she has published
several books. You can meet Sam Stevens at http://www.psychicrealm.com where she works as a professional psychic. You can
also read more of her articles at http://www.newagenotebook.com where she is the staff writer. Currently she
is studying technology's impact on the metaphysics. Article
Source: http://EzineArticles.com/
|
 |
|
disillusioned with religion?
Growing Up
in a Religion of Hate
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
Religion has always been an important part of my life. When I look back at my religious upbringing, though & ponder about the way it was, I often
think about the way it could have been. Not because I was brought up in a religious home, but because I was brought up in a certain
religion.
I was taught by my religion to do what was right by being, in short, scared to death. Threats that I would "not survive Armageddon,"
fear & an endless stream of "thou shalt nots" were my steady diet. I was taught even as a child that I was evil by nature, born in sin & surrounded by an evil world whose only purpose was to corrupt me (& my major purpose in life was to resist that corruption).
Aside from the normal childhood fears, Jehovah's Witnesses have several unusual fears. i.e., we feared that someone would try to instill patriotism in us by forcing us to salute the flag, or would try to cause us
to lose our everlasting life by giving us a blood transfusion when we were ill, or tempt us with a birthday or Christmas present.
The acceptance of these was a dastardly sin tantamount to fornication with the harlot & we were taught Babylon the Great
was where Christmas, birthdays & medical use of blood came from. The world, we believed, was just waiting to persecute "us" for no other reason than "we" (& only we) were
"God's chosen people."
Then there was the fear that someone of the "world" would try to be our friend. Don't the Scriptures say "Bad associations spoil useful
habits?" As all non-Witnesses were "of the world," I stayed as far away as I could from worldly people, which included most
all persons around me.
I was warned: "Those worldly people may seem like nice people, but their hearts are evil because they don't love Jehovah." We were also taught that Witnesses too were far from perfect & that "wolves in sheep's clothing were among us." As a result, I feared both the faithful on the inside & all of those on the outside.
I learned very early to conform, even to minor aspects of Watchtower teaching, such as dress, because I knew I would
be shunned, avoided, gossiped about, or even disfellowshipped if I did not. And the threat of formal disfellowshipping constantly loomed before every faithful Witness.
This pronouncement meant that one was spiritually dead, doomed to the Second Death, a fate so horrible that the very
speech of the disfellowshipped was poison. Those who were pure were to even avoid talking with a disfellowshipped person & were never to discuss spiritual things with outcasts - including
outcasts in one's own family.
One could talk to ministers of religion (who
were the worst of humankind, we were taught), before
one could talk to a disfellowshipped person!
These fears, on top of the normal fears every child has - that germs would make me sick, that a dog could bite me, that my friends may reject me & my parents may spank me, were all small compared to what we felt was the worst fear - the horror of the any day now Armageddon.
And even though I was a member of God's organization & therefore, had a passport thru this horrendous battle, I
would survive only if I remained faithful to our bible, the Watchtower Talmud. Vivid thoughts of the slaughter of the mass of humanity were a horror that once kept me awake many a night.
Seeing the enemy - which was most of humankind - ravaged with diseases or torn from limb to limb, caused scores of vivid
nightmares. Even if it was only the "evil" worldly persons that were to be destroyed, this idea was something a small boy
had difficulty understanding. An enemy - any enemy
- is a concept a child who hasn't yet learned to hate has difficulty comprehending.
Assured that membership in & faithfulness to, the true organization would save me, I trudged from door-to-door selling Watchtower literature & calling
myself a minister at age 8. The hate I was often told that the world had of "us" was driven home one day in my door-to-door work when a man with
a shotgun ran out of the house screaming at me, a skinny 9-year-old, for being unpatriotic.
I didn't know what unpatriotic meant, but I knew that I should run & run I did. To be persecuted for God's name,
the brothers told me later, was an honor. It felt good to be persecuted for God, but it still scared me to death & I never got used to this nasty habit of worldly persons.
I was also constantly in fear of the fact that if I didn't do a lot of things I didn't seem able to do very well (nor did I find many other Witnesses doing them) & if I did certain other things everybody else seemed to be doing, I'd suffer that merciless
destruction along with almost everybody else at the very real end of the world which was forever "just around the corner."
I was taught that God is a deity of wrath & vengeance is His. The Watchtower quoted verse after verse from the Bible
convincing me that anything less than full & complete conformity to their rules meant an awful untimely death. The Watchtower
gleefully reminded us of the many Bible examples that proved God meant business. He smote 20,000 Amalakites here, 40,000 Israelites
there & another 30,000 Canaanites a page later. God was good at smiting & would smite us too if we didn't conform to the Watchtower's every rule.
Aside from fearing a few unusual things like birthday cakes, missing meetings & letting our mind wander during a Watchtower
lesson, we worried about the snare of materialism & the tentacles of toying w/ immorality, which included holding hands
& all the horrendous woe it brings.
