Psychology & Christianity

Journal of Psychology and Christianity

2017, Vol. 36, No.1, 51-62

Copyright 2017 Christian Association for Psychological Studies

ISSN 0733-4273

51

authors: “(1) an act of an emotional and/or physical betrayal characterized by behavior that is not sanctioned by the other partner; and (2) that has contributed to considerable, ongoing emotional anguish in the non-offending partner” (p. 26). The first author’s work with couples supports the literature’s suggestion that whether something is considered a breach in relationship trust or an act of infidelity is dependent on the perception of the individual (Dean, 2011).

Various terminology has been used to describe who was involved in the infidelity and who was betrayed. Persons involved in the affair have been described as the “affair” and “unfaithful” partner (Glass, 2004), “offending partner” (Zola, 2007), “involved partner” (Softas-Nall, Beadle, Newell, & Helm, 2008), and the “participating partner” (Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2004). Per- sons who were not involved in the affair have been described as the “betrayed partner” (Glass, 2004), “nonoffending partner” (Zola, 2007), and “injured partner” (Gibson, 2008). Mental health providers are cautioned to be mindful of the implications and narratives that each of the terms seemingly support. That is, the term “participat- ing” might carry much less fault than the term “offending” or “affair” partner. Conversely, the term “nonoffending” and “nonparticipating” part- ner might assume much less hurt and pain than “injured” partner. Further, Dean (2011) suggested that using the former terms might help reduce the likelihood that nonparticipating partners identify themselves as victims.

The descriptive terms used, however, are less important than how the couple responds to and co-creates the story of the incident as well as the narrative of their healing. That is, upon the initial disclosure, partners might actually feel like the “offending” and “nonoffending” partner or victim, whereas further down their journey of healing, they both may identify more with

Healing from Infidelity: The Role of Covenantal Forgiveness

Approximately two million people who believe that they are entering into an exclusive and perhaps permanent relationship with anoth- er will marry this year (Center for Disease Con- trol, 2013). Although the data are inconsistent, it is estimated that one in four of those people will have an affair during the course of the mar- riage (Blow & Hartnett, 2005). The nature of marital infidelity, its impact on the marriage and marriage partners, and effective interventions are topics that receive considerable research attention, if for no other reason than the preva- lence of the problem.

We suggest that a variable that distinguishes a sizable sub-group of those two million people who get married each year is their religion and spiritualty. That variable is salient in the under- standing of marriage, infidelity, and forgiveness. The purpose of this article is to provide a frame- work for understanding the unique character of Christian marriage and to propose a response to marital infidelity that is consistent with that framework, which we have called covenantal forgiveness. We will provide a case study to illustrate the application of covenantal forgive- ness to post-affair marriage counseling.

Affairs

What is infidelity? Atkins and Kessel (2008) measured infidelity by whether or not the per- son had sex with someone other than his or her spouse while married. Other researchers define it as a “breaking of trust” (Nelson, Li, Eckstein, Ane, & Mullener, 2008, p. 375). Johnson (2005) remarks that this violation of trust calls the entire relationship into question and requires attention in order for it to survive. Zola’s (2007) definition captures a summary of various

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jill Duba Sauerheber at jillduba.sauer- [email protected].

Marital infidelity is a prevalent problem with significant consequences for a couple. This review examines the nature of marital affairs and proposes a unique approach to counseling Christian couples. The article outlines the framework of the Christian marriage as a covenant and proposes covenantal forgiveness as an approach to addressing post-affair issues in counseling. A case example is included.

Jill Duba Sauerheber Western Kentucky University

Richard F. Ponton Georgian Court University

52 THE ROLE OF COVENANTAL FORGIVENESS

(Bagarozzi, 2008; Nelson et al., 2008; Subotnik & Harris, 2005); and retaliatory affairs (Glass & Wright, 1992; Winek & Craven, 2003). Many of these typologies overlap. For example, someone who has narcissistic traits may be looking for an opportunity for a sexual encounter that is conve- nient and brief.

Factors Associated with Infidelity A multitude of factors and/or causes have been

linked to infidelity. Provided here is a brief summa- ry of factors supported by the research, as well as those explained through theoretical perspectives. Duba et al. (2008) categorized factors and causes associated with infidelity into the following: (a) personal, (b) interpersonal/relational, and (c) exter- nal or outside factors. However, it requires a per- sonal decision to engage external and/or outside factors. Therefore, factors discussed here will be considered as personal or interpersonal/relational.

