What would James Dobson do? [Christian Discussion]

[Family Court Strategies: When Your Partner Has BPD OR NPD Traits.]

Enabler has "left all the goodies in the cage".

I think Dobson would recommend "removing the goodies."

I agree and she knows that the 'goodies' go with divorce... or she is slowly learning that they go. At the end of 2017 I think she thought they stayed... I informed her they don't stay.

"You can come and babysit round my house"
"No, why would you want me to do that since you have petitioned for divorce on the basis that I'm abusive to you and the kids, I will only look after the children in my own home"... as an example

[Enabler]

Enabler has "left all the goodies in the cage".

I think Dobson would recommend "removing the goodies."

I agree and she knows that the 'goodies' go with divorce... or she is slowly learning that they go. At the end of 2017 I think she thought they stayed... I informed her they don't stay.

"You can come and babysit round my house"
"No, why would you want me to do that since you have petitioned for divorce on the basis that I'm abusive to you and the kids, I will only look after the children in my own home"... as an example

[formflier]

That's a great book Notwendy and one that FF encouraged me to read several years ago. I re-read some of it recently. The one scenario that Dobson doesn't cover very well, if at all, is one where a married woman  WITH KIDS having an affair. He doesn't explain how the man "puts" his wife in the position where she will feel the full consequences of her choices without detrimental impacts on their children and himself.
 

I believe Dobson would say there will be detrimental impacts to wife, husband and children.  

I believe he would say that "enabling" bad behavior to minimize those impacts will "delay" some of those impacts and likely make them worse when those impacts show up (which will happen eventually).

Therefore, I believe Dobson would argue the "least" impact is to act sooner rather than later.

I see no easy choices.

Best,

FF

[formflier]

I agree and she knows that the 'goodies' go with divorce... or she is slowly learning that they go. At the end of 2017 I think she thought they stayed... I informed her they don't stay.
 

EXACTLY!

EXACTLY!

There is no benefit to her (that I see) to getting a divorce.

Net negative.

Nothing changes without changes.  Dobson recommends that the person being cheated on make changes to "force a choice".

You can't force which choice she makes, but you can force a choice.

1.  Repent.
2.  Leave the cage.

That's the essence of Dobson's book.

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

So things like emailing the counsellor yesterday to start discussions in Jan re telling the kids, removing unfettered access to finances, attending legal mediation and being prepared ‘showing her’ that the cage doesn’t exist, talking more openly about her departure from the cage = pushing her out the cage?

I think one of the other important things to manage is moving back further into the proverbial cage when it looks a bit scary. I see how I did that by allowing her to procrastinate between each of the divorce stages (although maybe I didn’t since I refused to allow her to skip steps like selling the house without divorce petition). The cannot be a move back into the cage without ‘repentance’ (not sure I like that word in this context).

[formflier]

So things like emailing the counsellor yesterday to start discussions in Jan re telling the kids, removing unfettered access to finances, attending legal mediation and being prepared ‘showing her’ that the cage doesn’t exist, talking more openly about her departure from the cage = pushing her out the cage?
 

No Enabler, that's not it

Do you really think Dobson would support "enabling" a pastor or any kind of church official in an affair/relationship that the church has told them to stop (the part about the church already telling them to stop is bonus)

For her to have a choice about repentance.

Basic message from Enabler to Enabler wife.

1.  You are sinning and the nice life we have "in the cage" is stopping by my choice in response to your sin.  By my choice I will bring in appropriate church leadership for accountability for you and my actions (important that both parties be treated equally)

2.  My desire is that you repent and take verifiable steps to reconcile our relationship and come back to the marital life we have in the cage.

3.  Should you not repent and reconcile, I will seek counsel from appropriate church leaders about how long before I push you out of the cage and how long I wait after that to slam the cage door.

I'm not aware of any story/example in Dobson's book where wrongdoing was keep secret.  That's very different than using discretion/wisdom.


Best,

FF

[formflier]

As I see it, there’s a debate here about confronting behavior that deviates from proscribed morality as defined by the church versus following a path that is likely to yield best results regarding custody in a legal battle.