This woe included things like syphilis, brain damage, paralysis & other maladies that didn't seem so fearful compared to God's judgment. We even feared failing to keep up w/the ever changing theocratic terminology & avoiding such dastardly sinful words as "luck," "bulletin board," & "gesundheit."
I was also afraid of the more normal things including snakes, thunderstorms, botulism & it seemed, almost everything else
in the universe. On top of all that, I was bombarded daily w/the evil machinations of Satan, a spirit creature who was even
more powerful than the angels & whose sole purpose, I was told, was to mislead us. Did we stand a chance?
Consequently, I spent the first 20 years or so of my life solemnly thinking, "What's the use? If this dreadful thing doesn't get me some other dreadful thing will." Although the intentions
of those indulging in this scary chatter were of the finest gold, mostly accomplished scaring me half to death, lowering even further my already low opinion of myself as a Witness.
One becomes aware of more things when growing older & one thing I learned was that, except for many of the nominal, less committed Witnesses, many were extremely unhappy people. With iron-tight logic the Witnesses had what they felt was a perfect answer for this obvious reality:
Satan's goal is to mislead everyone.
And as he has mislead everyone except Jehovah's Witnesses (remember, all non-Witnesses are of Satan), Satan must make all non-Witnesses very happy - after all, they are on his side & are in his organization!
Conversely, it's also Satan's goal to make all of Jehovah's Witnesses miserable: since Satan is the ruler of this system of things & is going to try his damnedest to mislead everyone he
can, he'll try to make Jehovah's Witnesses miserable to get them out of God's organization.
The greatest proof of all that we are God's true organization, the brothers told us, was that we are all miserable (because we were persecuted,
many claimed) & most everybody else was happy! How could I argue w/this logic?
When I look at my inability to see much bad, either in myself or in others & think about my extreme shyness, I vividly see what this religion has done to me. I really believe that if I'd been given a happy, peaceful, courageous childhood & had been told that God loved me & would protect me, I'd have been much further along.
If the loving quality of God was emphasized instead of the vengeful side, if the kind words of Jesus, the extreme patience of God & the sacrifice of my fellow humans for me were all emphasized, I could have had years of genuine happiness instead of what seemed like centuries of anxiety.
But the past is gone & can't be changed. Hence, for the rest of my life, I shall probably wear the war bonnet &
carry a poisoned spear ready in a moment to fight imagined enemies. This is the residual left over from the Watchtower teaching
of hate still left in me for my fellow humans & myself.
This is the life of one raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
My Background
I became a Witness because much of my immediate family - my mother, two aunts as well as many of my cousins - converted.
My mother started studying in the mid 1950's & I was, at first, somewhat unwillingly taken along to Witness meetings.
I remember how enormously bored I was sitting for 2 hours trying to listen to long monotone lectures that I couldn't follow, not unexpected for a 9 year old. The Witnesses then met above
a window sash store & sat on folding chairs. The Kingdom Hall was in Berkeley, Michigan & we lived in Royal Oak, about
a mile away. My mother, brother & myself attended regularly there until the congregation moved into a first story store
front building.
In the first Kingdom Hall I went to we usually sat on the north side by the windows. There I could look outside &
read the marquee on a movie theater across the street - typically I read it over & over. I somehow picked up the Watchtower
doctrine anyway, although mostly because of my own voracious reading (I typically found it very difficult to listen at Watchtower meetings, even 20 years later).
I also used to sit in my mother's "home Bible study" w/a Witness - typically only towards the end of the study when I
arrived home from school. Finding these sessions much more interesting, I often asked the person who studied w/my mother many
questions. I was at this time still close to a normal young lad interested in giving puppet shows, watching television, collecting
things & involving myself in other activities common to youth.
All of this was soon to change.
Always a religious person, I remember when I was sitting in a Catholic church at around age 6 & my mind kept wondering.
I still can vividly picture the basement full of people in chairs & the drain pipes w/the thick white, probably asbestos,
insulation around them. I can no longer remember what the meeting was about except that I kept thinking that my mind shouldn't
wonder because this is God's house & I should listen. Later, when I began to research the Watchtower doctrines (what I now realize was a superficial investigation, mostly in high school), I became convinced that their doctrines were valid.
The Watchtower claimed that Christmas was full of pagan elements & that Christ wasn't born on December 25. I queried
the people around me, mostly my age peers, many of whom assumed that Christ was born on December 25 & concluded that other
aspects of my beliefs were wrong. I looked this topic up in several encyclopedias & found that the Watchtower Society was evidently
correct on these points (many people don't
realize that Christ was likely not born on December 25 & that Christmas does involve many pagan elements).