Personal. Various personal factors have been associated with one’s engagement in an affair or act of infidelity, including sexual attraction (Glass & Wright, 1992; Winek & Craven, 2003), sexual addiction, fulfillment of unmet sexual needs, liber- al sexual values. Persons with addiction or impulse control disorders, antisocial and narcissis- tic traits (Baucom, Gordon, Snyder, Atkins, & Christensen, 2006), and a strong need for attention (Subotnik & Harris, 2005) are more likely to engage in affairs than are those without these traits. Boekhout, Hendrick, and Hendrick (2003) found that sometimes partners who are actually happy with the marriage may still engage in infi- delity for personal growth reasons and/or a desire to enhance their lives by participating in a more diversified range of activities and companions.

Various sources have highlighted the link between gender and infidelity, or more specifi- cally, the male’s tendency to have more affairs than women (Abrahamson et al., 2012; Lau- mann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Wie- derman, 1997). Various theoretical explanations have been posited to explain why it appears that men are significantly more interested in sex than their wives (Gottman & Silver, 2012). Reib- stein (2013, p. 372), for example, uses a social construction perspective to describe why men seem to have more affairs than women. The male sex drive, according to Reibstein, is a part of the cultural narrative. Also men may have greater personal agency than women, and their options for sexual partners are greater than women have. Giblin (2011) suggests that as a

descriptions such as “participating” and “nonpar- ticipating” partners. For the purpose of consis- tency, the terms “offending” and “nonoffending” partner will be used in this manuscript.

Forms and Typologies of Affairs The literature tends to describe affairs by offer-

ing associative factors and causes and by describing typologies or forms. Many of these descriptions and categories overlap. However, a summary of the literature of both typologies/forms as well as causes and factors linked to infidelity will be outlined. Types of affairs seem to fall within two categories, includ- ing interpersonal and non-interpersonal (the betrayal does not involve another person). With- in these categories are specific kinds of betrayal. Interpersonal forms might include an act or event of infidelity that is nonphysical, but an emotionally intimate connection (Reibstein, 2013). In other cases, the affair may be sexual and may or may not be emotional (Dean, 2011; Zola, 2007). Yet for others, the affair may occur online in the form of cybersex or pornography (Dean, 2011; Zola, 2007). Non-personal affairs may be in the form of a financial betrayal (Zola, 2007), which may be related to hidden business or personal financial transactions. Non-interper- sonal affairs may also be in the form of con- cealed addictions (such as gambling, fetishes, etc.). Gottman and Silver (2012) also listed other acts of betrayal that compromise trust, including but not limited to lying, breaking promises, forming a coalition against the partner with someone else (i.e., a family member), coldness or absenteeism, withdrawal of sexual interest, and selfishness. (See Gottman and Silver, chapter 5 for an elaborate description of each.)

Abrahamson and colleagues (Abrahamson, Hussain, Kahn, & Schofield, 2012) summarized various typologies proposed in the literature (see page 1495 for an exhaustive list). A consolidation of those noted, as well as others presented in additional literature, suggests that romantic affairs, whether brief or enduring, can be typolo- gized in various ways including, but not limited to, the following: accidental (Pittman & Wagers, 1995); opportunistic and convenience (Duba, Kindsvatter, & Lara, 2008; Glass, 2004; Winek & Craven, 2003); those relating to a personality or mental disorder such as sexual addiction or attachment-related issues (Gottman & Silver, 2012); exit affairs; those related to developmen- tal personal challenges and adjustments

DUBA SAUERHEBER AND PONTON 53

result of the cultural narrative that prescribes male strength, endurance, and action rather than feeling, men dis-identify from their feelings and their bodies. The body is then viewed as “serv- ing sports or sex” (p. 128). From an evolution- ary perspective, men have greater interest in sex due to their desire for reproductive success. This is different from women, who are more interest- ed in keeping a father and partner for their chil- dren and maintaining a committed relationship (De Stefano & Oala, 2008; Glass, 2004; Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Numerous authors have cited that the need and desire for men to have and exert power and control has been a motivating factor for them to engage in infidelity (Balswick & Bal- swick, 1999; Giblin, 2011; Glass & Wright, 1992; Winek & Craven, 2003). Zola (2007) remarked that such power and control was characteristic of the male oppression of women once pervad- ing our culture. While our current culture advo- cates for and seemingly supports equality of rights and justice among the genders, this histor- ical narrative often remains in pockets of Ameri- can society.

