Written by Matt Anderson
Luther Seminary
4/11/05
This paper discusses a general model for pastoral care which operates from within the framework I have outlined in my first paper. Having clarified my biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality, I now turn to the practical strategies and circumstances in which these ideals play out. After I carefully analyze the various counseling theories from which pastors can selectively draw in ministry, I will focus on pastoral care in the following ministry situations: pre-marriage, marriage and marital crisis, homosexuality, and divorce. As we move into this discussion, it seems appropriate to restate my basic conclusions:
1. Marriage is deeply rooted in creation, as a means through which God designs, provides for, and blesses creation through the male/female union.
2. Neither the advent of sin nor scientific theory can deny or subordinate the imperative reality of God’s creative design, so that we must uphold and affirm the creation narratives in our ministry.
3. The New Testament, especially in the words of Jesus and Paul, provides great assistance to us in appropriating the Genesis ideal amidst changing circumstances.
4. Marriage and sexuality, while understood by Western culture in terms of privacy, personal rights, and self-fulfillment, must be reunderstood in light of the Kingdom of God. Biblically speaking, marriage and sexuality are aspects of discipleship, existing to serve the purposes of God’s Kingdom.
5. Attempts to deny the realities and responsibilities of gender, to reject God’s call to struggle against sin, or to jettison self-denial as an aspect of discipleship, are each understood in scripture as symptoms of our human rebellion against the Creator.
6. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ does not negate the presence of sin, but rather intensifies the struggle of God’s people against the powers of this world.
In light of these six points it should not be surprising that pastoral care takes on a unique, even “otherworldly” flavor. While ministers should not deny the innovative insights of the social sciences, pastoral ministry cannot avoid the foundational and sacred truths which have characterized and shaped the church for two millennia. The interplay between Christian theology and traditional psychological approaches is therefore to be carefully understood and circumscribed, preventing confusion and allowing each to retain their respective integrity. Therefore, I will first discuss three therapeutic approaches for counseling, exploring how they relate to the Christian context and explaining the ways in which secular theory may conflict with Christian theology. Having done so, I will then focus on the methods for pastoral care in the specific situations listed above.
Philip Clulbertson provides the logical sequence for my analysis in his text, Caring for God’s People. After describing three therapeutic approaches for psychological counseling, he uses these approaches to characterize the nature of pastoral care in four specific situations. I intend to draw from his insights, evaluate his understanding of pastoral care as it relates to the biblical reality, and refer to additional sources in order to formulate a plan for ministering to the various aspects of marriage and sexuality. In some areas Culbertson’s thoughts are quite useful, while in others I find significant points of disagreement between his findings and my own. In the case of the latter, I will provide alternatives for the use of scripture and the practice of ministry.
Culbertson attempts to draw from modern therapeutic theory from a perspective of faith. He argues for a ministry that rejects exclusion, in which individuals are led to “recognize [their] individual uniqueness...” and to “immediately recognize the radical otherness of others,” which allows one to move from “recognition to affirmation.” In loving and affirming others in this way, he says, we see God’s image amidst human diversity and “can marvel at the variety of God’s creation.”[1] This happens as individuals are first led to know, accept, and affirm their true selves, which leads them to clearly see and appreciate others in all their diversity.
Culpertson makes no apologies for the secular undertones in his theoretical framework, because, he says, “psychology and Christianity have always been in dialogue.” While he admits that Christianity has been “more ready to learn from psychology” than the reverse, he believes that the church’s openness to cultural, academic, and other outside influences is clearly legitimated.[2] Culpertson seems to liken the church to an individual, who, upon realizing his or her own identity, can be open and affirming of outside individuals, influences, and realities. Thus, the church’s ability to become an ‘embracing’ community is only enhanced by its readiness to learn from the social sciences and from the outside world.
In discussing Family Systems Theory, Culpertson says that we must not confine ourselves to a narrow definition family, because even the “scriptures are not especially supportive of the nuclear family, nor is such a family as we now define it even mentioned there...” To illustrate this point, he appends an exhaustive list of the diverse varieties of biblical family circumstances and declares that Christ’s teachings “cast a skeptical eye” on families of all structures because of the inherent potential for idolatry therein. Thus, while Family Systems Theory itself has been slow to progress beyond the traditional ideal of the nuclear family, he claims that no particular family structure can be thought of as sacred or natural. Despite his belief that the nuclear family is a “minority configuration in first-world societies today,” he says, it remains the default lens through which most of us are trained to understand familial relationships.[3] Culpertson believes that the individuality of the first world and the tribal reality of communal societies clearly demonstrate that the nuclear family is “not the basic unit of society.” Therefore, he says, Christian communities must possess two values that move beyond our narrow cultural lenses—unconditional love and acceptance. These, and not specific configurations or structures, are the ideal for community and family.[4]
With this being said, Culpertson moves into a direct discussion of the Family Systems Theory itself, much of which is very helpful for pastoral counseling. He shows how individuals in a family, for a variety of reasons, take on a role, which they continually play out for the survival of the family. He demonstrates how triangulation can effect family and ministry relationships, explains the issues of birth order, and he shows how individuals must be urged toward individuation, despite the forces that seek to blur healthy boundaries between members of a system. Counselors operating from this useful theory must maintain a proper relationship with the client(s), preventing the triangulation that can easily occur in the therapeutic process. The counselor may use genograms in walking the family through their crisis and should freely draw from creative metaphors in order to work toward “role symmetry,”[5] which refers to egalitarian gender relationships and responsibilities.
Before moving on to Culbertson’s summaries of the Narrative and Object Relations theories, I’ll pause here to analyze his theoretical foundation as he has so far defined it. It is important to recognize that, in terms of both Christian community and pastoral care, Culbertson passionately affirms an ethic of radical inclusivity and affirmation. For him, the image of God is primarily the appreciation of diversity and the embrace of those who are different from ourselves. Thus, he is forced to deny the utility of any biblical texts, priorities, and ideals which make any kind of exclusive or corrective claim upon the family structure. While this may be a direct result of the nature of modern counseling, which aims to help individuals find fulfillment and wholeness from within a state of fracture or crisis, it is nonetheless insufficient. Because Christian ministry aims to shape and direct the lives of the faithful across the centuries (not just amidst a crisis), we must affirm the existence of biblical ideals in a way that still looks compassionately upon deviations and exceptions (even when the biblical ideal appears, at least statistically, to be the exception). Culbertson is right in claiming that the church has and should draw from beyond itself with a spirit of genuine humility and openness. However, the Christian Church should only do so with an open bible, refusing to discard the Word of God in favor the Enlightenment ideals of tolerance and charity. Indeed, were these two virtues a sufficient summation of the Christian proclamation, it is unlikely that the biblical community would have survived past the first century.
While we affirm many aspects of the social sciences, there are also times in which the church must stand in direct tension with the beliefs and virtues of the same. Much of modern secular thought is predicated upon Enlightenment philosophy (the logic of those such as Kant, Lessing, Hegel, and many others), which champions religious relativism, empiricism, and which condenses the worth of Christianity into the golden rule. Christian theology, which affirms God’s prescriptive will in scripture, the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the reality of human sin, is either rejected or rendered irrelevant under this logic, taking a back seat to the factual findings of modern science. Today, this means that if Christianity does not affirm all family structures and lifestyles, it is unfairly stepping beyond its boundaries and denying that which empirical science has deemed appropriate.
One must note that Culbertson’s work, though helpful for many facets of pastoral counseling, is based upon a faulty understanding of scripture. It is simply erroneous to assert that no familial structure is idealized within the Christian canon. To do so, one must ignore the biblical realities (as discussed in my first paper) and misuse empirical data by treating it prescriptively. Culbertson understands the familial variation in scripture and in contemporary society as concrete evidence that no structure can be deemed sacred, and he does so without even mentioning important texts which clearly contradict such a notion by drawing clear boundaries around the roles of spouses and parents. As we have seen, however, the mere presence of diverse realities should not prevent the church from holding to the stated ideal. Were this otherwise, the New Testament would never have referred to Genesis in drawing strict boundaries for marriage and sexuality amidst the diversity of first-century practice. Culbertson is right in warning us to refrain from idolizing a particular family structure and from unjustly mistreating families which have been splintered by the effects of sin and death. However, it is equally inappropriate to dismiss or avoid the biblical imperatives in offering ministry and pastoral care to families. Idolatry can indeed take many forms, so that even radical inclusion and human love can be improperly deified. Therefore, we boldly draw from scripture’s prescriptions for discipleship and familial life, taking careful note of the fact that the family is meant to serve God’s purposes, not the other way around. When we minister to those who find themselves far removed from the biblical ideal, we can gracefully care for them without denying God’s Word.