Which is preferable? To achieve a moral victory and possibly lose favorable custody aims? Or to have a less-contested legal battle and have more access to the kids?

There appears to be a presumption in the prior post that "confronting" the behavior in question (affair) will result in a divorce battle.

I would challenge that presumption.

We simply don't know what choice Enabler's wife will make when forced, nor do we know what choice she will make if status quo remains.

Best,

FF

[once removed]

can we get a paragraph or so from dobson so that we stay grounded. we are talking abstractly about something that may not have been covered by him in his book or otherwise and even more abstractly, the biblical foundation.

i think there are practical aspects of this, beyond family court, that shouldn't be overlooked...

          1. regardless of what dobson has written, Enabler's church leaders may not have adopted that thinking.

2. Enabler's church leaders may be reluctant to get involved without the expressed consent of both husband and wife.

3. given the absence of a loving relationship for years, resistance by 1 or more partner and the claims of abuse and adultery, would the church likely push for reconciliation?

4. under any circumstance, would the church pass judgement on divorce or tell the mother to leave the home.

[formflier]

I'll try to find my book and snoop around.
The point of Enabler doing this and the church being involved is to heal the marriage.

Step 1 in that is to acknowledge the wound to the marriage and (in this and other instances) who is responsible for the wound.

If the person that caused the would is not willing or to be responsible for their actions, then it's essentially impossible to continue the healing process.

That may trigger other church processes, all of which are designed to "push" parties to reconcile and ultimately let consequences fall to those who will follow the process.

You are right, some churches don't fully participate in this.

Only one way to find out...ask and start.

Best,

FF

[Cat Familiar]

There appears to be a presumption in the prior post that "confronting" the behavior in question (affair) will result in a divorce battle.

I would challenge that presumption.

We simply don't know what choice Enabler's wife will make when forced, nor do we know what choice she will make if status quo remains.

The point of Enabler doing this and the church being involved is to heal the marriage.

Step 1 in that is to acknowledge the wound to the marriage and (in this and other instances) who is responsible for the wound.

If the person that caused the would is not willing or to be responsible for their actions, then it's essentially impossible to continue the healing process.

I like to look at what-ifs in terms of odds.

Knowing what we know about pwBPD and their repugnance about being accused of shameful behavior, and specifically about what Enabler has reported about his wife's behavior, what do you think the chances are that if confronted about violating a sacred law, that she would be pleasant and open to consider this perspective? What do you think the odds are that she will amp up conflict regarding the divorce?

Has Mrs. E shown any signs of wanting to repair the marriage? Or take responsibility for violating her oaths?

If confronted by her superiors in the church, do you think she'd be interested, motivated, desirous to return to her marriage with Enabler?

Though Enabler is fully aware in his professional life that past performance is not indicative of future results, there's some major consequences that come with betting on losing propositions in his personal life.

[Enabler]

And when you outright ask the local bishop after a church service what you should do and he says “sometimes these things just don’t work out and you have to get a divorce”... what confidence should I have that a church that know and love her are going to sit up and take note? The area Dean is also my local vicar (different church to W) and he’s followed the story for the last 3 years.

I wholeheartedly believe that your approach is the right moral Christian thing to do, I don’t know if it would yield what I want (to stay married), would be like a nuclear fuel rod to a likely divorce process... and frankly I’m not brave enough.

[Notwendy]

 and frankly I’m not brave enough.

I think this is one of the most insightful things you have said Enabler, and I think it is at the heart of your choices.

I would also take issue with a shame based approach to your wife, insisting she confess. While she is responsible for her actions, I also think that this would probably be too much to take for someone with BPD.

Personally, the focus on ourselves, what we do, not what they should do is more effective, as we can only control ourselves.

What Enabler is able to do is to stop enabling the affair, take the goodies out of the cage, let her contemplate the real life consequences of divorce- living on her own, single parenting, needing to get a sitter to go out. Even if her parents help with this, she still has to call them rather than just leave them with E. I think this is what Dr. D proposes. Also a reminder that sometimes the secular and the religious overlap. Dobson has a PhD in psychology. His advice is according to psychological ideas as well. To not enable is also an aspect of 12 step programs that also have a spiritual basis. Not all secular ideas are out of line with Dobson or religious principles.