Interpersonal/Relational. While some offending partners might remark that their affair had nothing to do with their wives or the rela- tionship, many other offending partners would say otherwise. For example, affairs may be a way to escape an unsatisfying marriage or may indicate that the current relationship is not sup- porting a personal adjustment and/or crisis (Abrahamson et al., 2011; Balswick & Balswick, 1999; Glass 2004; Winek & Craven, 2003). On the other hand, Reibstein (2013) suggested that affairs may not necessarily be a means of escap- ing but rather a way of maintaining the marriage and engaging in a satisfying relationship. In fact, Boekhout et al. (2003) suggested that most part- ners do not engage in affairs with the intention of finding a better mate; rather, they are looking for someone to offer “more benefits than the current partner” (p. 288). As previously described as a typology, some affairs are pur- sued as a way to retaliate or as an act of vengeance against a spouse who previously engaged in an act of infidelity (Glass & Wright, 1992; Winek & Craven, 2003).

How does the marital relationship come to such a place where otherwise happy partners no longer appreciate each other and are willing to compromise their promises for someone else? Gottman and Silver’s (2012) “five-step trajectory” model illustrates the steps that lead to a

“cheater’s cascade” (p. 53). They describe the first step as a “sliding door moment” (p. 32). Every time a partner expresses a need for con- nection, or makes a bid, the sliding door is open. For example, the partner might say, “I had a disturbing talk with my mom this morning. Maybe we can talk more about it after dinner.” A response that demonstrates interest and a con- nection keeps the door open. A shut door response might be silence or something like, “Yeah, okay. Did you get around to calling the phone company today?” The result of one’s turn- ing away from a sliding door opportunity and negligence in apologizing will result in a “regret- table incident”—the second step of the trajectory—that according to Gottman and Silver will accumulate with other regrettable incidences and chisel away at the “couple’s mutual trust” (p. 33). The third step of the trajectory is referred to as the Zeigarnik Effect (p. 34); namely, people remember “unfinished business” more so than they will remember events that have been resolved and put to rest. Unaddressed sliding door moments—along with associated feelings of resentment and hurt—are retained, leading to increased resentment towards the partner. Increased frequency of events that threaten mutual trust will eventually lead to the fourth step in the trajectory, what Gottman refers to as “negative sentiment override,” or an experience that the relationship has “emptied out” (p. 35). A feature of negative sentiment override is placing a negative perception on something neutral. For example, Jody’s husband says, “I am not going to be able to stop for groceries tomorrow after work.” Jody interprets this as, “I don’t have time for this either. And why doesn’t he have time? He always puts his work ahead of us and me. I’m tired of this!” The final step of the trajectory includes an inundating of the Four Horsemen (Gottman & Silver, 2012, p. 38) in the relation- ship: namely, criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. Shortly after a pattern of nega- tivity pervades the relationship, one or both part- ners may engage in the “final poison of betrayal” (p. 48) or the negative comparing of one’s part- ner with a third party.

All of the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, as well as those offered earlier in this manuscript, contribute to the maintenance of the couple’s marital/relational boundaries. That is, Glass (2004) mentioned that in a committed rela- tionship, the couple creates and maintains a “wall that shields them from any outside forces

54 THE ROLE OF COVENANTAL FORGIVENESS

that have the power to split them” (p. 25). They operate as one unit, and will be able to do so if they can avoid the five-step trajectory noted ear- lier. Otherwise, the couple’s walls and windows become compromised. A “wall of secrecy” erects between the married partners, while a “window of intimacy” becomes opened or potentially opened between affair partners.

Couples Counseling

Both the professional literature and the self-help sections of bookstores offer a wide variety of approaches to working through infidelity in rela- tionships. However, there is little guidance for the counselor working with a Christian couple that addresses issues of infidelity. Examining the fundamental concept of the Christian marriage covenant and its relationship to the psychological principles of forgiveness, we propose a model of covenantal forgiveness. By means of a case study, we apply that model to couples counseling.

The Foundations of Christian Marriage In order to understand an approach to the

reparation of a post-affair marriage for Christian clients, it is helpful to understand the Christian perspective of both marriage and forgiveness. There are some significant variations between Christian denominations in the theology of mar- riage and the application of those theological foundations to the laws, customs, and cere- monies surrounding marriage. However, the Christian traditions share a common core understanding of the meaning and nature of marital relationships.

