What would James Dobson do? [Christian Discussion]

[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.