Inherent is this difference of opinion are two competing worldviews which have clashed since the 18th century. At the heart of the conflict is the understanding of the human “self.” Basic Enlightenment philosophy places the self at the center of reality as the pinnacle of an individual’s identity. As Descartes taught, the thinking self is the starting point of philosophy and serves as the fundamental core of one’s being. The notion of the autonomous self was adopted by psychology and, as the church has interfaced with the social sciences, now occupies a primary role in Christian counseling. Thus, Culbertson’s pastoral care is that which encourages the self to know and accept itself and then to love, welcome and affirm others.
None can argue that it is unimportant to know oneself, yet the Christian canon offers us a great deal more to work with. For example, after foretelling his own sacrificial death in John 12, Jesus issues a related formula for discipleship, reminiscent of teachings found repeatedly throughout the gospels. In verse 25, Jesus says that the one who loves his life (yuchn) will lose it, while the one who hates his life (yuchn) in this world will keep it into eternal life (eiV zwhn aiwnion)...” The Greek word yuchn (psuche) is translated in most bibles as life, but it may better be rendered as “self.” According to Jesus, a person will lose her “self” when her own being is the primary object of her identity, hope, and affection, when her reality begins and ends entirely with her own person. On the other hand, the one who hates her “self,” who looks beyond the self while losing the self in service to God and neighbor, will alone keep her self into eternal life. Jesus’ paradoxical teaching shows us that the means of actualizing and fulfilling the self lies outside the individual, where the self is lost in service to the self-giving and salvific purposes of God.[6] Christianity teaches that the self cannot and does not fine wholeness except through faith in God’s promises, which only comes from beyond the self.
At this point Culbertson warns us against the canonized “Christian virtue” of self- sacrifice, because such a notion is “often destructive of the self, of the identity of the one who is expected to make the sacrifice on behalf of others, particularly when that sacrifice is not voluntary.” Culbertson is rightly concerned about a loss of personal boundaries that may endanger the person and others around her. He argues against enduring “patterns of involuntary self-sacrifice” that tend to “disempower” individuals and lead to societal subordination.[7] Though such warnings ought to be heeded, Culbertson seems to misunderstand Jesus’ teaching about the denial, giving, and/or sacrifice of the self. While some may distort Christ’s words and adopt (or demand) unhealthy and involuntary practices of discipleship, Jesus calls us to to receive and to imitate his own voluntary self-denial as he transforms us through his life-giving act, in order that we too may be drawn to the reality and work of God’s Kingdom. Self-awareness, self-respect, and self-esteem may be important aspects of human life, but the rampant and pervading over-focus on the individual supports nothing but what the early church defined as sin—being utterly curved in on one’s self (incurvitas in se). Thus, to save us from this lonely existence, Christ calls us to find our true selves, not by struggling to achieve self-actualization or by therapeutically stroking the ego, but by offering ourselves to God in faith and claiming his promises, trusting that God has our best interests in mind. The distinction here is clear: either I base my reality around my self and live for personal fulfillment, or I look beyond my being, trusting God enough to live in service to his Kingdom. In short the self must be ministered to from beyond and not turned back upon itself.
This brings up an important issue: in order for one to trust God, one must have a clear sense of God and self. This is precisely where much of psychological theory and practice can be a helpful addition to biblical formation. But the underlying motivation and intended effect of this teaching will be unique in the Christian setting. This is because the process of knowing one’s self in the Christian context takes place within the parameters of who, and whose, the scriptures we are. I am no mere summary of my genetic makeup, experiences, or family background; I am a creature of God, struggling under the weight of worldly powers. My value comes from beyond, from God’s Christ, who’s blood has determined my worth and my destiny. I am now Jesus’ disciple, called to offer my redeemed self to God’s mission as defined biblically. Christians must not apologize or avoid this glorious heritage, which radically differs from secular self-actualization.
We should freely use such techniques as the Family Systems Theory in order to help the individual grow in their understanding of personal and familial issues and to differentiate from unhealthy systems by drawing healthy boundaries. However, this is not so that the individual may become an autonomous and self-fulfilled entity, but so that she may be free to serve and trust God, as she discerns and honors the call that God has placed upon her life. In Christian life, pastoral care and counseling happen beneath the cross, where people are made disciples and nurtured in faith.
In addition to Family Systems, the Object Relations and Narrative Theories each contribute to pastoral counseling. Object Relations Theory is deeply complex, as Culbertson says, and unless one is specifically trained in that area, it serves only as a helpful background for care. As infants interact with people and objects in their environment, they form mental representations or templates through which they will classify and understand themselves and others for the rest of their lives. These mental representations can be so powerful that the individual’s later relationships are based less on reality and more on classifying others (and the self through the other’s eyes) through these various primal templates. This process also impacts faith in a powerful way, as the person’s picture of God is shaped by the same series of formative interactions. This, of course, becomes unhealthy if our understanding of ourselves, others, and God is significantly removed from reality, so that the goal of Object Relations Theory is to help individuals to more closely align their mental representations with reality, paying careful attention to misperceptions or wounds that have occurred during one’s lifespan.
Ministry can and should be informed by Object Relations Theory, especially as it reveals the true and false understanding of the self, others, and God. From this perspective, says Culbertson, pastors occupy an important role, in which they can perceive the human realities of parishioners, “modulate them, transform them, given them meaning, and return them to the congregants.”[8] Yet, this cannot adequately take place without the insight of the scriptures. For how could we otherwise understand who we are and who God is without biblical guidance? Thus, pastoral counselors help individuals to address their longstanding mental templates, which have hitherto determined their relationships and self-understanding, and to claim the truth about reality. This truth is in part what can be plainly seen and recognized objectively, but also what the scriptures reveal to be true.
While this reframing process occurs in private counseling, it happens in a profound way during worship as well. Specifically, when the preacher delivers the Law and Gospel of God’s Holy Word and leads the assembly in praising God for who God truly is, she uses her position of power in order to liberate the congregation from their ‘false’ selves, turning them to the new creation that Jesus Christ has brought to bear in their lives. This is not a way of avoiding the individual issues of congregants, but rather to speak prophetically from their common experience and draw the community together to a fuller sense of the divine activity and promise. Preaching and public worship should never substitute for counseling for those who require that form of care, but these are nonetheless essential ways in which the Christian community properly manages, classifies, and claims their true selves while at the same time being led to understand external objects (God, neighbor, possessions, etc.) in a way that best resembles the actual reality that described in scripture. In this way the Object Relations Theory is taken into the Christian context and complimented by the biblical narrative.
Additionally, the Narrative Counseling Theory helps individuals to understand the narratives in which they are living. Families retell or reenact various forms of myths in order to sustain themselves or to deal with issues and obstacles. Within these narratives, each member of the family informally receives a role, which they play out like a script whenever the drama unfolds. Cognitive dissonance occurs when this role is one in which the individual must act or speak against his beliefs or experience. Counseling is meant to lead the individual and/or family to understand their particular scripts, and then to reread and reedit them with a spirit of creative improvisation. For narratives that are more individually oriented (self-defined), counselors can encourage the client to retell his life story from several specific perspectives. Once the counselee makes the “connection between their problem and the past,” they “are likely to be able to reframe their self-defining narrative much more easily.”[9] In addition, encouraging the client to develop as a personal narrator will imbue the individual with an important duty. Retelling and editing one’s story should not be seen as an activity that allows one to achieve divine status by creating a new self, but rather as a means of honoring God by taking creative responsibility within one’s life story. Instead of affirming some independent pursuit of one’s own reality, this activity allows us to partner with the Author of Life on a joint venture, writing the next verse of our lives in light of God’s promises.
Culbertson does take this theory to some inappropriate extremes, which pastors should avoid. As he describes how narratives change over time, he seems to periodically characterize the bible as a mere mythological embellishment. Making such unsubstantiated claims without carefully explaining himself, he seems to treat scripture as one would a childish fairytale or a culturally-conditioned saga. In so doing, he argues that the institution of marriage is a mythological creation of those who sought to perpetuate their identity by censuring the activities or structures that deviate from the norm[10]. I find this to be a faithless and relativistic means of approaching scripture that has no value in pastoral counseling.
Despite views to the contrary, the biblical narrative can be extremely useful in narrative therapeutic terms. Christian clergy should not only lead individuals and families in understanding and editing their own narratives, they must also help them to understand and receive the narrative truths of scripture. With the rich diversity of biblical stories, parishioners have access to a wealth of meaning as they explore the activities of God in and through the lives and stories of biblical characters. If done skillfully, an engagement with the biblical narrative still affords full integrity to the parishioner(s) story, merely serving as an important means of reframing and realignment. On their own, our individual stories have are essentially without direction, but while paired with the biblical story, they come face to face with their destiny. Narrative Therapy that allows for the prudent inclusion of scripture can be nothing short of transformational.