Not enabling doesn't mean divorce. Even before a divorce, I assume there is a period of legal separation. If it got that far, she'd get an idea of what being on her own might be like, or if it became reality, she might have second thoughts. Or she might not. and that is very scary.

By keeping the goodies in the cage, she may be more reluctant to move on, or it may at least slow it down. There is security in this choice, being stuck in a holding pattern maybe, but the payoff is a sort of security that things are not moving fast. It is still possible to hope. The maybe she doesn't want a divorce statement reflects hope. Whether or not there actually is hope for the marriage,  I don't know. But this is not about morals, it's about fear. Basically at the heart of enabling behavior is a sort of fear, and hoping for things to be better.  Being aware of it is a big step.

[I Am Redeemed]

I like to look at what-ifs in terms of odds.

Knowing what we know about pwBPD and their repugnance about being accused of shameful behavior, and specifically about what Enabler has reported about his wife's behavior, what do you think the chances are that if confronted about violating a sacred law, that she would be pleasant and open to consider this perspective? What do you think the odds are that she will amp up conflict regarding the divorce?

Has Mrs. E shown any signs of wanting to repair the marriage? Or take responsibility for violating her oaths?

If confronted by her superiors in the church, do you think she'd be interested, motivated, desirous to return to her marriage with Enabler?

Though Enabler is fully aware in his professional life that past performance is not indicative of future results, there's some major consequences that come with betting on losing propositions in his personal life.

I'm in agreement with Cat on this. Repentance means to "turn away" from a sinful behavior. To do that, one must acknowledge the behavior/sin and agree that there needs to be a shift away from it.

When you are dealing people who make up rules in their own minds so that they can live in an alternate reality where an affair that causes emotional damage to two spouses and however many children is really a divinely endorsed "special friendship", I think the odds of any repentance are slim. Even if the entire church stood up and told them that they are sinning and must stop, I do not think it would do any good. Only the Holy Spirit can convict someone of their sin, and the heart must be open to that.

[formflier]

And when you outright ask the local bishop after a church service what you should do and he says “sometimes these things just don’t work out and you have to get a divorce”... what confidence should I have that a church that know and love her are going to sit up and take note? The area Dean is also my local vicar (different church to W) and he’s followed the story for the last 3 years.

 

When you asked him how that advice compared to God's word, or perhaps asked him how God's word informed his advice, (or some similar thing) what was his answer.

I would also hope you could appreciate that your situation is such that it's really not appropriate to take a comment after church as his "authoritative word" on your situation, vice a meeting where everyone is focused on the issue at hand, without other distractions.

I will say that anyone in the church making that comment, even in passing, is discouraging (at best).

Best,

FF

[Fian]

I have been writing a book on faith, so far focusing on examples of faith (mostly in the Old Testament).  What you often see is that when a person chooses to not have faith in God, they had very good reasons to make the unfaithful choice instead.  Unfortunately, their "smart" choices resulted in very bad results.

What I see a lot in these threads are attempts to predict the future based on how we think people may act.  Faith makes things simpler.  You are following the instructions of a super-intelligent being that can predict the future much better than you.  Your job is to determine what God is telling you to do, of which the Bible would be the primary source of truth.  Once you know what God is telling you to do, then it is a simple choice of faith.  Do you follow what God is saying, or do you do what seems best in your own eyes?

[formflier]

1) My Wife's morality with regards to acting on a pastoral team yet acting against pastoral advice in secret, acting immorally (Religious).
 

Shifting details of my response to this over to the thread on Dobson's book.

Cliff notes:  Break this into two parts.

1.  Wife's morality and actions.
2.  Enabler's reaction and actions in response.

Best,

FF

[formflier]

Shifting details of my response to this over to the thread on Dobson's book.

Cliff notes:  Break this into two parts.