Historically, marriage for Christians was seen as an indissoluble relationship ordained by God in which a man and a woman “were joined together.” The religious and social institutions of marriage were blended and derived from the Judaic roots of Christianity. In ancient Judaism, not only did marriage define the relationship of a man to a woman, it provided the framework for inheritance, rights to land, leadership, and the transmission of religious teaching and cere- mony. It is interesting to note that in ancient Judaism, the betrothal or contract of marriage was established approximately one year before the wedding ceremony. In ancient times, the wedding proceedings were non-religious and included the establishment of the marriage con- tract, public festivities, the consummation of the marriage in a private chamber, and the public witness of blood-stained bed linens proving the

bride to have been a virgin (Harris, Marshall, & Schvaneveldt, 2008). Neither the betrothal nor marriage was a particularly religious event.

Similarly, in early Christian communities, the couple was betrothed and there was a public acknowledgement and celebration of their union without religious service. Roman law established the rights and responsibilities for those living in the empire. Reynolds (1994) suggested that “Christianity did not institute marriage, but rather baptized it" (p. 121). During the patristic and early medieval period, Christian writers addressed the need for indissolubility and increased equity in marriage. By the fourth cen- tury, the Church began to develop its own laws regarding marriage. Relevant to our discussion was the church law which extended the notion of adultery to infidelity of husbands rather than only wives as in Roman law (Reynolds, 1994). Genovesi (1997) highlighted the slow develop- ment of marriage as a religious institution: “It took well over 1000 years for Christianity to arrive at the realization that marriage is a sacra- ment in the strict technical sense of term” (p. 9).

As the Christian Church of the Middle Ages developed both a liturgical celebration of mar- riage and rules that defined not only candidacy for the sacrament but also behavior within mar- riage, the understanding of marriage as a reli- gious institution developed as well. This history of the sacrament of marriage is an example of the lex orandi, lex credendi principle suggesting that that which is prayed is that which is believed, referring to the importance of liturgy and celebra- tion in the development of meaning. Once the pre-Reformation Church involved itself in mar- riage, the tangled web of secular concerns, regu- lations, exceptions, and the theology of marriage was woven. Indeed, it was from this web, at least in part, that the Reformation emerged.

Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and other Protestant reformers suggested that the Church had become overinvolved in marital and related property law, and moreover usurped both the proper role of secular jurists and Scripture in their regulation of marriage and annulments. What emerged from the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation was an understanding of marriage that distinguished its secular from its religious nature, holding both in an elegant ten- sion and harmony. John Calvin (1509-1564) was arguably most responsible for our modern under- standing of marriage. According to Witte (1998), Calvin was instrumental in the reformulation of

DUBA SAUERHEBER AND PONTON 55

the civil marriage laws of Geneva in 1545, tailor- ing them to reflect his theology of marriage. Calvin understood marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, over which God presided. He believed that God leads the man and woman to that covenant with the help of others, including parents, the community, and the Church. Therefore, the marriage ceremony in the Geneva code prescribed parental consent, two witnesses, and the presence of both a minis- ter and magistrate.

It was this covenantal understanding of mar- riage that acknowledged the mutual responsibili- ties of the husband and wife as initiated by God and promised by the partners to each other and to society. In response, society promises the couple to protect them, specifically regarding their property and status (Wall & Miller- McLemore, 2002). Thus, the covenant—although a response to the call of God—is a horizontal covenant made between the man and woman and supported by the society in which they live. For Calvin, faithfulness and indissolubility were understood as essential to the covenant, and divorce was permitted only in cases of adultery or abandonment (Witte, 1998).

The modern Catholic understanding of mar- riage is that “The vocation to marriage is written into the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator” (Catholic Church, 2003, no. 1603). Roman Catholics and some other Christians believe that Christ raised the natural desire to partner, elevating it to a sacrament, that is, an efficacious sign of a tran- scendent reality. The sacrament of marriage sig- nifies the supernatural reality of the love shared between Christ and Church. The Second Vatican Council summarizes this sacramental understand- ing of marriage by stating, “authentic married love is caught up in divine love” (no. 1603). Called to marriage, it is the responsibility of mar- riage partners to continue to be a sign of that relationship of God with the Church to one another, their children, those who first gathered to witness their marriage, and to the wider com- munity. Understood from this perspective, mar- riage is not a contract, but a covenant. The promises of love, honor, and fidelity are not con- tractual obligations, reflecting a quid pro quo agreement. Rather, love, honor, and fidelity are signs of the relationship of the couple, uncondi- tionally promised and freely given.