Because of the strongly narrative character of scripture, Narrative Therapy may be quite useful in Christian counseling. Moreover, it can, like Object Relations, be helpful in framing our public worship, as preachers and worship leaders lead worshippers to reframe and reexamine their life story in light of the biblical drama. Christian theology reminds us that we are more than our personal stories, that we are part of a larger narrative into which God is actively drawing us. Thus, we are drawn to a community of faith, a new family, in which our personal and communal story unfolds around the gospel of Jesus, as we walk the path of discipleship together. When we use narrative in the corporate church, individuals do not lose their integrity, but instead gain a heightened sense of self as they discover ultimate meaning in the Christian community. In thus way then, the pastoral use of narrative and narrative therapy is the facilitation of an encounter between the human and the divine stories, where they are joined inseparably in the name of Christ, the Author of Life.
I now broadly examine the various practical means in which the above realities might be actualized in pastoral ministry. In doing so, my focus is in ministering to those in premarital, marital, divorce, or homosexual situations. I will both draw from and criticize Culbertson’s thoughts in these specific areas, regularly providing alternative conclusions and options for ministry. In addition, because the church has a responsibility to deal with these circumstances within a larger framework of theology, ministry, and discipleship, it will also be necessary to begin thinking about a daily ministry that would educate and engage individuals about marriage and sexuality and provide them with enriching experiences in this very delicate area. Therefore, as I discuss the pastoral responsibilities in each situation, I will offer some ways through which a congregation may structure its daily ministry in order to more fully actualize the principles that undergird its pastoral counseling. My work here is certainly not exhaustive, but it will serve as a basis for a ministry which flows from my theoretical perspectives. In addition these conclusions represent some important ways that the mainline church as a whole might reframe and rethink its understanding and practice of ministry.
Before pressing into this discussion, however, it seems important to underscore the notion that in congregational life and ministry, marriage and sexuality are not independent aspects of our person-hood that can be separated from our faith or Christian tradition. Rather, they are to be understood as avenues or means of discipleship, aspects of our human existence which must be devoted and subordinated to the purposes of God. This means that marriage and sexuality are subservient to God’s purposes, created in service to the larger reality of God’s Kingdom as it unfolds in the world. While our path as disciples is multifaceted, having many aspects which are indeed unique to each person, it must be assumed that marriage and sexuality are crucial means of Christian discipleship for those who are called to be husbands or wives.
Though a surprisingly small number of couples seek premarital counseling, it can prevent much of the shock and disappointment that later throttles the marriage. Generally, premarital counseling helps the couple gain a fuller understanding of the issues and obstacles of marital life, revealing the unhealthy expectations and beliefs about marriage that could prove problematic. It encourages the couple to shift their attention from the frenzy of wedding preparations to the actual relationship that takes many years to mature. Such counseling equips the couple with basic skills for communication and for managing the demands of their new identity. Finally, it is a primary time in which the couple may be led to discover or more deeply embrace a biblical faith in their lives and marriages.
Family of origin always has a major role in shaping the couple’s life together, sometimes to the benefit—but too often to the detriment—of the relationship. Says Culbertson, the “goal of premarital counseling is to create an atmosphere within which couples can leave their families of origin...” in various ways, thereby creating a “new family unit.”[11] This is helpful, since drawing healthy boundaries and addressing inappropriate expectations are essential aspects of marital preparation. But it may be an overstatement to make this the primary goal for every counseling situation, since some couples need less help in “leaving” their families of origin, while they require more guidance in developing their relationship in multifaceted ways. Thus, we should not overfocus on one issue in premarital counseling unless that issue proves to be an exceptional area of concern as the pastor becomes acquainted with the couple.
Culbertson suggests a framework and schedule for pastors as they seek to prepare couples for marriage. Sessions should be scheduled early enough (he suggests a minimum of fourteen weeks before the wedding) so that if problems arise, the couple can cancel or postpone the ceremony without undue problems. He divides the counseling into seven sessions as follows: Session one is for the couple and the pastor to decide if they feel comfortable working together in this process. Session two focuses on the wedding and reception arrangements. Sessions three to six will deal with the ‘psychological preparation’ for becoming a married couple, and session seven attempts to weave the Christian theology of marriage into the stories of the couple and church.[12]
As stated above, Culbertson deals heavily with the “leaving” that couples must undergo before they can genuinely “cleave” to their beloved in marriage. Drawing from the family systems theory, a pastor can help the couple understand the families from which they each have come, as well as the expectations and tendencies that each bring from those systems into their relationship. This leads the couple to distinguish themselves from their family of origin as they reprioritize their lives around a young marriage. In addition the couple is led to recognize any dysfunctionality of their family system and to proactively work against its recurrence in the marriage. As Culbertson recognizes, the selection of the marriage partner itself may be influenced by unresolved issues and expectations from one’s family of origin, which underscores the need for careful analysis of the backgrounds of each individual. In some situations, it may be helpful for the couples’ parents to participate in a session or ritual, the goal of which would be to focus on supporting the couple in a way that encourages, rather than stunts, their marital development. As their families are reminded about the needs of young marriages, they can help the couple to claim a relationship with original family that creates the necessary and sacred space for the marriage to blossom.
Much of what Culbertson recommends in his seven sessions is useful and appropriate. As I construct my own five-session plan below, I seek to more regularly involve scripture and theology as an additional means of shaping the couples’ new relationship. This can be done without neglecting the important practical aspects of pre-marital counseling as Culbertson has aptly defined them. Thus, I would submit the following schedule and agenda for pre-marital counseling.
Session 1 -The couple shares their story, up through their decision to marry
-The pastor shares her own story and beliefs about marriage
-The couple and pastor decide if they wish to work together, recognizing
denominational and congregational policy
-The couple is scheduled to take the Prepare & Enrich inventory
-The couple is asked to prayerfully read Genesis 1 and 2 by the next
session and to come ready to discuss that text.
Session 2 -The couple and pastor (c & p) briefly discuss the Genesis text, noting
that God created humankind as male and female. These two become a single flesh in marriage. As a union, they serve God by providing and caring for God’s creation and by loving each other. Such a loving marriage is nurtured as each party faithfully “leaves” and “cleaves” to the other.
-C & P discuss families of origin in light of the P.E. inventory
-The couple to begins creating a journal, in which they formulate
their thoughts about and plans for dealing with issues such as faith-life, social life, budget, holidays, vacations, leisure time, parenting, and sex. Plan to discuss and edit this journal in the final two sessions.
-The couple is asked to prayerfully read John 13:1-17 and
Ephesians 5:21-33 by the next session and to come ready to discuss those texts
Session 3 -Discuss the two biblical texts, both in how to use and misuse them,
emphasizing how they are to shape the mutuality and self-giving love that characterizes the marriage covenant, as well as how they characterize marriage as an illustration and reflection of the enduring sacrificial commitment and loving fidelity that Christ offers to the church. At the center of this discussion is the clear articulation of the gospel message and the relevance that the good news has for marriage.
-Continue working through the P.E. inventory, focusing heavily on the
individual’s roles and responsibilities in the marriage and on comparing their different expectations for the relationship.
-The couple is asked to prayerfully read I Cor 6:12-7:7 by the next
session and to come ready to discuss those texts.
-Ask the couple to bring their completed journal to the next session.
Session 4 -Discuss the I Corinthians text, focusing on the call to honor God with
our bodies and the importance of sharing one’s body with one’s spouse in a mutual exchange of self-giving love. Discuss the important aspects of marital sexuality, challenging the engaged
couple to prepare for sexual purity and fidelity right now. Sex is
not a right or a natural consequence of whatever desires one has,
but an aspect of discipleship through which couples enjoy the
intimacy and pleasure of sharing their bodies with one another and through which offspring is conceived. Seen and realized through the lens of discipleship, sex can even be an act of worship!
-Discuss the problems and possible solutions for sexual difficulties, such
as temptation and lust, physical or emotional dysfunction, disappointment, and boundaries. Speak of the importance of open communicating and willingness to seek assistance within each circumstance.
-Finish working with the P.E. inventory
-Discuss the issues that have surfaced in preparing the journal,
considering alternatives and leaving room for adjustment. This is a great opportunity to teach the couple some helpful means of communication, such as mirroring, active listening, and positive dialogue.
-The couple is asked to prayerfully read John 15:1-11 by the next
session and to come ready to discuss those texts
Session 5 -Reread and discuss John 15:1-11, emphasizing the importance of
Abiding or remaining in the True Vine, Jesus Christ. Discuss the various ways in which the two can “abide” as a couple and as Jesus’ disciples (v. 8). Since spiritual compatibility is important in marriage, this should be a time in which the couple begins to envision their particular walk of discipleship as it plays out in their marriage. They can be taught that God intends to use both their persons and their marital union to bear lasting fruit, so that their lives and marriage can be a witness which testifies to the truth and love of God’s Kingdom in the world. To this end it is most appropriate to encourage the couple in their faith and to address issues or conflicts therein. This too, is part of discipleship, recognizing that without Christ, we “can do nothing” (v. 5).
-Finish discussing the journal, reminding the couple to regularly
reflect upon their agreements and to adjust them as their circumstances demand. They should be encouraged to be creative in forming agreements and covenants, developing important negotiation skills for dealing with crisis down the road.