1.  Wife's morality and actions.
2.  Enabler's reaction and actions in response.

Best,

FF

I'm going to try and find my Dobson book today (you can understand why I've hidden it away)  

Now..where did I hide it?

Best,

FF

[Enabler]

I'm going to try and find my Dobson book today (you can understand why I've hidden it away) 

I marked p101 (starts at the bottom paragraph) and stowed it in my bedside drawer where she 'might' find it.

[Fian]

The other thread was locked, so I don't know where else to post but here.  I take exception to the argument that your kids will be better off with divorced parents over watching them in a toxic marriage.  The damage to divorced children is well documented, and while there are certainly negatives to a toxic marriage for the children, it is my belief that normally the children are still better off.

I believe that is the reason why the Bible makes divorce so hard.  There is an inference to divorce being morally acceptable in the case of adultery, but that is it.  No others are given (unbelieving spouse wouldn't apply here).  I take this to mean that living in a difficult marriage is still better than leaving both for the spouses as well as the children.

If you want to get a divorce, do it because that is what you want.  Don't do it "for the children."  To prove my point, imagine telling your child that you were getting a divorce for their sake.  You wouldn't do it.  You would instead stress that this was a decision between you and their mom, and that they were in no way responsible for the marriage coming to an end.

[ct21218]

Fian, what about the example that is being modeled for the children in the present situation?  Enabler's wife is out with another man all the time and they are seeing their father tolerate this behavior and be emasculated.  The behavior that is being modeled is that extramarital relationships have zero consequences.

[Cat Familiar]

I’m a product of a toxic marriage. I remember my parents fighting. I have almost no memories of them being warm and loving with each other. I’ve now married two husbands with BPD.

ipso facto

[Fian]

Fian, what about the example that is being modeled for the children in the present situation?  Enabler's wife is out with another man all the time and they are seeing their father tolerate this behavior and be emasculated.  The behavior that is being modeled is that extramarital relationships have zero consequences.

What is being modeled is perseverance.  Turning the other cheek when you are wronged.  Frankly, this isn't about the kids.  To model "stand up for yourself" and "don't take bleep from anyone" are not Biblical virtues.

As for extramarital relationships having 0 consequences, I don't think that is the conclusion that Enabler's children will learn.  They will see how their mom's behavior destroyed the marriage.

Now having said this, the Bible does appear to give an out in the case of adultery.  I think Enabler has the option of walking away from the marriage without God's condemnation.  But that doesn't mean he has to.

[Fian]

I’m a product of a toxic marriage. I remember my parents fighting. I have almost no memories of them being warm and loving with each other. I’ve now married two husbands with BPD.

ipso facto

I am not saying that toxic marriages don't impact the children.  We don't know how your life would have turned out if your parents had divorced.  Here is a quick google search on divorce impact, there is plenty more:

https://www.separation.ca/blog/2017/may/effects-of-divorce-on-children/

• be less educated.
• experience poverty and/or socio-economic disadvantage.
• exhibit anti-social behavior as well as other behavioral problems.
• suffer from drug and/or alcohol addictions.
• get married or cohabit at an earlier age.
• become teenage parents or conceive a child outside of marriage, or
• experience separation and/or divorce themselves.

[Cat Familiar]

Out of the seven items on your list, I’ve experienced six.

Neither option, divorce or remaining in a toxic marriage is beneficial for children. Every individual must decide which is the least harmful option for their children.

My focus is bringing this discussion to bear upon their welfare. Adults can take care of themselves. Children need to be protected.

[Harri]

I take exception to the argument that your kids will be better off with divorced parents over watching them in a toxic marriage.

I'm not sure this is what has been advocated.

There is already a divorce in process and the wife has been in a 4 year relationship with another man and E and EW are at cold war. It looks like the divorce will drag on for some significant amount of time.

There were two suggestions.

One was to agree to adopt a "marriage of convenience", end the fighting and character assassination, don't tell the kids until later in the divorce process (not now as planned), and provide a peaceful home to the children during the divorce. Have a truce. Everyone get along including mom's friends.