Therefore, the common core understanding of Christian marriage is that its lifeblood is a call

and covenant, perceived by the partners and reinforced by their faith community as destiny and duty. The marriage ruptured by infidelity often loses its lifeblood through the wounds of the affair and its aftermath. Calvin was unequivo- cal in his damnation of adultery and extended the proscription against adultery to lewdness within marriage, fornication, and even inappro- priate non-sexual relationships that might threat- en the marriage. He acknowledged that infidelity was a breach of promise, not only committed against one’s partner, but also against God. It was indeed a legitimate cause for divorce. How- ever, Calvin also suggested that a true believer should reconcile with the wayward spouse (Witte, 1998). The dilemma which Calvin addressed in his treatment of infidelity is key to understanding covenantal forgiveness. Beyond the promises and contract, the call and covenant of Christian marriage may sustain the relation- ship in a graced and faithful journey toward for- giveness and healing.

Marriage and Forgiveness Extending the literature of forgiveness and its

relationship to well-being (e.g., Bono, McCul- lough, & Root, 2008; Hill & Allemand, 2011; Krause & Ellison, 2003) as well as the literature suggesting the positive interpersonal impact of forgiveness (e.g., McCullough, Worthington, & Rachel, 1997; Rey & Extremera, 2014), researchers have investigated the role of reli- gious belief in forgiveness, both in general and in marriage in particular. Much of the psycholog- ical literature of forgiveness suggests that it is both intrapersonal and unilateral for the offend- ed person. While reconciliation requires change on the part of the offender and in the interper- sonal relationship, forgiveness is a change within the offended (Frise & McMinn, 2010). Escher (2013) observed that empirical data supports the complementarity of forgiveness and religion. He noted that religious activity and religious affilia- tion, although correlated with forgiveness, do not provide an adequate conceptual framework for understanding the linkage of forgiveness and religion. He suggested that forgiveness is mediat- ed by a person’s relational orientation to God, which is influenced by—and in turn influences—religious activity and affiliation. He explained that a relational orientation toward God is experienced by those who view God as a partner and carry out their lives in the belief that

56 THE ROLE OF COVENANTAL FORGIVENESS

God is present and active in their day-to-day experiences with others.

Although, as is suggested by Hall and Fincham (2006), the research of forgiveness in marriage has yet to yield an integrated conceptual founda- tion, it does relate to the broader literature of for- giveness and has provided empirical support for the relationship of forgiveness to other variables in marriage. Forgiveness has been related to mar- ital satisfaction such that satisfaction predicts for- giveness (Paleari, Regalia, & Fincham, 2003) and spouses who forgive tend to be happier in the marriage (Kim, Johnson, & Ripley, 2011). Hall and Fincham (2006) reviewed research that found forgiveness in marriage to be related to the con- text of the offense, attributions associated with the transgressions, the conflict in the relationship, empathy, and commitment. Gordon and Baucom (2003) applied the research of marital forgiveness to the development of a model for recovery from marital betrayal. They propose a principally cog- nitive-behavioral trauma-based stage model that maintains an intrapersonal focus which addresses the recovery of the offended partner rather than reconciliation and reparation of the relationship. Alternatively, Fife, Weeks, and Stellberg-Filbert (2013) propose an interpersonal model of for- giveness in the treatment of marital infidelity. Recognizing the seriousness of the offense, the traumatic impact on the offended party, and the potential impact of shame and blame on both partners, Fife et al. discussed four factors that facilitate forgiveness: “empathy, humility, commit- ment, and apology” (p. 348).