Since my research confirmed scores of things that the Watchtower taught, I concluded that they were correct in all other
matters. Of course, young people hold many common assumptions which I learned from the Watchtower weren't quite true. I recognize today that I then had only a little knowledge & only a small part of the story.
As far back as I can remember, I had a difficult time accepting the horrible violence in the world. The Watchtower's teaching in this area strongly supported my own perceptions. In college I read several books on early Christianity,
including one by Roland H. Bainton & learned that the early church's teachings in some areas, such as on war, seemed to
be closer to the Watchtower than what I assumed that the churches taught.
By this time I was faithfully reading the Watchtower publications, endeavoring to becoming more knowledgeable about Watchtower theology. The
reaction of non-Witnesses to my Watchtower idiosyncrasies wasn't always very kind & sometimes down right cruel.
In my mind this only reinforced the Watchtower theology, proving that we were persecuted & thus, must have the truth. Sociologists have found that persecution often reinforces
the beliefs of those persecuted, as it often does w/Witnesses today.
The earliest incident of persecution that I can remember was in third grade. We were all required to salute the flag
& I steadfastly refused to stand & recite "Satan's words."
Almost immediately I was forced into a confrontation w/the teacher. After being thrown against the wall, I was called
a communist & other things that I then had no knowledge about. From that point on, school was for me largely hell. Throughout
most of my school career I was a gung-ho Witness & witnessed to everyone every chance I got.
Further, I didn't think much of drinking, profanity, smoking, telling dirty stories, promiscuity, cheating, involvement
in petty theft & numerous other activities common to my peers, all which reinforced the religious label.
In time I became known in school as "Bible Bergman." This wasn't all bad: whenever one of my peers had a question about
religion, they looked me up. Both respect & derision coexisted: some kids used to taunt me because I was "religious" for the reason that they felt
I must, consequently, be a prude, not fun-loving (& the numerous other labels that went along with the stereotype).
By junior high school, I had become more used to the persecution & besides, I knew that I wasn't permitted to have
worldly friends & remain in Jehovah's organization in good standing (something I wanted to do very much, especially in my junior high to college years).
One Witness high school friend who was raised around the Witnesses was less committed than I. He eventually left, but I remember he was continually trying to get around the long list of rules that
his parents & the Watchtower established.
They were somewhat wealthy, at least compared to congregational standards: his father was an engineer for a firm owned
by Witnesses, also somewhat unusual. Mostly because of this firm, the congregation I went to was known as an elite Kingdom
Hall.
The question, "Was I happy as a Witness?" can be answered both yes & no. I felt tremendously positive about my beliefs & being part of a growing, advancing organization that held all of the answers to all of the world's problems.
I truly believed that if everyone was a committed Jehovah's Witness, there would be few problems anywhere in the world.
They had the only answer to all the strife & evil that I saw around me. The fact that Jehovah's Witness in America
didn't war against Germany, nor those in Germany against America, was tremendously reassuring to me that the Watchtower was
correct. Over & over I was told that there would have been no World War II if there had been enough Jehovah's Witnesses
in each country.
The fact that I was a second generation German Finnish American (my father's parents were both born in Finland) may have played a part in this - but then I felt the same way about Japan as well. I saw war then &
still see it today, as horribly irrational & couldn't understand how any civilized
society - especially Germany, one of the most advanced, educated & civilized societies in the world - could advocate such
barbaric behavior.
The fact that Catholic & Lutheran Christians in America & Germany fought valiantly against each other was most
disquieting. Of course, I was then not fully aware of the many peace churches or all of the enormous efforts that other denominations put forth in order to reduce the war problem.
In the Watchtower, I felt a very strong purpose in life serving God. To be able to defend the Watchtower - one of my chief goals was to become an apologist for them - I desired to learn as much as I could. I was very happy to serve only as a local apologist as long as I could have a part, however small.
Thus, in high school I developed a voracious appetite for Watchtower publications, religiously reading each issue &
involving myself enthusiastically in the door-to-door work, endeavoring to defend their doctrines to all I met. I was constantly witnessing to my fellow students, teachers & workmates &
all that would hear me (& a few that would
not).
I eventually developed much skill & could argue almost any point to help spread what I firmly believed was the answer to the world's problems. Unfortunately, as I now realize, winning arguments isn't the same as
winning souls.
It soon became blatantly obvious that much of what the Watchtower did was self-defeating - their discouraging education & Witness involvement in research & publication did an enormous amount to hurt them.
I knew critics pointed out that we were a lower class religion w/the lowest level of education of most all American sects
(see Kosmin & Lackman, 1993). Since very few Jehovah's Witnesses were well educated, few had
positions of responsibility (& even fewer could adequately defend their doctrines & beliefs against someone who had a good Bible knowledge).
I concluded if the Watchtower was truly concerned about the brothers "falling away from the truth" by going to college, they would establish their own colleges & stress education much more, not less.