The second one was to be more proactive in the divorce process so that it doesn't become a nuclear war and so that Enabler is not largely cut of his children's lives when all is said and done.

Right now they are fighting. Enabler and wife. Enabler and boyfriend. Boyfriend and boyfriends wife. The kids are in the middle. There is a smear campaign about Enabler. Enabler wants wife to repent before the children. They are planning to tell the kids about the divorce even though there are no dates, visitation schedule, or second homes to point to.

The question becomes, do you stay the course or do you make the best of a bad situation?

[ct21218]

So say that that Enabler's daughter marries an abusive man.  She should turn the other cheek and persevere?

What is being modeled is perseverance.  Turning the other cheek when you are wronged.  Frankly, this isn't about the kids.  To model "stand up for yourself" and "don't take bleep from anyone" are not Biblical virtues.

As for extramarital relationships having 0 consequences, I don't think that is the conclusion that Enabler's children will learn.  They will see how their mom's behavior destroyed the marriage.

Now having said this, the Bible does appear to give an out in the case of adultery.  I think Enabler has the option of walking away from the marriage without God's condemnation.  But that doesn't mean he has to.

[Fian]

So say that that Enabler's daughter marries an abusive man.  She should turn the other cheek and persevere?

Honestly, I am surprised that the Bible doesn't have an abuse exception.  Personally, I would be looking at separation and then seeing how the marriage could be repaired.

As for perseverance, anyone can decide to stop - you don't need to be trained for that.  Learning perseverance, however, is something that is valuable.  So Enabler's daughter would learn from her father how to push through a difficult situation, but she would still be able to make her own choice and leave if that is what she wanted.

[Fian]

Out of the seven items on your list, I’ve experienced six.

Neither option, divorce or remaining in a toxic marriage is beneficial for children. Every individual must decide which is the least harmful option for their children.

My focus is bringing this discussion to bear upon their welfare. Adults can take care of themselves. Children need to be protected.

To look at this another way, the children are damaged if you stay and they are damaged if you leave.  So, it sounds like children should not be the deciding factor in making a decision on divorce. 

However, there is a third option.  If you remain committed to the marriage, there is always a chance for reconciliation.  In my opinion, it is not enough to be opposed to divorce, you also must be committed to improving the marriage, no matter how bad it is.  To remain in the marriage, but to live your life as if you want out of it, is not consistent with the Bible imo.  Cat, I am sorry to hear that you were not able to experience Option 3 in your parent's marriage.

[formflier]

What is being modeled is perseverance.  Turning the other cheek when you are wronged.  Frankly, this isn't about the kids.  To model "stand up for yourself" and "don't take bleep from anyone" are not Biblical virtues.

Fian,

Can you expand on the bolded part when you get time?

FF quick view. 

From a "selfish" point of view I would agree (selfish being personal desires).

Standing up for Biblical values unapologetically  will usually suffice for "standing up for yourself".

Best,

FF

[Fian]

Philippians 2:3-8 ESV
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Matthew 5:38-42 ESV
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.  And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.  Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Proverbs 25:21-22 ESV
If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you.

I am sure I can find plenty more verses of a similar nature.  The Biblical example is not us demanding that we be treated fairly or be shown respect.  The Bible teaches humility, while this world teaches pride as a good thing.  If God is pleased with you, it doesn't matter as much whether your fellow man does.  But to be honest, when you consistently follow God, more often than not, the fellow man part is resolved.

Numbers 12:1-3, 8b-10, 13-14 ESV
Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. And they said, “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” And the Lord heard it. Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth...
"Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he departed. When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous...
And Moses cried to the Lord, “O God, please heal her—please.” But the Lord said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.”

[Enabler]

Thank you Fian, you have articulated things this evening that I have been unable to in many months. I have been using random bible verses .com as a bit of a crutch, and seemingly a way for God to speak directly to me in a time of need and sometimes source of strength. Not 5 minutes ago I felt compelled to ask for some guidance...