-Discuss whether or not the couple is willing to partner with a
mentor couple. This would be an experienced married couple who would voluntarily mentor, befriend, and encourage this new couple in their marriage. If the engaged couple is willing, match them with a mentor couple before the wedding and encouraging them to use that resource. In any event, ensure that the couple has access to resources, professional and personal, as they begin their journey in marriage, reminding them that they will need help and guidance along the way.
As stated above, a congregation should provide regular ministries beyond pre-marital counseling, which support the principles that guide the pre-marital process. This is so that non-married people and couples may find guidance and meaning for their lives and relationships in the church. The more fully the parish integrates its theology with its ministry, the more of an impact those ideals will have.
Example of a more integrated ministry:
-biblical education for confirmands and high school students related to
God’s purposes of marriage and sex
-offering in-depth assistance to parents for communicating with and
guiding their children in sexual and relationship issues
-valuable community, support, and social opportunities for singles, who
should never be made to feel ‘incomplete’ without a spouse
-space for those who are dating to share their questions or struggles and
to socialize in a safe environment
-counseling opportunities for those who are wrestling with relationship
issues, abuse, or sexual orientation
-regular attention to issues of sexuality, marriage, and singleness in public
ministry, from parish publications to sermons
-training for couples who wish to be “mentors” for both singles and
married couples
-regular testimonies of those who have discovered God’s grace amidst
times of loneliness, suffering, discord, or temptation
Culbertson rightly notes that the institution of marriage has changed dramatically in recent history, becoming a voluntary relationship that has too frequently has left a wake of brokenness. As a result, large numbers of people ironically fear marriage instead of singleness, since so many have experienced first-hand the dark reality of unhealthy marriages and dysfunctional family systems. Culbertson cautions against rigid expectations and roles in defining marriage, because he believes that they have little to offer married couples, especially those in crisis. Rather, he agrees with Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, who have divided marriage into four distinct types, called romantic, rescue, companionate, and traditional. Once a counselor discover the couple’s type (or combination of types), she should help them to express their type in a healthy, nondestructive manner.
Culbertson also discusses the need for married couples to work through their family of origin issues, which can easily lead to unhealthy expectations. Instead of seeing marriage as a static reality, he understands it as a process, in which individuals must constantly address challenges and renegotiate their respective roles. To this end, he supplies the reader with a helpful description of qualities, tasks, and boundaries that are essential in building a healthy marriage, most of which have to do with a willingness to be respectful, flexible, honest, and committed. Finally, Culpertson lists some basic goals and approaches to marital counseling, emphasizing that both individuals should be present for counseling if possible.[13]
In these ways, Culbertson’s work is a helpful resource for pastoral counseling to married couples, but it also has some noteworthy deficiencies. Not only does he make no use of scripture, he actually declares that the bible “leaves the question about God’s will for marriage unanswered.”[14] He mentions only the various gospel accounts of Mark 10:2-12 in an attempt to prove that the biblical depictions of marriage are contradictory at best. He doesn’t mention texts such as I Corinthians 6-7, Ephesians 5, or Genesis 1-2, which have been profoundly important to the church throughout history. Instead, he determines that, in light of the changes in marriage today, these texts have nothing to say. This seems to suggest that pastoral counselors cannot teach or be informed by important passages of scripture as they deal with marriage, and that they should instead operate primarily from psychological theories and insights.
Of course, this is insufficient for anyone wishing to offer pastoral care within the church. In actuality scripture is useful in countless ways. As my first paper demonstrates, it provided us with moral boundaries and imperatives though which we are to shape and safeguard marriage and sexuality as aspects of discipleship. Texts such as I Corinthians 6-7, Ephesians 5, or Genesis 1-2 deal specifically with the marital relationship, its origins, and its responsibilities. Other texts, such as Galatians 5, John 13 & 15, the Sermon on the Mount, and others provide couples with insight into the self-giving and faithful nature of the Christian life. Finally, the wider canon, including Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophetic literature (which makes regular use of the marriage metaphor), the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomic narrative, the Pastoral Letters and Epistles, and Acts together give witness to the mission of God in the world and offer a solemn lesson on the reality of human nature. The law and gospel dialectic weaves its way through the bible, drawing the reader to reject sin and to believe in the risen Christ, who alone can redeem humankind and sustain our marital relationships. If marriage and sexuality are parts of discipleship, it is simply beyond discussion that the scriptures are essential in shaping our ministry and pastoral care to married couples.
Couples who request pastoral counseling can first be encouraged with the simple truth, “...for God all things are possible” (Matt 19:26). This reality should undergird every aspect of counseling, as the couple is encouraged to believe that God can work for good in their marriage. The pastor is responsible for setting this optimistic and faithful tone, modeling the hopeful posture of the risen Christ’s chosen people. This intentionally works against the fatalistic attitude that so easily accompanies marital crises, as it challenges the couple to understand the sessions as steps toward healing and not meaningless chatter before a divorce.
Furthermore, the pastoral counselor has the responsibility to remind the couple about the nature of Christian marriage. Contrary to some scholarship today, the Christian Church has always understood marriage as a lifelong commitment between a male and female that reflects God’s creative and redemptive purposes. The church has not learned this on its own, but from the biblical text, which reminds spouses to approach their relationship with the utmost respect, fidelity, and intimacy. Pastoral counselors must affirm that God so highly values the intimate and enduring nature of the marriage covenant that scripture repeatedly uses marital imagery in describing God’s relationship with his people. If this is so, marital counseling is a time in which the couple is engaged by scripture’s high view of marriage and led to reprioritize their commitment to the relationship in light of that truth.
Critics may interject by saying that the New Testament has no such “sacred” view of marriage, referring to Paul’s language about celibacy and remaining in one’s current state until the kingdom arrives (I Cor 7). Yet this argument is invalid, because such scriptures only prove that marriage is beneath the Kingdom of God in importance. Passages like this must be interpreted in context and in tandem with other texts that hold marriage in high esteem (Heb 13:4). For if John of Patmos dares to liken the eschatological consummation to a “marriage feast” (Rev. 19:9) we do well to hold that institution in honor ourselves. Those who assert that the bible does not hold a firm and faithful view of marriage must resort a significant amount of proof-texting and other substandard interpretive measures, the motives for which we do well to question.
Though a married couple seeks a pastor for counseling for a variety of reasons (they know the pastor, they can’t afford other options, a friend referred them, etc.), a minister has the responsibility to operate from a biblical perspective. As a representative of the Christian tradition, the minister can freely draw from secular insights insofar as they do not diminish the imperative aspects of the faith. Counseling, then, should relationally and theologically engage the couple with God’s vision for what their union could be, exhorting and encouraging them to realize God’s call while carefully dealing with the realities that have contributed to their current situation.
For a struggling marriage to have a chance at survival, both individuals must express a willingness to honor their vows at a time when they are tempted to do the very opposite. God’s willingness to keep his promises to his people, despite our tendency to rebel against him, can serve as a meaningful backdrop in the early stages of counseling. During this time the couple is led to a new understanding of promises and covenants that is deeply rooted in the enduring nature of God’s promise to sinners. From here, couples can be led to restructure and reclaim their relationship around the issues which are necessary for their survival and growth. Some couples may need significant resources for and practice with communication, some will benefit from Family Systems work, and others will require counseling for individual issues or wounds. Especially if one or both partners needs professional counseling on an individual basis, the two should continue joint-counseling in order to focus on common areas of growth.
Pastors function as spiritual leaders in marriage counseling, through which they lead the couple in prayer and ritual and equip them with the Word of God. Further, the pastor must connect the couple with a support network of mentors, friends, and prayer-partners, who commit to surrounding the couple as the couple attempts to rebuild their marriage. The Church does not exist for those who are well, as Jesus says, but is designed to be a place where God meets the ‘sick’ with his healing power, a power that comes from Christ himself and is mediated through the Christian community. By supplementing private counseling with biblical truths and Christian community, pastors provide a holistic means of care, which is motivated and shaped by the fact that with God, all things are indeed possible. Married couples who receive this form of care are led to build a marriage upon the solid foundation of the gospel. As they embark upon this mission, they are doing nothing less than honoring their call as disciples.
I find it unhelpful to provide a detailed list of circumstances in which divorce should be advised. The conversation of divorce should never be entered as a first resort, nor should it be entertained as a viable option unless the infidelity and damage to the marriage is so sever that one or both parties has no willingness to remain in the relationship. The pastor should not offer its blessing to the divorce unless it corresponds to a faithful interpretation of the biblical texts as the Christian community understands them. The conversation about divorce is continued in the next section.
Outside of marital counseling, congregations can do much to support married couples without alienating its non-married members. The following are examples of such ongoing ministry:
-upholding and defining marriage regularly in ministry and educational
programming, stressing the unique blessings and responsibilities of that discipleship call
-regularly teach about biblical sexuality, encouraging members to recognize that
God cares deeply about how and with whom we sexually interact
-encourage couples to regularly invest in their relationship, through recreation,
parish activities, and retreat weekends (Cursillo, Villa de Cristo)
-provide programming for men and women to receive support for temptations
or addictions that threaten their sexual purity and fidelity. In this age of visual stimulation and blatant sexual expression, some are deeply burdened with misplaced desires that erodes their self-control. Churches must provide a supportive place for accountability and openness, which can be a life-changing and marriage-saving ministry.