Forgiveness in marriage has also been related by researchers to the religiosity or salience of spirituality of the couple. Mahoney and her col- leagues (Mahoney et al., 1999) proposed two dis- tinct, yet related, measures of religiosity in married couples and explored their impact on marital functions such as communication, collab- oration, conflict, and global marital adjustment. The first variable was religious activity, such as praying together, attending religious services, etc. They called the second variable “sanctification of marriage,” indicating a construct which included the couple’s conceptualization of the marriage as having sacred qualities, divinely originated and sustained, and integral to their spirituality. They found that both religious activity and sanctifica- tion of marriage contributed to global satisfaction. While their study did not directly address forgive- ness, they did find that religious activities and sanctification were “associated with less reliance

by both spouses on verbal aggression and stale- mate strategies to handle marital conflict” (Mahoney et al., 1999, p. 333). Lower stalemate strategies, such as sulking, silent treatment, with- drawal of affection, etc. may be indicative of interpersonal forgiveness in the relationship.

In an empirical investigation of forgiveness and religious faith among Catholics, Batson and Shwalb (2006) examined the relationship of faith to forgiveness, both in general and to factors asso- ciated with forgiveness, including insight, under- standing, resolution, recognition, and avoidance. They found that faith was significantly associated with forgiveness and all four aforementioned fac- tors except for the “recognition” factor.

Covenantal Forgiveness Extending Escher’s (2013) understanding of

faith and forgiveness for individuals to the role of religious orientations in forgiveness in couples, we might conclude that the forgiveness in cou- ples is associated with the relational orientation of the partners to God, as well as their religious affiliation and activity. If the couple fundamen- tally understands their marital relationship as covenantal—or in the language of Mahoney et al. (1999) as having sacred qualities—and integral to their spirituality, then forgiveness becomes not only interpersonal but also covenantal. Their lived experience of the marital covenant in which they are mutually committed to each other in a covenantal relationship with God enhances the potential for forgiveness in the marriage. Concep- tually, the covenantal forgiveness of marriage dif- fers from forgiveness as it is generally described in the psychological literature in three ways: namely, orientation, service, and volition.

The orientation of covenantal forgiveness is out- ward rather than inward. Unlike the concept of forgiveness that is portrayed in much of the psy- chological literature, covenantal forgiveness is interpersonal and reconciliatory by nature. For the Christian couple reflecting the relationship of God and God’s people, covenantal forgiveness is focused in love toward the goal of reconciling the ruptured relationship. This concept is similar to Escher’s (2013) suggestion that holding a “collabo- rative orientation” (p. 104) to the divine promotes forgiveness. However, the propensity to forgive- ness can be enhanced because the marital covenant not only cooperates with the divine, but also reflects the abiding nature of the relationship of God with His people.

DUBA SAUERHEBER AND PONTON 57

Covenantal forgiveness is given in service of the relationship and ultimately of the covenant itself. One forgives and one is forgiven because it is the very nature of the relationship that the partners work to heal relationships that have been rup- tured. Forgiveness is not a transaction, but rather an intentional, enduring encounter within the covenantal relationship. As such, covenantal for- giveness is understood as not only reparative but also as sanctifying and strengthening.

Covenantal forgiveness is a volitional act, freely chosen by both partners in recognition of their promised relationship to one another, but also to the community and God. Unlike other kinds of interpersonal forgiveness, covenantal forgiveness is understood to have been chosen both at the time of the forgiveness and through- out the time of the covenantal formation.

In working with a couple who reports a salient Christian faith and has initiated counsel- ing in response to a marital affair, it may be helpful to approach therapy from the perspec- tive of covenantal forgiveness. Extending Esch- er’s (2013) findings that “believing that God forgives has a strong positive effect on both types of [self and interpersonal] forgiveness” (p. 116), we propose that marital covenantal for- giveness has six components and reflects the Christian narrative of salvation history in the covenantal relationship between God and humankind. The following is a case presentation featuring several salient issues revolving around the topic of marital covenantal forgiveness. Afterward, a more explicit description of the six components of marital covenantal forgiveness will be presented, particularly as they relate to the case presentation.

Case Example

The Relationship Cascade JR and Kate were a couple in their mid-40s.

They had been married for 17 years and had four children, aged 15, 12 ,7, and 4. They were both active in their church and felt that their faith was important to them individually and in their family life. They presented for counseling following JR’s 8-month affair with Dee. Jim and Dee were both teaching at the same high school. Their children were on the same sports teams, and Dee was a fellow parishioner at JR and Kate’s church. JR and Dee had known and interacted with each other for at least two years prior to beginning of what JR described as the first “slip.” They often found

themselves taking breaks at work at the same time, and because of Kate’s evening work sched- ule, JR and Dee saw each other about three evenings a week when attending their children’s sports events. JR recalls feeling attracted to Dee when they first met; however, he reported never even considering cheating on Kate. JR described the first slip occurring on their children’s last bas- ketball game when the team and the parents went to another teammate’s house to celebrate. He recalls “really connecting with her” that night. After a few drinks, JR remembers wondering to himself what it would be like to have sex with Dee. He was ashamed of these thoughts and tried to forget about them.