James 1:12
12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

2 Corinthians 12:9
9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

I don’t know all the answers, I don’t know all the outcomes, I’m muddling through, I hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I do what is in my power to provide the maximum amount of stability for my children’s lives. I’m acting with humility rather than being a doormat. I’m not a victim, I am making conscious choices. I’m neither “yes dear” nor contemptuous. It’s not ideal, I know that but I’m treading carefully and cautiously.

I hear you all, even if I choose not to adopt your recommendations.

Xx

[I Am Redeemed]

To model "stand up for yourself" and "don't take bleep from anyone" are not Biblical virtues.

This is not necessarily true. There is a way to stand up for yourself in line with Biblical standards. These are outlined brilliantly in the Biblically-based book "Boundaries" by Christian authors Cloud and Townsend.

[formflier]

Proverbs 4:23 New International Version (NIV)
23 Above all else, guard your heart,
    for everything you do flows from it.


You can certainly find a "point of view" in the Bible that leads to a passive, let God handle it kind of thing.

We also know that scripture doesn't "invalidate" itself.

So, somehow you can stand up for yourself. 

I've always thought of it as if God cared enough to form me and breathe life into me and I've been given "me" to steward, then "protecting" me is an OK thing to do (if coming from the right place).

So...to be clear, I would never "call out" someone who prayerfully feels led to be more of a passive type.  I've obviously came down on the other side of things.

Either one can be done "pridefully" (which is bad) and that's really something between that person and God.

Best,

FF

[formflier]

I found my copy of the Dobson book (hid it pretty good) and then left it out in the living room.  (oops)

I've got a bunch of notes and hopefully will have a fuller explanation of how I see the Dobson book tomorrow.

The cliff notes.

Dobson advises a spouse wishing to reconcile to.

1.  Create a crisis.
2.  Let the cheating party bear the "full psychological weight of their actions"
3.  An be ready to welcome their spouse back with open and loving arms (assuming repentance and acts of reconciliation)

Full report tomorrow.  I didn't reread the entire thing, but "heavily skimmed it".  I've read it several times before.

Best,

FF

[Fian]

We probably won't fully see eye to eye on this, although I would agree there is some room for "standing up" for lack of a better word.  However, I wrote this, because Enabler was being told that his way was wrong.  He was setting a bad example for his children by allowing his wife to mistreat him.  Just as I accept that I don't know all there is to know about "standing up", I would encourage others on the board to let Enabler determine that for himself as well.

[formflier]

There is a lot of "nuance" to  saying Enabler could be/should be doing something better to call his wife to repentance.

Again, scripture doesn't invalidate itself.

Has he followed the Matthew model for reconciliation?  I don't believe he has.  While there may be some issues that are "debatable", dietary laws and such.

I'm not aware of a place where adultery is debatable.  (if there is, you guys know me, I'd love to debate)

I'm not aware of a place where "bearing false witness" is debatable.  

Therefore

I'm not aware of a way to "skip over" (not do) those parts of scripture as part of "upholding" his wedding vows in particular and being a Christian in general.

https://bible.org/seriespage/8-church-discipline-taking-sin-seriously-1-cor-51-13

Enabler's wife and OM are "holding their heads high" as they flaunt that God has blessed their sin.

I believe Enabler is on shaky ground because he is aware the church (perhaps not same church officials, this part is confusing) have evaluated the Enabler wife and OM relationship and told them it's not proper/knock it off.

Somehow Enabler wife and OM have ducked their heads "just enough" so that those other church officials don't see and/or the other church officials said that so they can "cover their rear" and then be "deliberately indifferent" (much like the Corinthian church) to sin that would even shock the gentiles, let alone rank and file Christians.    (remember Enabler wife is a church official/pastor)

Read Leviticus 5.  I've checked several translations.  I'm not aware of an "angle" to get out of testifying truthfully.  If you don't testify truthfully, then by my reading, you become complicit and "take on" their sin.

I'll get around to my notes and page numbers on the Dobson book at some point today.

Best

FF

[formflier]

We probably won't fully see eye to eye on this, although I would agree there is some room for "standing up" for lack of a better word. 

Completely agree.  Just as there is room for "being more passive".  Many areas of God's word are debatable (there is not a "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not").

