Thanks for this post. I appreciate Schnarch's thoughts on being wary of seeking validation as an underlying motivation of intimate sharing. I'll add that Intimacy is something that's earned, invited, welcomed, consented to. The partner who is sharing needs a sense of security and safety that their share will be free of any response that may leave them feeling judged in any way, or that the sharing will not, under any circumstances, be used against them in the future. Confidentiality is important as well, in order to create a safe place for deep sharing. In other words, intimate sharing happens when there is trust that vulnerable sharing will be honored and respected. I've seen many partners say they want deep sharing from their partners, but then fail to meet that honesty with a response that does not reward that gesture. Laying the groundwork with agreements is important.
I love the language that intimacy is earned/invited/welcomed/consented to.
And the laying the groundwork for agreements is certainly important. Part of the hard work of relationship therapy is coming to a concrete understanding of what these terms look like in real time.
For instance, confidentiality refers to the value of privacy, and a couple has to wrestle with an understanding of what information is private and what information is public inside and outside of the relationship.
Honor and respect have to do with the absence of criticism, but more than that, when I initiate information to you, what is my fantasy about what happens in the 30-60 seconds that follow? In the 5-10 minutes, or the next hours and days that follow? How can my humanity be respected during that time, both during our conversation and after?
The answer to these questions are different for different people.
We'll also talk more about the comment about "wanting deep sharing from their partners, but then fail to meet that honesty with a response that does not reward that gesture" on Thursday.
Jeremiah and Julia, you say, "Sunday mornings, our articles are exclusively about the impact of Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal rhetoric, theology, and policy on modern-day relationships and sexual health." And you state that these attempt to "simplify complicated . . . struggles," giving examples. And you indicated that you were, or maybe still are, a "worship minister."
And then you label certain Christian practices as "bypassing" by quoting Dr. Anderson, who says, "There is no one [including Jesus] coming to save you. There is no person that can take away your fear, stress, and pain." I agree that no person or institution, EXCEPT Jesus can "save" us. We cannot depend on anyone else for our "self-justification." As Adrian Rogers said, "If your religion hasn't changed your life, you need to change your religion!" In the Old Testament, "Salvation" included deliverance from your enemies and circumstances -- sometimes out of and sometimes through them.
I do not know when you began integrating your Psychological Training and experience with your religious experience. Was it because your "religion" fell short of meeting your expectations? Does the Bible not answer your questions and meet your needs? Did you need to replace it with something else?
Tim. I'm not interested in engaging in apologetics discussions on this Substack.
However, in regards to your questions, I want to mention a quick reference:
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral talks about critical analysis by exploring the intersection between our understanding of science/logic, tradition/history, personal experience, and the text itself. There's two ways to use the WQ. The first way, which I do, is to have the understanding of science/logic, tradition/history, and personal experience inform our understanding of the text and the religion. The second way, which we don't do, is to use the text to inform our understanding of science/logic, tradition/history, and personal experience.
In order to get the best experience with our writing, we encourage folks to utilize option one. The premise of our writing is utilizing the research of relationships and sexuality, the understanding of human history (and current events and political systems), and our own experience and the experiences of others who have been negatively impacted by Evangelical Christianity to inform our relationship with religion and the Bible.
That doesn't mean that I don't find the Bible useful or meaningful. I certainly do. I'm thankful for my religious upbringing, and I wouldn't be where I am or who I am today without it.
However, I think folks who use option two (i.e. making the Bible the starting place, assuming it's inerrant, etc.) are going to get frustrated with us, and we may be at an impasse.
I am trying to understand you, your positions, and the purpose of your writing. Why do you include statements like those above if you do not expect me yo react to them? I realize that you are not writing to me. And as you probably noticed, I take you just as literally as I do the Bible. Perhaps you do not intend for people to understand each statement literally. And I am trying to understand how religion/human philosophy, sexuality, and interpersonal relationships all interact. I believe that is what you are writing about. I am not frustrated with you, primarily because my beliefs can only be refined and improved, as I subject them to use and analysis. The truth will last forever, and has no reason to change. I do not believe that John and Charles Wesley would agree with the Quadrilateral' Method of interpretation. Leaning on our own understanding is what gets most of us into trouble.
I love the first question you asked. This is one of the reasons that I'm writing a series about differentiation and the sexual crucible model. Differentiation is about accepting the differences that we have, and ultimately about making a relationship about the commonalities that we do have.
You and I don't see eye to eye on the role that religion plays. Great! That's true with me and a lot of folks (inside and outside Christian spaces).
Differentiation is about being aware of those differences and not responding reactively or defensively, so long as I don't name call (which I don't do) or try to prove that one position is "right" or "wrong". While I write a lot about the negative impact of Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal systems, I also take a strong stance against criticizing people who still participate in those traditions.
Hope that's helpful.
And to those who are reading this thread, I hope this is a helpful model for how to navigate differences.
Absolutely. I am trying to figure out on what we agree and build on that: I can always agree with that which is true. As far as I am concerned, everyone's opinions are of equal value and should be respected. However, no one can be forced to affirm another's beliefs.