-leaders should create a culture of honesty in their congregation, in which people
are encouraged not to hide their burdens, struggles, wounds, or temptations, but instead to share them in an appropriate context where they can work toward healing.
-Regular prayer ministry should be made available, so that those who are
struggling with a special burden may receive prayer and encouragement in the worshipping community.
-Pastors should regularly preach about marriage, encouraging worshippers to
understand it as an area of discipleship.
-Pastors should be prepared to refer individuals who need special attention.
-Churches must find a way to engage parents and teenagers around the issue of
sex and relationships, equipping them to be open and faithful to God’s purposes. Since culture has a loud voice in such matters, the church must speak with boldness and conviction.
-Marriage should never be upheld as a personal ideal, but only as a call from God.
Singles (a better name than “non-married”) should be treated and looked upon as a whole person and full member of the church. Programming and the language used should reflect the fact that singles are not less important than individuals who are married.
-Singles also have a call from God as disciples of Jesus Christ in the world. Part
of this call is acting faithfully and responsibility with their bodies and within their relationships.
-Those who have chosen celibacy should be supported and affirmed if
appropriate.
Culbertson identifies two ways that the church can view divorce, both of which recognize that divorce causes great pain. The first is a narrow-minded way that blindly disapproves of divorce and seeks to point the finger of blame and condemnation at one or both parties. Culbertson clearly rejects this option. The other represents a willingness to “understand increased divorce rates as reflecting the opening up of new opportunities for self-definition, and a restructuring of an institution often seen as impossibly patriarchal.” Those who espouse this option are “less quick to name divorce as a sin or to cast blame in any direction.”[15] Given the lack biblical and traditional grounding in Culbertson’s work so far, this unfair division should not be surprising. While he rightly condemns those who unfairly chastise or condemn divorcees, he seeks to characterize divorce as a helpful means for individuals to grow into their true identity. As we will see, not only does this undermine marriage by encouraging individuals to downplay their wedding vows in favor of personal gain, it leads to disastrous consequences in our upcoming discussion on homosexuality.
Richard Hays offers a far more faithful and realistic appraisal of divorce today. He correctly recognizes that the church is in crisis, since it either ostracizes divorcees or treats divorce casually or even positively (Culbertson tends toward the latter). He believes that Matt 7:1 (Judge not lest ye be judged) has been twisted by the mainline church into a social contract for unaccountability (You don’t judge me and I don’t judge you). Liberal Protestantism has so heavily emphasized feelings of love, self-actualization, and conscience that it has lost its “leverage against divorce as the wider cultural taboo against it has dissipated.” This follows the train of popular psychology, he says, which grounds marriage in one’s feelings of love, not one’s practice of love, making marriage “contingent upon self-gratification or personal fulfillment.” But as Hays points out, scripture rejects the promotion of divorce on grounds of love, justice, or ‘personal wholeness.’[16]
As he interprets the biblical text, Hays highlights some important realities for churches in dealing with divorce. Hays demonstrates the unity of the biblical texts which speak about marriage, even as he affirms the diversity of ideas that each text brings to the table. In comparing the various scriptures, he calls it a “terrible mistake to isolate any particular rule about divorce from the wider canonical narrative contexts.” Thus, it is inappropriate to speak about divorce outside of the canonical understanding of marriage. For instance, he says, Hosea’s symbolic marriage demonstrates a “love that overcomes even adultery and affirms the covenant of marriage as unbreakable.” Further, Malachi likens “faithfulness to the marriage covenant and faithfulness to the covenant with God (2:10-12)...” The two covenants symbolize one another, Hays says, which is one important reason that God hates divorce. As we have seen, this same idea shines into the New Testament, as Ephesians 5 places marriage on the same level as Christ’s relationship to the church, communicating the “infinite loyalty and self-sacrificial love” which shapes both covenants. Additionally, Hays says, Revelation’s marriage feast is one in which “all earthly marriages” find their eventual end or fulfillment. If marriage is therefore the Bible’s “final symbol of eschatological redemption, then divorce cannot be consonant with God’s redemptive will.”[17]
Hays believes that the New Testament characterizes “marriage as an aspect of discipleship and as a reflection of God’s unbreakable faithfulness.” As a form of discipleship, marriage partners are called to the way of the cross, enduring and suffering in the hope of God’s grace, forgiveness, mercy, and healing power. As a covenant in the eyes of God, marriages that end in divorce defy God’s will except in “extraordinary circumstances.” While scripture demonstrates a certain degree of latitude for appropriating Jesus teachings about divorce, this communal “process of moral deliberation” must take place according to the biblical pattern and within the canonical framework. In occasions where divorce is permissible, the church must welcome and accept the individuals without discipline, while remarriage is permissible for cases in which the prior divorce has been deemed appropriate.[18]
Culbertson lists the most common reasons for divorce today. Among these are miscommunication, inability to manage conflict, inability to tolerate differences, the stifling of self-expression, unresolved past issues, the death of the commitment, power struggles (including physical and emotional abuse), unrealistic expectations, extramarital affairs, and lack of other options. However, while are presented as reasons that divorce has occurred, they can easily be used to encourage one to seek a divorce, overlooking other options that would aim to bring healing and hope to the marriage. For example, in discussing the “stifling of self-expression” which can lead to divorce, Culbertson declares that pastors are responsible to help those who “remain in marriage out of requirement, rather than choice” by supporting them to take “charge of their own lives, even if in some cases this means divorce.” Along the same lines, he says that many individuals marry according to societal expectations, only to have their dreams crushed or stifled by the resulting relationship. In these cases, says Culbertson, “getting divorced—while painful—often simultaneously [feels] like getting ‘back on track.’”[19]
Culbertson goes on to discuss the various stages of divorce, noting the issues and challenges of the process. Counseling may prove necessary to help the couples reclaim their original identity and “investment,” and to deal with parenting issues if they exist. He rightly encourages pastors to discover the motives held by each party, particularly if the divorce is not final. The couple may simply want to divorce, or one partner may wish to confront the other with an alternative means of ‘being together.’ Should divorce be the preferred option, pastors should encourage the couples to separate as amicably as possible. This process would include third-party mediation (instead of painful litigation), guidance in telling and caring for children, and tips for helping children to cope with the transition. Thus, Culbertson encourages pastors to base their counseling around the wants of the couple, apparently sensing no need to question the couple’s move toward divorce or to encourage them (not legalistically) with the biblical understanding of marriage.
Culbertson seeks to realistically characterize divorce as “just one of several stages in a family’s life-cycle development,” a process which “begins in an unhappy marriage and extends through the separation.” Yet, he says, we needn’t view the changing shape of the American nuclear family as a “moral crisis,” but rather as a flowering of diversity that colors the social fabric. Thus, the church can best minister to divorce by promoting rituals “that mark this traumatic and most significant event in the family life-cycle continuum.” He cites “A Service of Recognition of the End of a Marriage,” prepared by Episcopal Bishop John Spong, through which the church recognizes the end of the marriage and affirms and pledges to support the individuals as single persons. Such a service places “the church where it ought to be: in the midst of human hurt and the sense of failure.”[20]
Richard Hays also cites Spong’s service of recognition, but he believes that its contents are contrary to the role of the church and minister. In Spong’s service, the church affirms the couple in their “new covenant,” in which the couple is separated but caring for each other, supporting and loving their children, and healing from their feelings of pain. The couple is exhorted to count on God’s presence, to trust the support of the church, and to ‘begin anew.’ At this point Hay’s asks:
...why does the bishop, in his role as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not
feel compelled to say to [the couple], ‘I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband and that the husband should not divorce his wife’? By what authority does the bishop say, ‘We affirm you in the new covenant you have made’... The answer is clear: it is by the authority of experience, overriding everything in Scripture and tradition. The couple feels alienated and lacks the capacity to keep trying; that is the end of the matter. There is no suggestion in Spong’s essay that the marriage was ended because of adultery or wife-beating, or because one spouse was an unbeliever who wanted a divorce; rather, there was just ‘more offense than forgiveness in their marriage.’ But these are Christians, who have been taught by Jesus to forgive seventy times seven (Matt. 18:18-22). What does it mean to be a follower of Jesus if it does not mean to learn the discipline of forgiveness even where it proves most difficult and painful, closest to home?”[21]
Hays puts his finger on the real problem. If marriage is an aspect of discipleship, then Christians must seek to reconcile broken relationships in the home and community as part of following Christ in the world. The church fails its members when it teaches that marriage is “at the mercy of their own feelings,” avoiding the idea that “love is an act of the will, that marriage mirrors the costly fidelity of Christ to the church, and that the power of God can transform us and redeem situations that seem utterly hopeless.”[22]
Since Christians are given a “ministry of reconciliation” (I Cor 5:18), pastors must counsel failing marriages with God’s redemptive purposes in mind. Rather than guiding the couple through an efficient and seamless divorce, she must help the couple to deal with the issues that have brought to this point, offering biblical wisdom, transformative opportunities for healing, and professional resources. Pastors should not avoid corrective exhortation in the Christian counseling setting, reminding couples of the biblical understanding of the marriage covenant and of discipleship itself. This need not legalistically ignore the real and painful issues in the relationship, but rather it welcomes the couples to see, both within and beyond their pain, the presence of a crucified God who raises the dead. Understood in this way, the enduring, self-giving, and faithful reality of God’s covenant with us is a word of Gospel, which reframes our treatment of marriages teetering on divorce. Further, we can also boldly declare that even divorced couples are not beyond the reconciling power of God.[23] Theologically speaking, death and divorce need not have the final word, as congregations affirm the promises of God to those who have made promises to one another.