At the same time, JR and Kate were struggling. Kate made frequent complaints about feeling misunderstood and disconnected from JR. The incompatibility of their own schedules and the time constraints of juggling their three children’s schedules made it difficult for them to find time for themselves. They rarely enjoyed time alone and even more rarely had sex. Jim recalls feel- ing resentful of Kate. They both agreed that JR would carry the weight of the children’s activi- ties while she pursued her doctoral degree. JR felt that he was doing more than enough and was upset when Kate mentioned that she did not feel connected to him. He found himself becoming more and more attracted to Dee’s “artistic flare,” spontaneity, and “go with the flow attitude.” He remembers feeling annoyed with Kate’s “anal personality” despite feeling proud of her as she pursued and successfully completed her degree program.

The affair progressed from text messages about events in their children’s lives to sharing coffee chats in each other’s offices. JR marks the first date as a Sunday when he and his children (Kate was attending a study group) went out for lunch with Dee and her children after they saw each other at a Sunday church service. During that encounter, Dee began to share her marital troubles with JR. Soon, the after-church lunches became regular. JR recalls questioning whether what he was doing was Christian or not. He explained it by telling himself that he was help- ing a friend get through a hard time. After a few months, he and Dee began going out for drinks after work. They joined a church group together so that they could spend extra time in one another’s company. About three months after that, he and Dee had sexual intercourse. They began having sex about two times a week in

58 THE ROLE OF COVENANTAL FORGIVENESS

their car while parked in store lots or parks. JR said that he told himself that he would never stoop down to getting a hotel room.

Kate recalls having suspicions that JR “was up to no good.” Even though their frequency of sex was minimal, she recalls eventually being the only one that initiated. She described JR as being in a “far-off place” when she tried to talk to him. There were also unexplained times when he would not answer his phone or text back. She recalled that this was not like him; they at least were always connected via text messages throughout the day. In retrospect, Kate saw JR’s personality changing. She noticed that he was less playful with the kids and that he would sud- denly become defensive about “the smallest thing.” She chalked everything up to the changes and demands that were occurring in his career.

Around the 7-month mark of the affair, JR was feeling increasingly guilty. He said, “I was actually hoping Kate would find out. I saw the fatigue in her eyes from working so hard on her dissertation. I remember that I forgot to pick little Annie up from day care because I was with Dee that morning. I still was attracted to Dee but I felt like the other part of my life was falling apart.” One day JR left with the children for church and left his phone at home. Kate checked it and found text messages shared between JR and Dee. Many of them referred to loving each other and how they experienced their last sexual encounter. Kate recalls feeling as if she was going into shock. She said, “The core of me was not surprised, but the rest of me felt like a piece of glass shattering every- where. It was like I was stunned.” The discov- ery was followed by the fire and ice of blaming, shaming, conflict, and conflict avoidance.

Covenantal Forgiveness About four weeks after Kate’s discovery, JR

phoned to make the first couples counseling appointment. JR reported that he was no longer in contact with Dee and had no intention of con- tinuing the relationship. In the first session, JR acknowledged the affair and its negative impacts on Kate and the marriage. Kate said she was not ready for a divorce; however, she mentioned that she was only agreeing to counseling to work on enhancing their communication so that the couple’s fighting was not more traumatic for their children. She remarked, “At this point, I am staying in the marriage because of our kids. I still hate him for what he did to me.”

The counselor’s first step in working with this couple was to build rapport with both parties. She began the first session with Gottman’s Oral History Review (1999), which encouraged the couple to share the history of their relationship, including how they dated as well as ups and downs throughout the marriage and how those were handled. As the counselor elicited infor- mation about the marital history, it became apparent that this was a couple whose Christian faith was salient. The counselor acknowledged that allowing the couple to address issues of faith as they arose proved helpful. The coun- selor also concluded by empathizing with both parties. For example, she expressed that the journey to healing will ebb and flow and will be difficult.