They should also produce far more scholarly articles w/much more in depth information, especially about their history,
so that we could better defend ourselves against the barrage of attacks by our many critics. They were not very impressed w/my logic.
Many Watchtower opposers spent much time discussing the sins of Russell & Rutherford as well as the many skeletons
in the Watchtower's history. I felt that the Society should endeavor to educate the brothers about this history so they could
adequately respond to the criticisms & prove themselves w/out spot before Jehovah.
Furthermore, my studies helped me to become increasingly aware of the Society's past skeletons & I also found it increasingly difficult to defend them. I felt, though, that we had the truth & the society therefore could respond if they wanted to & I was totally at a loss as to explain why they didn't
seem to want to.
My bringing these questions to the attention of the brothers wasn't always very well received - something that baffled
me. I relished discussing both the Scriptures & how privileged we were to be part of the Watchtower, but soon discerned
that many didn't share my enthusiasm. I later realized that the Society couldn't respond to many of these concerns.
Many Witnesses went along with the Society somewhat perfunctorily & didn't share either the commitment or the enthusiasm that I did -fact I couldn't understand
then. When I picked up the friends to go out in service, often out of a whole extended household, only a couple of persons
would go w/me.
I felt very negative towards those who didn't enthusiastically participate in spreading the good news of God's kingdom. It was clear to me, as the Society taught 30 years
ago, that this was the best way one could spend time in "these last few months before Armageddon."
Nominal Witnesses also baffled me & I couldn't understand why everyone wasn't on fire for the truth
as I was. I now realize it was often the committed people like me, not nominal Witnesses, that more often became disillusioned.
Off To College
Feeling strongly that I could be of far more service to the Watchtower as an educated brother, I was very positive about college. Furthermore, it was allowed for me since my father wasn't a Witness & felt adamant about my going (my older
brother also completed his degree, but my younger brother,
who was raised totally in the Watchtower, didn't).
The Watchtower ruled that if one's father insisted on college, one should obey him while trying to convince him that
one strongly preferred to pioneer. If this fails, they taught that you should obey your father as long as you live under his roof.
Of course, the Society infers here that we should leave home & pioneer. I tried this for a while, but, ironically,
found this life rather depressing. Somehow, I felt that this wasn't the way to serve Jehovah & even the brothers said I looked haggard.
Although I enjoyed talking about my faith, I soon realized knocking on doors to intrude on the space of strangers was actually usually productive.
After a few months of basically wasting my time, I moved on. Although I enjoyed the missionary work, as a full-time
pioneer I rarely got into many in-depth conversations & was expected to have at least a couple of Bible studies, a goal that I rarely achieved.
I soon realized that there wasn't exactly a large number of middle-aged housewives - the most common householder - that
wanted a young, precocious, 18 year old single male to come to their house every week to study Watchtower publications w/them.
I was oriented far more to college students, or at least well read persons & the few studies I had were w/college students
or highly educated individuals.
The average householder didn't relate well w/either my scholarly orientation or my Watchtower message.
My first goal in college was to become a research scientist like my father. My enormous interest in science motivated me to study biology, chemistry & physics at college. This, though, I felt would be somewhat selfish & since I already felt guilty about attending college, I concluded that I should at least take courses that would help me become a better
Witness.
Thus, I studied history, Greek, psychology & other areas that would facilitate my serving the Watchtower better.
I was also at this time becoming more & more aware of the psychological problems among the Witnesses & consequently, decided to pursue psychology rather than
my first love, the hard sciences.
The congregation I attended was probably one of the best educated in the state (actually only a few brothers there had been to college, but this was unusual in
the Witnesses) & thus were fairly supportive. Conversely, most other Witnesses weren't very happy w/my "choice" of college. I was at this time interested in marriage & although we couldn't date, I did visit
some sisters' parents & many made it very clear that they wanted me to have nothing to do w/their daughter because I was
a college student & not a pioneer.
Every "good" Witness family wanted their daughter to marry a pioneer. They didn't seem to worry about such things as
how a pioneer would support their daughter. Why should
they? We were sure that Armageddon would arrive any day.
I have always strongly felt that the Society - if they were right - should confront their critics & decisively prove
them wrong w/irrefutable evidence. This is the role of an apologist & this is the role I felt that I could serve. There were few people that I encountered that could effectively
show me I was wrong - I could defend the Society from almost any charge & I thought my defense was effective.
In the end, it was not Watchtower critics that caused me to leave, but the Watchtower's often self-defeating behavior.
The Watchtower's policy is that Witnesses should "destroy apostate material" (March 15, 1986, Watchtower, p. 12). My belief was that we should study & refute it. What if these arguments came up in the field service (& sooner or later they likely would)? Is it wrong to refute them then?
If so, why is it wrong to refute them when the arguments are in print & one can get a handle on the specific allegations?