It's certainly true in my life that I've not done everything in the "shall" or "shall not" category, but to the best of my ability I've tried to identify those things and take steps to gain wisdom and faith to take those steps.

The "standard" that I try to use for "passivity" (again perhaps not the best word, I'm open to a better one if anyone has a suggestion) is does it appear that "passivity" is being used to "avoid exercising faith".  Especially in an "uncomfortable" or perhaps even "impossible looking" situations.

I will completely agree that there are many times that "passivity" is an act of faith in itself.  An act of worship that shows who is really in control (God not people).

So, it would appear there are two areas of "control" that Christians can do better at and will take wisdom to sort out.

1.  A Christian that is "taking action" in an area God has clearly reserved for himself.  (trying to "know someone's heart comes to mind)

2.  A Christian not taking action, when God clearly directs them to.


It may very well be that other's said and meant to understand the quote below.  Trying to clean up and reflect back what FF wants others to understand.

However, I wrote this, because Enabler was being told that his way was wrong (is not what the Bible directs).  He was setting a bad (falling short of the example he is called to set) example for his children by allowing his wife to mistreat him (blatant public sin to go unaddressed).  Just as I accept that I don't know all there is to know about "standing up", I would encourage others on the board to let Enabler determine that for himself as well. (read God's word and prayerfully ask for wisdom and faith to follow it)

Ask yourself the question, what are Enabler's children being "taught" by Enabler and his wife about how pastors should act in public and private? 

Much of the focus has been on the "marital example" that Enabler and his wife are setting for his children.  What about the "church example"? 

The same questions should be asked of all church officials (including Enabler's wife and her leadership within the church).



Best,

FF

[Notwendy]

Maybe we could get away from the "right" "wrong" concepts and look at choices and results. I don't see where Dobson advocated for public exposure/humiliation of the cheating spouse. Rather, he called for self examination of one's own behavior and proposed that appeasement/enabling isn't the most effective route for reconciliation of the marriage. Not appeasing left that possibility open, but also raised the risk that reconciliation might not happen. Still, the premise of the book is that more possibility of reconciliation lies in not appeasing than appeasing.

I would also raise caution about interpreting Biblical passages. It is well known that taken out of context, one could mold them to fit a particular viewpoint. Even in Biblical times, there were courts of law that listened to evidence, and then determined the way to proceed. Most people didn't have access to written word and didn't read these passages and apply them themselves. We read them now for our own understanding and ethics, and spiritual guidance, but I would argue that they were not designed for us as lay people to be judge and jury. One doesn't know all the details of someone else's choices. For illegal behavior, we have our courts of law.

Enabler isn't "wrong". He has made the choice to appease, to allow his wife to go out while he minds the kids and cleans up. He is providing a carefree dating experience for his wife and the financial perks of being married while she has a romantic relationship with another man. This provides a "have the cake and eat it too" romance for both her and OM. It has the possible benefit of slowing down her possible exit and he doesn't want her to divorce. This is a win- win situation for both of them.

This isn't wrong or right. It's behavioral theory. An organism will persist in a high cost behavior if the reward is greater to them. Like gravity- throw a ball in the air, it will come down. There is no good or evil to this. It's how organisms behave. Dobson knows this. He has a PhD in psychology and he stays true to both psychology and ethics. This is what makes his book helpful to people seeking expert advice in both who do not have the level of expertise in both fields that he has.

But changing these behaviors involves risk, risk that Enabler does not want to take. All we can do is discuss choices- the rest is up to him. We don't have to frame it in right/wrong because we don't know the outcome of the choices.

[sweetheart]

and frankly I’m not brave enough.

I think this is one of the most insightful things you have said Enabler, and I think it is at the heart of your choices.

I would also take issue with a shame based approach to your wife, insisting she confess. While she is responsible for her actions, I also think that this would probably be too much to take for someone with BPD.

Personally, the focus on ourselves, what we do, not what they should do is more effective, as we can only control ourselves.