The reader should be beginning to understanding the reason that many mainline church’s turn a blind eye to divorce and assume it to be the best option in many circumstances. Too often this represents the easy road, the path of least resistance for the church, a way of walking beside parishioners without challenging them with the command of God. Yet, in the long run, this road is hard, leaving fractured families and painful memories, and missing countless opportunities to resurrect marriages through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Of course, some marriage have become so riddled with infidelity and are unsafe for one or both partners. In these cases, the New Testament leaves space for the community to protect its members through legal separation and dissolution of the marriage. But when such instances occur, they should be seen as a failure of the community and the couple (or possibly, of an individual within the couple who alone acts unfaithfully) to actualize the purposes of God or to seek the forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing of Christ where they are readily available. This is not, however, the option to which even the most broken of relationships are to be turned at first. The church has the responsibility to connect such couples with professional help before they encourage divorce, because divorce, like war, should be seen as the absolute final option, the last resort when every other attempt to honor the marriage vows has failed.
Therefore, pastors should exercise great care in dealing with couples amidst divorce. Congregations should prepare for the occurrence of divorce, but they must advocate an intentional means of dealing with the issue that is grace-filled yet faithful to its biblical moorings. The following are some related ways in which a pastor can encourage congregational members who deal with divorce issues:
-The couple should be led to re-understand marriage and discipleship, informed
and shaped by the Holy Scriptures.
-The injuries, failures, and tendencies of each individual that have contributed to
this crisis must be therapeutically addressed and prayerfully dealt with. Professional referral will likely be necessary.
-The couple should be led to reprioritize their lives in order to devote careful time
and attention to reconciling their marriage. The congregation can be helpful by providing the childcare, finances, and space for this to occur.
-When one or both of the individuals reject their marriage vows and stubbornly
insist upon a divorce (for reasons that the church cannot condone), the church has no choice but to prayerfully commend the situation to God. The church should not affirm or sanction such a divorce, nor should it approve of an adulterous remarriage. The church should readily welcome both members into a reconciliatory process if the couple decides to renew their vows.
-Pastors should remarry individuals with discretion, spending a significant amount
of time in discernment with the couple. Pastors should spend ample time talking with the couple about any previous marriages. Failure to properly address such issues may be the reason that second marriages fail twice as often as first marriages.[24]
-Congregations should never endorse cohabitation or any form of sexual
relationship outside of the marriage covenant. The challenge of divorce should never prompt the faith community to ‘divorce itself’ from the biblical norms for marriage and sexuality. Rather, God provides us with an ideal into which we live and strive, dependant upon God’s forgiveness and grace as we do so.
-The church should offer support for those who have been through a divorce, not
blindly endorsing all forms of divorce, but prayerfully encouraging each person to trust God’s promises and to honor God’s will for their lives as disciples. For some, this will mean to let go of an unfaithful former spouse, for others, it will mean to seek forgiveness from God and one’s former spouse for various acts of infidelity (sexual and otherwise).
-The church may only determine that an individual is exempt from prior marriage
vows in situations that are consistent with biblical teaching. When a spouse has been abused, raped, cheated upon, or mistreated in any significant way, he or she should not be led to divorce as the default option. They should first be encouraged to assume the responsibilities of reconciliation. They should separate from marital situations that are dangerous, while they can be welcomed to voluntarily and prayerfully wait patiently for their spouse to address serious issues. Yet, when the marriage is not open to reconciliation and when the victimized spouse no longer senses a call to hope for his or her partner’s restoration, divorce must be made a viable option.
-Congregations and pastors should regularly provide opportunities for
reconciliation and healing for couples, married and divorced, trusting that all things are possible with God.
-When couples have remarried, the church must maintain its teaching about
divorce, while reminding people of the forgiveness and grace of God. The Law and Gospel must not be made antithetical in such cases, as if God can have no expectations if God is truly loving and gracious. Rather, God’s will and vision for marriage remain intact, despite humanity’s tendency to poorly model the divine ideal.
-Children should become a priority in the case of divorce, both for the couple
and for the parish community. The couple should ‘put the children first,’ being willing to alter their lifestyle in a way that provides meaningful parenting and loving support.
-Couples who insist upon divorce should be encouraged to do so without injustice
or further injury to their former spouse. They should be counseled against using their children, finances, or abilities as ammunition against the other, but rather to continue seeing the other person in terms of God’s command to love the neighbor. In the tragic event of divorce, love and fidelity remain as moral and Christian imperatives for the former couple.
This outline, although not exhaustive, is meant to address the potential growth in congregational practice. While pastoral counseling will be necessary to lead troubled couples through divorces that take place by tragic necessity, congregations are responsible to reject the shallow nature of contemporary divorce and to foster reconciliation at every turn. In every case the scriptures play a key role in shaping the community’s response to marital crises and divorce.
Finally we come to the pastoral issue which has arguably become Christianity’s most divisive debate. Culbertson’s text will only be marginally helpful to us in this discussion (though I refer to it often), because here he brings his biblical and theoretical arguments to their logical conclusions in a way that would startle even the most disinterested reader. He accuses historical Christianity of “making the lives of gays and lesbians a living hell,” so that pastors must now chose the “healing nature of God’s grace and forgiveness” rather than “arguments over the authority of Scripture or ecclesiastical policy.”[25] From this non-biblical and non-traditional framework, he appropriates his own understanding of grace to the homosexual issue.
Culbertson’s work is build around some basic assumptions. He understands “human sexuality as a graded continuum rather than a bipolarity,” which for him explains the diverse nature of the homosexual population in society. Though he affirms this continuum between different people, his arguments seem to deny its existence in the life of an individual, meaning that a single person can and should be understood through the bipolar lens—either as heterosexual or homosexual basis (he does contradict himself on this point). While he makes various statements which say the opposite, his overall argument is that sexual orientation is static and fixed from birth, having very little potential for malleability. Thus, individuals who have experienced a seismic shift in their sexual expression, say from heterosexual to homosexual behavior, simply hadn’t come to terms with their inherent homosexuality in the first place.[26]
Culbertson blames society and the church for suppressing homosexuals through homophobic and rigid, gender roles, which only create pain and delay homosexuals from actualizing their God-given identity. To remedy this, he believes that the church should support a healthy sexual identity that encourages homosexuals to publicly become that which they privately perceive themselves to be. He outlines a process through which homosexuals can actualize and publicize this private self, the goal being to arrive at “identity synthesis,” at which point one’s private and public sexuality is “synthesized into one image of self...” This integrated homosexuality is then merged with the other aspects of the self, thereby completing the individuals formative process. [27]
In discussing sexual orientation and behavior, Culbertson periodically contradicts himself by admitting that “a person’s sexual orientation may not be easily captured in a single word and it may change over time. Sexual orientation is a complex and dynamic concept rather than a simple, fixed label” (emphasis mine). Immediately after making this claim, however, Culbertson declares that pastors who work with individuals who are struggling to understand their sexual identity, should seek to challenge those clients to “move toward greater congruency”[28] with their homosexual orientation. This means that, despite the fact that sexual orientation is complex and may change over time, pastors can somehow know with certainty that an individual is a homosexual and therefore should help them to live into that identity.
Culbertson refers to statistical information regarding the rates of college graduation and armed service involvement for homosexuals to note that “gay men are better educated and more patriotic than heterosexual men in general,” in an attempt to criticize society’s inappropriate negative stigma toward homosexuality. However, while he gladly accepts statistical information about homosexuals when the characterization is positive, he immediately rejects all negative empirical findings related to the same. For him, statistics related to the negative or destructive effects of homosexual behavior within cultures and subcultures where homosexual practice is affirmed (See Robert Gagnon’s The Bible And Homosexual Practice, 471-486) is unfair, because “there is, of course, no such thing [as a ‘gay lifestyle’], nor is there a single or homogeneous gay community. Gay people are as diverse as straight men and women...”[29] For Culbertson, we should affirm homosexuality since a significant percentage of gays enjoy relative success in academia and/or participate in our national defense, yet we cannot pay attention to the empirical findings that describe the problems of cultures in which homosexual practice is affirmed.