Should we not be aware of all of the arguments against the truth
- all which I was sure were spurious & effectively be able to refute them?
If we had the truth, shouldn't the truth easily refute all challenges? Is this not what the Watchtower does in many of their articles? For example, in their booklet The Word, Who
Is He According to John? they bring up scores of the arguments that critics use against the Watchtower & they then try
to refute each one.
Of course, the governing body & writing staff can read all the apostate literature they want (I was shocked to discover the apostate book Thirty Years A Watchtower
Slave in the Bethel library - although it wasn't assessable w/out special permission).
Witnesses weren't even to "expose themselves to possible spiritual contamination by tuning in to religious radio &
television broadcasts" (Watchtower, March
15, 1986:19). Listening to all non-Witness religious information - which the Society collectively labels as false - "should be avoided
like poison" (p. 20).
The Society concludes that we can get all of the religious information we will ever need from the Watchtower publications
& we have no reason to "look anywhere else."
The control of all information by the Society was so complete that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't even to circulate "private
material on matters such as medical or counseling services" (Sept. 1987, Our Kingdom Ministry, p. 4). Conversely,
Witnesses were to be docile - teachable is the word they use & staidly accept Watchtower words verbatim.
When I looked into other religious sects - some quite intently - I found even those as strict as the Moonies could go
to college or even read anti-Moon literature w/impunity. On the bulletin board in their seminary I noted numerous articles
critical of them which they felt confident that they could refute & weren't overtly bothered by the propaganda against their church.
Likewise, the Mormons publish numerous journals in which Mormons couldn't only discuss religious matters, but critique
the church. Indeed, I was able to find no other organization that exercised such an incredibly complete totalitarian autocratic thought control on their members.
In reading articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, I noted a number of commentators concluded that the
reason the Witnesses had so many problems w/the Nazis was because they were so much like them - except that the Nazis allowed
more freedom than the Watchtower.
The Nazis allowed most literature not printed by the Nazi government, although if one was an open Nazi agitator, obviously
problems often ensued. Nonetheless, more rigidity exists in the Watchtower today than in the Nazi totalitarianism of the 1930's.
Ironically, the very people that the Watchtower alienated by these self-defeating tactics were the very ones they needed as capable apologists. And they often alienated their most capable apologists & thinkers such as Greg Stafford, Richard Rawe & Chris Christenson.
In my experience, those who deliberately left were often the more devout, more committed & loyal Witnesses who lived more fully all of the Watchtower's dictates & lifestyle requirements. Those
who stayed were often the less committed or more narrow minded - those who had the attitude "if the Watchtower says it, that settles it."
A well known conversation that occurred at Bethel among the writing staff was that "they could argue all they wanted
about doctrine, but when it came out of Knorr's office, it was fact & they must accept it."
Another common saying is that "if the Watchtower asked me to commit suicide today, I would unhesitatingly ask them what
means I should use." This cravat is always followed by "of course, the Society would never ask us to do this, but if they
did, I would be willing, just as Isaac was willing to sacrifice his son at a moment's notice when Jehovah commanded it."
The fact is, the Watchtower does ask their followers to commit suicide & hundreds of thousands have obeyed their
irrational bans on blood, organ-transplants & vaccines & have died because of conflicts w/the governments in Malawi, Nazi Germany, Argentina, Canada, China & elsewhere due to the Watchtower's unreasonable intransigence & inhumanity.
My Marriage
When I married on June 20, 1970 I was teaching high school science, then elementary school. I later obtained a position
doing psychological research for the circuit court for several years. After the grant I worked under expired, I completed
my doctorate in the area of research, although most of my course work was in psychology.
In 1973 I obtained a position as a professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. After I moved down to Bowling
Green w/my wife & young child, Aeron (who
graduated w/honors from Michigan State University in 1994)
the congregation there discovered that I was teaching in the psychology area & I was soon swamped w/requests for help.
For the first time, I vividly realized both the high level & seriousness of the emotional problems in the Jehovah's
Witnesses. I was soon dealing w/serious mental problems of every type (many of the cases I worked w/then are documented in my book on Witnesses & mental health).
It also became apparent that the Watchtower Society & their official representatives were horribly incompetent in
dealing w/these problems & when they asked for help, the local elders often did more harm than good.
In the congregations that I served, I became aware that as many as 20% of Witnesses had mental problems including depression, abnormal fears & general unhappiness. When I talked to others to determine if my experience was atypical, I found out that
it wasn't.
It thus became apparent that the mental illness rate was clearly high - as much as 5 to 10 times above the average middle
class church going population. When I first became aware of this fact, I tried to tactfully present the information to the Watchtower.
The Society's response was cold, stern & unequivocal - "it's our organization & we're going to run it the way
we want to & further, we resent you pointing out what you think is a concern: if Jehovah wanted his organization to be different, He would make it different."