Thanks for this post. I appreciate Schnarch's thoughts on being wary of seeking validation as an underlying motivation of intimate sharing. I'll add that Intimacy is something that's earned, invited, welcomed, consented to. The partner who is sharing needs a sense of security and safety that their share will be free of any response that may leave them feeling judged in any way, or that the sharing will not, under any circumstances, be used against them in the future. Confidentiality is important as well, in order to create a safe place for deep sharing. In other words, intimate sharing happens when there is trust that vulnerable sharing will be honored and respected. I've seen many partners say they want deep sharing from their partners, but then fail to meet that honesty with a response that does not reward that gesture. Laying the groundwork with agreements is important.
I love the language that intimacy is earned/invited/welcomed/consented to.
And the laying the groundwork for agreements is certainly important. Part of the hard work of relationship therapy is coming to a concrete understanding of what these terms look like in real time.
For instance, confidentiality refers to the value of privacy, and a couple has to wrestle with an understanding of what information is private and what information is public inside and outside of the relationship.
Honor and respect have to do with the absence of criticism, but more than that, when I initiate information to you, what is my fantasy about what happens in the 30-60 seconds that follow? In the 5-10 minutes, or the next hours and days that follow? How can my humanity be respected during that time, both during our conversation and after?
The answer to these questions are different for different people.
We'll also talk more about the comment about "wanting deep sharing from their partners, but then fail to meet that honesty with a response that does not reward that gesture" on Thursday.
Thanks again for your comment!
Jeremiah and Julia, you say, "Sunday mornings, our articles are exclusively about the impact of Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal rhetoric, theology, and policy on modern-day relationships and sexual health." And you state that these attempt to "simplify complicated . . . struggles," giving examples. And you indicated that you were, or maybe still are, a "worship minister."
And then you label certain Christian practices as "bypassing" by quoting Dr. Anderson, who says, "There is no one [including Jesus] coming to save you. There is no person that can take away your fear, stress, and pain." I agree that no person or institution, EXCEPT Jesus can "save" us. We cannot depend on anyone else for our "self-justification." As Adrian Rogers said, "If your religion hasn't changed your life, you need to change your religion!" In the Old Testament, "Salvation" included deliverance from your enemies and circumstances -- sometimes out of and sometimes through them.
I do not know when you began integrating your Psychological Training and experience with your religious experience. Was it because your "religion" fell short of meeting your expectations? Does the Bible not answer your questions and meet your needs? Did you need to replace it with something else?
Tim. I'm not interested in engaging in apologetics discussions on this Substack.
However, in regards to your questions, I want to mention a quick reference:
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral talks about critical analysis by exploring the intersection between our understanding of science/logic, tradition/history, personal experience, and the text itself. There's two ways to use the WQ. The first way, which I do, is to have the understanding of science/logic, tradition/history, and personal experience inform our understanding of the text and the religion. The second way, which we don't do, is to use the text to inform our understanding of science/logic, tradition/history, and personal experience.
In order to get the best experience with our writing, we encourage folks to utilize option one. The premise of our writing is utilizing the research of relationships and sexuality, the understanding of human history (and current events and political systems), and our own experience and the experiences of others who have been negatively impacted by Evangelical Christianity to inform our relationship with religion and the Bible.
That doesn't mean that I don't find the Bible useful or meaningful. I certainly do. I'm thankful for my religious upbringing, and I wouldn't be where I am or who I am today without it.
However, I think folks who use option two (i.e. making the Bible the starting place, assuming it's inerrant, etc.) are going to get frustrated with us, and we may be at an impasse.
I am trying to understand you, your positions, and the purpose of your writing. Why do you include statements like those above if you do not expect me yo react to them? I realize that you are not writing to me. And as you probably noticed, I take you just as literally as I do the Bible. Perhaps you do not intend for people to understand each statement literally. And I am trying to understand how religion/human philosophy, sexuality, and interpersonal relationships all interact. I believe that is what you are writing about. I am not frustrated with you, primarily because my beliefs can only be refined and improved, as I subject them to use and analysis. The truth will last forever, and has no reason to change. I do not believe that John and Charles Wesley would agree with the Quadrilateral' Method of interpretation. Leaning on our own understanding is what gets most of us into trouble.
I love the first question you asked. This is one of the reasons that I'm writing a series about differentiation and the sexual crucible model. Differentiation is about accepting the differences that we have, and ultimately about making a relationship about the commonalities that we do have.
You and I don't see eye to eye on the role that religion plays. Great! That's true with me and a lot of folks (inside and outside Christian spaces).
Differentiation is about being aware of those differences and not responding reactively or defensively, so long as I don't name call (which I don't do) or try to prove that one position is "right" or "wrong". While I write a lot about the negative impact of Evangelical, Mormon, and Pentecostal systems, I also take a strong stance against criticizing people who still participate in those traditions.
Hope that's helpful.
And to those who are reading this thread, I hope this is a helpful model for how to navigate differences.
Absolutely. I am trying to figure out on what we agree and build on that: I can always agree with that which is true. As far as I am concerned, everyone's opinions are of equal value and should be respected. However, no one can be forced to affirm another's beliefs.