Culbertson’s views lead him to advocate a form of counseling that champions self-discovery, freeing the client from the destructive and rigid expectations of the heterosexual majority. Not only does he personally espouse this view, he argues that only pastors who, like him, see homosexuality as a created gift and valid aspect of one’s personhood can ethically counsel those dealing with homosexual issues. These pastors are to guide the individual through the various stages of coming out, liberating them from the fetters of homophobia and from the church’s overly dogmatic tradition. While society has made it difficult for gay couples to enjoy permanency in their relationships, pastors can help these couples to adjust their expectations of each other and to more realistically approach their relationship. As far as spiritual direction is concerned, pastors should orient homosexuals toward a “doctrine of cocreation through which diverse forms of life emerge that must be regarded as intrinsically good.”[30] Since homosexuality is one such form of life, coming out can be understood as a “peak experience on [one’s] spiritual journey,” as individuals co-create with God by creating a bodily home for their own soul. Integrated homosexuals bring an eclectic gift to the whole community, representing an insightful and liberating presence in a society still struggling to accept those who are different.[31]
In adopting whatever form of theology allows him to justify same-sex attractions and behavior, Culbertson is without a biblical and theological understanding of creation, sin, justification, eschatology, and discipleship. He seems to fuse sexual attraction with an individual’s soul, in a way that makes coming out a central aspect of discipleship and which confuses misguided therapy with sanctification. No mention of the cross is possible in such a framework, since any talk of denying oneself (Mark 8:34) and one’s sexual urges has given way to the affirmation of same-sex attraction.
No where is this more clear than in Culbertson’s unfortunate advice for counseling individuals who are “coming out” while living in a heterosexual marriage. Such a couple usually comes forward for assistance when one of the two has fallen in love with a homosexual partner or become entangled in some form of homosexual behavior (occasionally leading to an arrest). In order to validate the homosexual attractions of that spouse, Culbertson must first remind the reader that any attempt to avoid or suppress those desires will only delay the inevitable conclusion, which will by necessity come about “due to psychological or biological processes beyond [the person’s] conscious control...” He must also argue that that the individual has been unjustly pressured into marriage by the burdensome gender norms of society, through which its members are socialized to adopt an “internalized homophobia.” Due to this and other factors, such individuals simply “did not really realize that they were gay until well into the marriage.” Now that the marriage has failed to ‘make them normal’ or to remove their homosexual orientation, they now must live up to that reality and deal with it head on.
But again, Culbertson contradicts himself, declaring that we should not be surprised that such ‘homosexuals’ marry heterosexually, because human sexuality is fluid enough so that the two could easily have married out of sincere love. Yet, speaking as if the individual should have been certain about his/her orientation all along, Culbertson urges the counseling pastor to find out what the ‘homosexual’ partner “hoped to attain by marrying that could not be attained by an earlier declaration of a gay identity.”[32] Culbertson’s constant ambivalence regarding the fluidity of sexual orientation makes his work very difficult to follow and highly questionable to say the least. For it is inappropriate to repeatedly assert that sexuality is fluid and then to counsel a person as if he or she was gay all along. Not only is this illogical, it is unethical in therapeutic practice, an inconsistent agenda that caregivers can ill-afford to impose upon those under their care. The qualitative product of this form of counseling is evident in Culbertson’s conclusions below.
The couple in this case has four choices, says Culbertson, only two of which are realistic. The “cleanest” option is for the individual to come out as a homosexual and to leave the marriage, especially if such a move represents a shift to a more “integrated sexual identity.” The other viable alternative, he declares, is to encourage the struggling spouse to adopt a “bisexual identity or behavior,” which is most appropriate if the couple has serious reasons not to divorce. Otherwise, the couple can continue in their heterosexual behavior and “attempt to rebuild the marriage,” although Culbertson believes that such a choice may only increase the risk of suicide or depression. Finally, the individual may “opt for celibacy,” either remaining in the marriage or leaving. But since Culbertson understands celibacy is a gift and not a choice, he encourages the counseling pastor to hedge the individual more in the direction of “sexual integration and psychological wholeness.” In the end the only valid option is to bless the individual’s same-sex attractions, affirming the individual’s true identity as a homosexual, and encouraging the couple to allow those desires to shape their relationship. If the couple decides to remain married, Culbertson says, they should make certain that a series of items are in place.[33] Since the ‘homosexual’ spouse has the right to express his or her orientation sexually, Culbertson makes room for extramarital intercourse. He recommends, should sexual activity take place beyond the marriage, that “the other partner does not know about it, or the husband and wife have worked out an open-marriage contract.” This couple must now understand their marriage as one between a homosexual and heterosexual, and should redefine their rules and expectations based upon the former’s same-sex “orientation.”[34]
I believe that very little commentary is necessary at this point, because such tragic pastoral advice speaks for itself. To even think about redefining marital boundaries—in order to act upon sexual urges toward individuals outside of the marriage—is an outright rejection of the biblical teaching. More than that, this represents a double-standard. It would be foolish to assert that I, as a married male, should recharacterize my identity, divorce my wife, or form an “open marriage contract” simply because I experience attraction toward women who are not my wife. It would be equally senseless for me to claim a ‘polygamous sexual orientation,’ even though the desires feel quite natural to my being. Yet, in Culbertson’s framework, if I were to experience powerful urges toward males, my wife and I could be counseled to make allowances so that I might act upon those feelings through extramarital, homogenital intercourse.
The church does well to reject this theological and practical impropriety, confessing any failure to do so and reclaiming the biblical teachings of marriage and sexuality. For it is purely idolatrous to redefine human identity in ways that directly contradict God’s judgment and biblical teaching.[35] More than that, it represents a individualistic and destructive pastoral care that places sexual urges above marriage vows and familial relationships. What about the children, who in Culbertson’s framework could every Friday watch their father pack his bags in order to spend the weekend at his boyfriends house, while their mother remains sobbing in the entry. No worry, Culbertson says, since “the majority of literature finds no significant negative long-term developmental impact on children.” Culbertson refers to the work of Howard Bess in noting that the family is just one of many places in which the children will receive the necessary role modeling they require. Most children learn from dozens of adults throughout their development, from teachers and coaches to mentors and grandparents, who each serve as positive examples in the child’s development. In this distorted and disastrous logic, since young Billie has a good coach, a nice teacher, and a thoughtful grandparent, Billie’s father shouldn’t be overly concerned about the example he sets through his homosexual affair.
Surprisingly, Culbertson states that Christianity should learn from the conduct of the AA program, a program which he says offers assistance to a group that was alienated by the legalistic church.[36] At this point, I agree with Culbertson, and would wholeheartedly endorse a ministry that deals with homosexuality with the warmth, compassion, and resolve of Alcoholics Anonymous. Of course, we all know that AA endeavors to help and heal its members as they seek to renounce a behavior to which they are genetically predisposed according to scientific findings. Though these individuals have an “alcoholic orientation,” AA supports them through a community of caring and encouraging friends who walk with that person through successive ‘steps,’ prayerfully longing for freedom from their addiction. In light of Culbertson’s helpful advice regarding this effective program, I will discuss the general ways in which the Christian church can structure its counseling and programming in order to minister to homosexuals with warmth, compassion, and faithful resolve. In order to do so, I visited with an individual who leads such a ministry.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting with Nancy Hallet, a self-professed “former lesbian,” who now works to liberate individuals who long for freedom from their homosexual urges. She works for a ministry called “Eagle’s Wings,” which ministers to homosexuals who seek transformative therapy as they wrestle with homosexual orientation, desires, and behavior. While many facets of this ministry are noteworthy (some of which I will mention below), nothing was more convincing to me than this woman’s personal testimony.
After a childhood in which she lacked a sufficient connection with her mother, Nancy spend eight years in a lesbian relationship before seeking assistance from the church. This ministry, called “Healing Waters,” led her out of the darkness of her homosexuality and helped her to reclaim her identity as God’s beloved child. Since that time (she has been a heterosexual for about fourteen years), she has been married and has enjoyed the freedom that comes from finding one’s true identity in the love and promises of Jesus Christ. Though her husband has now died, she continues to praise God for his act of deliverance and stands as a powerful testimony to the healing power of the Holy Spirit. Though she understands herself as a heterosexual by contemporary definition, she refuses to strictly identify herself with any such titles, because only God can tell us who we are. She reasons that, since God claims us as his children, any attempt to make ourselves into something else is sinful.
According to Hallet, the ministry of Eagles Wings and its affiliates is to help the individual to claim their true identity as God’s children. They do not seek to suppress homosexual desires, because the desires themselves are like the light on the dashboard when the engine is low on oil. Instead of trying to “put the engine light out,” so to speak, the goal is to fill the engine with oil. And the oil in this case is the presence, power, and love of God and of the Christian community. Through meeting the unmet needs for ultimate intimacy, identity, and value, Eagles Wings leads individuals through the injuries, regrets, and shortcomings that contributed toward their homosexuality. If the individuals are willing to persevere in counseling ministry, marvelous results are possible. This is generally been the healing process for Ms. Hallet and thousands of other former homosexuals across the country and world.