I was told that I was both presumptuous & showed a lack of submission to Jehovah's loving mother organization in
daring to point out that there was room for improvement. God's organization was perfect, they believed, although most admitted that those who ran it were not.
Expectedly, this response pushed me further outside of "God's organization" - which made many Witnesses happy. God's
organization has no place, they told me, for one who is filled w/ worldly wisdom & thinks that some of the answers are
in the "foolish wisdom" of psychology.
All of the answers to mental health concerns, I was told over & over, were found only in God's organization. The universal solution to every problem
was to pray, study & go out in service more - not to listen to worldly advise from some psychologist or even medical doctor.
When I finally published some of the preliminary results of my research on Witnesses & mental health in 1977, I
used a pseudonym & was eventually found out & in time was forced to leave, even though the purpose of my article was
simply to point out that the Watchtower had a flat tire that needed fixing. I experienced the classic case of the messenger
being condemned because of bringing an unwelcomed message.
I wasn't as accepted at my new congregation as in my hometown of Royal Oak where I served the congregation as an assistant overseer,
ministry school overseer & book study conductor. I was never appointed to a position in Bowling Green, partly because
the elders simply couldn't accept someone who was a college professor, especially someone w/a background in psychology.
I often wonder, if I still lived in the Detroit area, would I still be involved in the Watchtower? The enormously negative
reaction that I experienced at the Bowling Green Congregation rapidly drove me away from the Watchtower even more. I soon
began an in-depth study on questions such as the Witness mental health problems. I decided to spend some time w/an old "friend,"
lawyer Hayden Covington, a former Vice-President of the Watchtower Society, to learn more about their history.
What I learned more than just upset me, it revolted me. My whole ship of salvation was now rapidly sinking, causing
me enormous depression. Every door of knowledge about them that I opened now revealed a gapping hole in the Watchtower Ark,
eventually forcing me to bail out.
Although I did not formally resign until 1980 (it took me that long before I could formally sever my ties with the organization) by 1974 I was totally disillusioned w/the Watchtower.
I was a committed Witness for over 20 years, although I wasn't baptized until 1960 when I was about 15. My involvement was from
the middle 1950's until the middle 1970's & in 1975 I experienced the final straw that broke the camels back. My knowledge
of the Watchtower's past prophesy failures led me to conclude that they shouldn't stick their neck out again w/1975.
Consequently, I openly stated that Armageddon may not come in 1975 & we may end up in trouble again if we put our
faith in a date. I was openly criticized for this view & some roundly condemned me as lacking faith in Jehovah's organization.
Many Witnesses felt very strongly that 1975 was the last possible date for Armageddon & it'll likely occur before
this long looked forward to year. Most Witnesses simply went along w/the Society inspired flow, seemingly oblivious to all
of the concerns date setting involved.
When
the 1975 kingdom deadline came & went, it became clear to me (& about a million other Witnesses) that the Society was
simply wrong again. I also felt disappointed in their blatant dishonesty when the Watchtower tried to put the blame on the brothers - claiming it was they that were too about a date, not the Watchtower. In fact, the Watchtower never once before 1975 that I was aware of cautioned us about this so-called "speculation by the brothers" (or over enthusiasm, as some described it) which the Watchtower later condemned.
Many realized that the problem was fully in the lap of the Watchtower, but many also felt frustrated trying to interact
rationally w/them. Realizing the ark of salvation I was in had gaping holes wasn't only depressing, but caused enormous guilt
over the lives wasted & people misled.
The Watchtower not only didn't live up to what they claimed they were - many not only failed to receive help from within
the congregation, but also typically experienced much discouragement over the Watchtower behavior that was counter productive.
Many Witnesses felt extremely ambivalent about the organization, but very few openly questioned most major beliefs as the trinity, hellfire, or many other doctrines. Actually, their doctrine is what kept many in the Watchtower.
It was almost always the organization that caused problems, especially the inhumanity exhibited by the elders & their
behavior (which many Witnesses saw as ego
trips).
Many (although not all) were simply trying to satisfy their own selfish needs for status & weren't
truly concerned about the congregation or the needs of the brothers & sisters. Many loyal Witnesses spoke well of the organization,
but poorly (or at least had many doubts) about the local brothers.
They often believed that the Watchtower was perfect, only its members & leaders were not. This created enormous approach-avoidance
conflicts - many Witnesses simultaneously both loved & hated the Watchtower.
In my case, the higher the level Watchtower official that I associated with, the more thoroughly disillusioned I became w/the entire Watchtower Society. Several Watchtower magazine writing assignments allowed me
to have contact w/the area of the Society that was closest to God: the writing staff, which many of us presumed had a hotline to Heaven.