What Enabler is able to do is to stop enabling the affair, take the goodies out of the cage, let her contemplate the real life consequences of divorce- living on her own, single parenting, needing to get a sitter to go out. Even if her parents help with this, she still has to call them rather than just leave them with E. I think this is what Dr. D proposes. Also a reminder that sometimes the secular and the religious overlap. Dobson has a PhD in psychology. His advice is according to psychological ideas as well. To not enable is also an aspect of 12 step programs that also have a spiritual basis. Not all secular ideas are out of line with Dobson or religious principles.

Not enabling doesn't mean divorce. Even before a divorce, I assume there is a period of legal separation. If it got that far, she'd get an idea of what being on her own might be like, or if it became reality, she might have second thoughts. Or she might not. and that is very scary.

By keeping the goodies in the cage, she may be more reluctant to move on, or it may at least slow it down. There is security in this choice, being stuck in a holding pattern maybe, but the payoff is a sort of security that things are not moving fast. It is still possible to hope. The maybe she doesn't want a divorce statement reflects hope. Whether or not there actually is hope for the marriage,  I don't know. But this is not about morals, it's about fear. Basically at the heart of enabling behavior is a sort of fear, and hoping for things to be better.  Being aware of it is a big step.

This from Enabler and NotWendy is where the difficulties lay.
No amount of a religious discussion, or a secular one for that matter has changed the current impasse.



What this discussion suggests, exposing Enabler’s W affair in some biblical courtroom, sounds outdated and just plain horrible to me. This type of approach just heightens fear and shame for all involved.
The potential harm and emotional fallout  triggered by these two  powerful feelings is just not what this forum advocates.

[formflier]

  I don't see where Dobson advocated for public exposure/humiliation of the cheating spouse. 

In my notes I have down page 93.  Where a spouse had been "helping conceal" an affair.  Dobson pushes to "create a crisis" and that there is an ultimatum with a specific response and consequence.

So no, I'm doubtful there is a place in Dobson's book where he specifically says "publicly out" your cheating spouse.  However, there are plenty of places where "enabling" spouses are pushed to stop "window dressing" and stop "keeping up a public image".

My guess is it would be up Enabler's wife how much was exposed, since much of that would likely stop depending on when/if she repented and started to reconcile.

[formflier]

What this discussion suggests, exposing Enabler’s W affair in some biblical courtroom, sounds outdated and just plain horrible to me. This type of approach just heightens fear and shame for all involved.
The potential harm and emotional fallout  triggered by these two  powerful feelings is just not what this forum advocates.

Correct, this forum doesn't advocate it, which is why this is under the Christian discussion. 

And since it sounds horrible to you, perhaps it would sound horrible to Enabler wife, especially as she begins to experience the full psychological weight of HER ACTIONS  (which is what Dobson advocates)

If she repents, Enabler is ready to heal the marriage.  If ENABLERS WIFE HOOSES to be exposed, he...nor we should save her from her choices.

Perhaps that's another way to look at it.  She's a pastor carrying on an illicit affair and has somehow roped Enabler into covering for her.

She made the choice, regardless of status of her PD, we shouldn't save her from herself.

Best,

FF

[ct21218]

Or Enabler's wife decides to go nuclear in the divorce in response to this and all parties are harmed.

[Turkish]

This long discussion has been short on how it affects the kids.  They are innocent. I'm not going to proof text that one, as anyone familiar with The Bible should know.  My personal opinion is that "widows and orphans" (and "the poor") are those who need to be protected. How is "The Law" summed up as Jesus said? The Lord said, I desire mercy, not sacrifice. Have mercy on the children.

[AskingWhy]

I’m a product of a toxic marriage. I remember my parents fighting. I have almost no memories of them being warm and loving with each other. I’ve now married two husbands with BPD.

ipso facto

Cat, I could have said this myself.  My M was uBPD and my F the enabler who was also the victim of abuse.  I have also married two BPD men.

Dr. Dobson comes from a perspective of tolerance and forgiveness, but also strong boundaries with abusive, dysregulated people.

[Enabler]

I responded to this but looks like it’s been moved to another thread.

Thank you all.