In terms of results, Hallet says, scholars in the field of “tranformative” therapy claim the traditional 30/30/30 ratio, in which 30% of the clients show significant improvement, 30% show moderate improvement, and 30% show little or no improvement.[37] However, Eagles Wings doesn’t keep precise, statistical records because of the complex and enduring nature of the healing process, the varied levels of participant commitment, and because they are not seeking to justify their ministry empirically. This does not mean that they have not been blessed to watch considerable results in the lives of their clients, but only that they approach healing on an individual basis.
In speaking with Ms. Hallet, I was struck by her optimistic approach to counseling and startled by her frequent and insightful use of scripture. Based in the biblical text, much of her work centers around the nature of truth and lies. She points out that our human experience should never override God’s revelation, since we see life through the lens of the Genesis 3 curses. Thus, we cannot give to much priority to scientific findings that characterize homosexuality as an aspect of human identity, since such a theological assessment steps far beyond the realm of science. Rather, we must hear the Father’s voice, which truly brings us “out of the closet” and into his loving presence, by which we are healed and made new.
Hallet, who regularly speaks at churches and helps them to set up homosexual ministries of their own, points out that homosexuality must not be singled out or made more “evil” than any other sin. Rather, as Romans 1 says, homosexual behavior is evidence of our sinful condition and enmity with God. When asked if homosexuality is dangerous, she reminded me that, while such a notion may be true, it is not central to her work in counseling and ministry. Individuals who struggle with powerful homosexual urges, like those who battle addictions or habitual behavior of any kind, can rarely be convinced to avoid such behavior simply because it’s said to be unsafe. Rather, she encourages such persons by nurturing their relationship with Christ. As the clients are taught about God’s person and love, led to discover their sinful and wounded nature, they are guided, through small group prayer and healing ministry, to confront painful issues that are bound to arise.
I asked Ms. Hallet to comment on Culbertson’s advice for married couples when one spouse declares him or herself to be gay. She rejected the notion an open marriage contract, in which one or both spouses indulge in sexual activity beyond the relationship. Rather, in such cases she refers the couple to “Simon Ministries,” a ministry like Eagles Wings that focuses on couples and their particular issues. She also pointed out that, where a major breach in fidelity has occurred, newly transmitted diseases can often be an issue that complicates the ongoing safety of the relationship, and divorce is understandable. Yet, while individuals in the marriage should protect themselves from being used or hurt, couples can also know that God remains faithful even to violated marriage covenants, and that many couples have worked through painful crises to rebuild their broken marriages.
Hallet encourages churches to refrain from legalistic preaching, even when they believe that they are preaching the truth of God’s Word. Rather, they should seek to build trust and openness about personal struggles, creating an environment in which individuals can “take their masks off.” Churches should talk about sexuality regularly and publicly, but always in a spirit of humility and loving service. We must become a church that really loves sinners, practically and passionately, not seeking to isolate homosexuality as the great sin among us. Rather, the healing of the homosexual is the healing of everyone, she says, because we all have the same underlying needs that require ministry and grace. Hallet regularly guides churches to start their own healing ministries, and she encourages networks of churches to individually adopt various kinds of ministries so that they can share resources and refer persons to one that best engages their needs. Living Waters is one such transferable ministry, while ministries called “Cross Current” and “Theophostic Training” are also available. Hallet hopes that someday, independent ministries like Eagles Wings wont exist, having been replaced by congregational programs in which healing is truly meant to occur.
Finally, those who are have received healing ministry and have successfully dealt with their homosexual desires have a powerful witness to offer, especially in light of the scientific community’s insistence that homosexuality cannot be altered. Hallet says that telling her own story is a personal blessing, reminding herself of God’s grace in her life and continually removing her shame. But it also blesses others, who find hope in their struggles by listening to the story of one who has been through the worst. In discussing the personal witness of former homosexuals, Hallet quotes Revelation 12:11, where the devil is conquered by the Blood of the Lamb and the word of testimony. For Hallet, this text places our testimony of God’s graceful and transformative work on the same level as the blood of Jesus. Homosexuals and heterosexuals—or more appropriately, all of God’s children—join in this battle by hearing, experiencing, and proclaiming God’s liberating word.
Below are various means through which congregations may address the issues of homosexuality, sexual temptation, and addiction:
-Partner with area churches to develop ministries such as Healing Waters, which
help to address the unmet needs and unhealed wounds of those who are seek freedom from homosexual attractions and behavior.
-Carefully and prayerfully teach about the biblical understanding of marriage and
sexuality, maintaining a faithful and positive tone and refusing to single homosexuals out as greater sinners than the rest of us.
-Always compliment biblical teaching about sexuality with humble and faithful
service. This could be a ministry that cares for AIDS victims, prays with and for those struggling with sexual orientation, or which engages in any avenue of Christian service.
-Firmly maintain the orthodox teachings about justification and redemption, in
which all people fall short of God’s glory. As a community of redeemed sinners, the church should proclaim God’s grace and truth to those who battle with worldly forces.
-Pastors should foster a biblical education that equips people to know and share
the scriptures and to lead in ministry.
-Churches and leaders that adopt ministries to homosexuals should plan to
prayerfully support one another when criticized by both the secular and mainline Christian community. Because this kind of ministry is extremely unpopular and goes against the grain of contemporary thinking, churches should prepare for criticism or even potential persecution. Some Christian leaders, including Dr. James Dobson, have confessed to receiving death threats for supporting a transformative teaching and ministry toward homosexuality.
-Prevent a double standard from developing in ministry, where non-homosexuals
appear to exist without sin or serious struggles, sexual and otherwise. Offer counseling and programming aimed to help heterosexuals to resist the power of sinful and sexual urges which are clearly contrary to God’s call upon their lives as disciples.
-Pastors should draw from psychology and the social sciences, keeping in mind
the conflicts that we have discussed in this paper. The church can learn a great deal from the medical and scientific community, while it can also adopt claims that do not honor its biblical identity. Ministers should balance their secular research with that of groups such as NARTH (The national Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality), a research organization which offers a different take on sexual orientation and therapy to homosexuals. Exodus International is another organization that offers information and testimonials.
-Pastors should first research and validate the theory and practice of any ministry
that they seek to start a their congregation, consulting a wide variety of resources and comparing their findings with the Word of God. Such a ministry can be tailored to fit the congregation’s theological beliefs, much like Alpha or The Purpose Driven Life have been modified by many churches.
I humbly submit these writings as the conclusion of my thinking and research to date. I unapologetically claim them as my current perspectives and conclusions, knowing full well that they run counter to much of the mainline understanding of scripture and ministry. For at the heart of the Lutheran message is a gospel that leads its recipient to proceed forth with a clear conscience and full assurance in faith, trusting God to lead and correct us as we go. To this end I fully endorse and would willingly defend what I have written, while I reserve the right to be wrong and to alter my thoughts as I further develop. As always, ministers should proceed in a spirit of repentance, claiming God’s mercy as we operate as fallen creatures in a fallen world. Yet, we do injustice to that same mercy if we do not speak from the convictions which appear to be molded and framed by the revelatory character of God’s Word. While much diversity of opinion exists around the biblical text, not to mention the practical application thereof, this is a perspective that too often seems absent among the diversity of voices.
This paper is designed to outline some of the important aspects of a ministry that deals gracefully and faithfully with the issues of marriage and sexuality, giving a prominent place for the use of scripture and offering expansive attention to the issue of homosexuality. I believe that the contents herein would prove beneficial as a congregation seeks to testify to Christ through word and deed. In the end this framework is meant to encourage and guide congregations in one of the most crucial aspects of ministry—making disciples. When seen in service to the Kingdom of God and as aspects of discipleship, marriage and sexuality, as aspects of discipleship, are finally liberated from the misconceptions and abuses of contemporary society. In this world, struggling with sin yet redeemed by the Crucified One, Christians place marriage and sexuality where they, and we, belong—beneath the Cross of Jesus Christ.
[1] Culpertson, Philip, Caring for God’s People, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2000), 3.
[2] Ibid, 7.
[3] Ibid, 13.
[4] Ibid, 14-15.
[5] Culpertson, 35.
[6] This argument is taken from the classroom lecture over the twelfth chapter of John, given by Craig Koester on Tuesday, March 22nd, 2005 at Luther Seminary.
[7] Culpertson, 17-18.
[8] Culpertson, 91. The chapter on Object Relations in Culpertson’s text was the basis of my analysis here, and a helpful resource for clergy who seek a background for that area.
[9] Culpertson, 61. The general description of Narrative Theory has been drawn from this particular chapter in Culpertson’s text.
[10] Ibid, 44 and 51.