We knew the line had static at times & a revelation didn't always come thru crystal clear, but they had the right
extension & we didn't even have access to the phone. As time went on, when I realized that they didn't have the right
extension either (& no one was even on
the other end) it became apparent that the Watchtower
was a sham.
If the Watchtower simply claimed to be a group of sincere Christians who were endeavoring to understand the Scriptures,
I could accept the imperfections I found. But, they claimed to be nothing less than God's only organization of such perfection
that no group in history has lived up to the Watchtower's claims for themselves. The Israelites - everyone from their leaders
on down - repeatedly sinned & fell short of God's perfect standards.
The Watchtower Society, or so they claim today, has not sinned & rejected God, but maintained loyalty throughout
their entire history. If they would condemn their past & their leaders - as the Scriptures & especially Christ's words
condemned Israelite's past & leaders - I could accept the parallel better. This parallel, though, was never made.
They claimed to be an organization of such perfection & intimacy w/God that no organization or human in history,
even Moses or the Apostles, could compare w/it.
When I was active as a Witness, I experienced many Witnesses manifest what I then considered agape love. Indeed, I often
bragged that Witnesses proved themselves God's people by the love they displayed among themselves.
In 1978, a century record-breaking snowstorm hit parts of the Midwestern United States & traffic was stopped for
miles. Thousands of people were stranded w/out food, water or warmth & some even died.
The Witnesses traveling then knew, if they called the local Kingdom Hall, that they would be given food & shelter
until the storm was over. I was living in Bowling Green when several brethren got stranded. They called our Kingdom Hall &
the brothers went out w/their four-wheel drive Jeeps to pick them up & drop them off at the various homes of the brothers
in our area.
We had two families stay w/us, a Black couple from Detroit & a white family from Findlay. They were our guests &
we were proud to have them, even though they were strangers from elsewhere. As a Jehovah's Witness, though, our house was
theirs.
Another similar incident occurred when I traveled to Europe w/the university in 1968. The about 3 month journey took
us to two dozen European cities. At each one, I'd look up the local Kingdom Hall, call the brothers - many were polyglot &
within a short time had a first class chauffeured personal tour of the city. Most of my colleagues spent their time traipsing
around as obvious tourists while I spent
mine living among the natives, gaining friends, some whom I'm still in
contact w/today.
Unfortunately,
this love turns to hate once one begins to question the Witness's god, the Watchtower Society. When I left them, I could no longer talk to many relatives,
most of my friends & even my own mother (although
some of my relatives violated this rule & it changed back & forth so much that whether I could talk to somebody depended
upon the date).
The
Society teaches that one should hate, detest & loath those who leave the Society. Anyone who leaves for almost any reason, aside from adultery or a criminal
offense & has difficulty w/some doctrinal point no matter how minor is called an apostate.
In
the most recent article on how & who to hate, the October 1, 1993 Watchtower (p. 19), states that "true Christians ... aren't curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they 'feel a loathing' towards those who have" left or are critical of some aspect
of Watchtower policy. One isn't to criticize the Watchtower or one is liable to be labeled an apostate.
The
Watchtower concludes their cacophony of hate & fear by cautioning Witnesses to "leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance" a comment likely motivated by the hatred expressed by Witnesses against those who have left. The Watchtower realizes that if their members are caught maiming, or
burning the houses or destroying the property of ex-Witnesses, this may reflect poorly upon the Watchtower Society.
One
wouldn't be surprised that this happens, though, in that the Society teaches "a Christian must hate" those who are critical of the Watchtower.
Having
been involved in about 100 litigation cases typically involving a Witness & a non-Witness where custody or alimony was
at issue, I came to realize the enormous amount of harm that the Witness teaching of hate produces. Conflicts are normally acerbated in a divorce, but the pure hate that came from the Watchtower followers was blatant & vicious.
The
Scriptures teach that one should love one's enemies & these people weren't even enemies, many weren't even Witnesses.
They just couldn't stomach the Watchtower & thus would be considered Watchtower enemies.
Those
who claim to follow the Bible are to love them, but they anything but loved them & commonly openly lied in court according to the court's definition requiring "the whole truth & nothing but the truth" - if they felt
it may be helpful to gain an advantage in court.
In my family, the Watchtower caused the divorce of my own parents, many cousins, my own divorce & the divorces of
many of those that I grew up with. Indeed, it has become more & more apparent that the Watchtower leaders are actually
"apostles of hate."
No small number of Watchtower articles have pushed the need to hate all those that are critical of the Watchtower or don't accept every edict that the Watchtower hands down. Often
people drift away from the Society & end up disfellowshipped for such "sins" as being married in a church, celebrating
birthdays or similar & once disfellowshipped, after they experience the venom of Watchtower followers they realize the
organization's true nature.
They then often change from a mild critic to an active opposer & become involved in the many groups that are now
actively working against the Watchtower's sins. The focus of these groups is often a concern for others that comes from an awareness of the harm that the Watchtower Society has caused in their own lives & in the lives of many persons around
them.
The harm is sometimes so severe that suicide, homicide, or even mass murder can result. The horror stories & mental
anguish of people involved in the Watchtower because of this hate abounds, as I've documented in my book Jehovah's Witness & the Problem of Mental Health (Clayton, CA: Witnesses, Inc., 1990).
As disciples of hate, the Watchtower doesn't use New Testament Scriptures to support this teaching, but relies upon scriptures such
as Psalms 139:21, 22, which states "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, Oh Jehovah & do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies."
Of course this Scripture was referring in this case to those who "intensely hated God" not the Watchtower (Watchtower,
October 1, 1993:19). The Watchtower, though, teaches
that anyone who disagrees w/them, even on minor points, is included among those "who show their hatred of Jehovah by revolting against him."
An apostate in the Watchtower's eyes even includes someone who feels it's appropriate to accept a Christmas present
from one's parents, or deviates in other minor ways from the rigid Watchtower dogma. Since to Witnesses the Watchtower organization
is close to synonymous w/Jehovah, those who don't completely obey it are labeled by the Watchtower as haters of God.
They thus are to be hated by all of Jehovah's Witnesses on pain of disfellowshipping.
An interesting experience is that of David Reed, an ex-Witness who for years published a paper titled Comments From
the Friends. His early writing "didn't make any radical departure from Watchtower teaching on doctrinal matters" (Comments From the Friends, Winter 1988, p. 3).
As he & his wife returned home from a Bible study, two elders "accosted" them on the sidewalk in front of their
home, demanding to know if they "planned to publish another issue." Reed then asked specifically what they printed that was
inappropriate or objectionable.
The elders answered that they couldn't discuss content, but were dispatched only to find out if Reed planned to publish
again. He replied in the affirmative & a few days later, a judicial committee tried (& found guilty) both Reed & his wife in absentia.
Presumably, in the New World all printing presses, fax machines, newspapers & books will be totally controlled &d only that officially approved by the Watchtower Society will be allowed. A George Orwellian 1984
will be established by them that far exceeds even the Orwellian nightmare.
Admittedly, I'm not aware of Witnesses who got into trouble publishing books on computers or in technical areas, but I know of none who
have produced works in this area either - the Watchtower's main area of concern seems to be religion, psychology, sociology, & especially the areas that directly impinge on the Watchtower's
teaching (which is most of history, science,
literature & the humanities in general).
When I became acquainted w/other prominent Witnesses, including Raymond Franz, Hayden Covington & several writing
staff members who are now still involved in the organization (thus it would be prudent not to reveal their names) I was appalled by their lack of knowledge of the Society's history.
Even Hayden Covington, although he had an intimate knowledge of the court cases he was involved in, possessed little
knowledge of the momentous events of Russell's day & the development of Watchtower doctrine. His knowledge of doctrine
was only average, a tragedy considering that he was at one time vice president of the Watchtower & would be expected to be an oracle of the truth &
a fountain of scriptural knowledge.
A major concern that got me into much trouble w/the Watchtower was my research on the mental health problems of the Witnesses.
After it was quite clear that this was a serious problem, I discussed it w/the Watchtower officials. I was told not to discuss
it openly, for if it was true (which they
acknowledged it probably was) it wouldn't reflect positively on "God's organization."
Furthermore, they argued that much of the blame for this problem was due to the pressure of being a Witness in a hostile world & the pressures to keep the Watchtower standards relative to immorality, dishonesty, crime & related in a world all around us that's filled w/ such behavior.
This was no doubt part of the problem, but much of it was due to the Watchtower themselves. They acknowledged that mental health was probably a major issue, but that Armageddon was so close that it didn't matter. If the
Watchtower policy caused someone to suffer mentally, it must be put in perspective: the Watchtower would give them everlasting
life & thus, the suffering now wouldn't be a long term consequence.
This argument wasn't totally unreasonable if Armageddon would have come before 1975. The fact is that it didn't &
there are now possibly a million dissidents, many of them very bitter at the Watchtower. Furthermore, experiences such as w/the Watchtower effect one profoundly throughout life.
Unless God were to wipe away this experience, or somehow negate it, it would effect life forever on Earth & in Heaven.
In my experience, only a commitment to Christ has been able to cause the total mental conversion necessary in order to leave the past behind &
focus on the future. The past is still there, of course & still has a profound effect on the future, but w/conversion
the past is far more controllable, far more settled & much less detrimental to the future.
My disenchantment w/the Society actually developed very slowly. Even several years after I left, I still felt very positive about the Watchtower & their ideals. Probably one of my most devastating experiences involved testifying in American courts. It was this, probably more than any other single experience,
that caused me to shift my position from neutrality in social areas at least to recognizing
| |