In the second session, Kate talked about her anger with God and her feelings that JR was a hypocrite. She said she could never go to that church again. The counselor responded by inviting Kate to spend ten minutes each day in prayer, even if it was to “yell at God.”

In the third session, the couple reported that they had experienced a noticeable change in their relationship. Kate had recognized that in her hurt and anger, she had been rejecting JR. She told him that she loved him and needed to forgive him so she could be who she wanted to be and that they could rebuild their marriage to “be what God intended it to be.”

In the fifth session, they reported that although they had committed to go to church together and spend more “alone time” with each other, they both continued to think about the past: JR with shame and Kate with distrust. The coun- selor took the opportunity to discuss the nature of reconciliation as an ongoing commitment.

Counseling ended after twenty sessions with the couple functioning well, communicating with each other, engaged in more shared activities, and both active again in their faith community.

Discussion The counselor in this case was guided by

her understanding of the couple’s faith response and its relationship to their marriage and forgiveness within marriage. That under- standing provided the counselor with the fol- lowing concepts related to a Christian model of forgiveness:

•Forgiveness occurs through one’s relationship to God (i.e., one’s relationship and partnership

DUBA SAUERHEBER AND PONTON 59

with God influences one’s ability to engage in the process of forgiveness).

•Co-participation in religious activity will impact marital functions and also increase the couple’s perception of the sacredness of their marriage.

•Forgiveness of one’s partner and oneself must be directed in love and must be a com- mitment not only to the partner, but to God. The couple was continuously encouraged to

maintain religious activities together. When they returned to Sunday services, Kate at first felt most comfortable when the children sat in between them. Before the end of counseling, Kate decided to share news about their strug- gles with their pastor. She described this as being a huge relief, as he was an important part of their family and she felt that she and JR had overcome their shame. Importantly, she said, “We did not tell him who the affair was with…that is her story to tell.” Both JR and Kate expressed a change in their “spirituality and prayer life.” Kate mentioned that she “always prayed to God, but never really sat with him.” She mentioned that she was able to even “yell at God for not protecting JR from what he did.” JR began a men’s Bible study and was interest- ed by the discussions about the men’s call to be a husband and father.

Application of Components of Marital Forgiveness

Recognition. Forgiveness begins first with awareness and the recognition of the incongru- ence of the current condition with the covenan- tal relationship. Family therapists with their systemic view of couples understand that an affair may not be the initiating incongruence nor the final incongruence. It is likely that this may not be the view of either the “non-offending” or “offending” partner. In the case presented, JR seemed to recognize the incongruence and “felt like the other part of my life was falling apart.” Discovering the affair, Kate reported that recog- nition graphically when she said she “felt like a piece of glass shattering everywhere.”

Confession. Essential and unique to covenantal forgiveness is the acknowledgement of the belief in the relationship. The word “con- fession” is used here to mean an acknowledge- ment of fault or announcement of transgression rather than a statement of belief, as is the older, albeit less common definition of the word. In the case of infidelity, it is necessary that both

partners acknowledge the meaning of their covenant and their belief in its value in their lives. In reality, this can be difficult, as in our case when Kate said, “The thought of this mar- riage being sacred makes me want to puke.”

Repentance. This component can best be described as resolving the incongruence in the covenant by turning toward the other, acknowl- edging the damage that one has done and recommitting to the relationship. While it would be convenient and comfortable if this were to be a “once and done” action, it is typically a pro- cess that cannot be rushed. In JR’s case, it took less time and awareness to repent for the extra- marital sex than it did to repent for his resent- ments and deceit.

Forgiveness. In the covenant of marriage, for- giveness is a gift feely given in which one per- son chooses to see the other as more than their incongruent behavior. Surely JR’s behaviors were hurtful and destructive, and Kate has every reason not to forgive. However, acknowledging those behaviors and their impact, Kate also has the freedom and potential to see JR as more than those behaviors. Indeed, she may choose to see him as the beloved with whom she developed their covenantal relationship. When forgiven by Kate, JR on his part can experience meaningful self-forgiveness by seeing himself as his beloved sees him: as more than his transgressions.

Reconciliation. Most couples who come to counseling after infidelity have a desire for rec- onciliation. The couple wants to be able “get back to normal.” Reconciliation is far more than “getting back to normal;” it is a coming together for the purpose of being together. Forgiveness and all that has led up to it has set the stage for the couple to return to that place in their rela- tionship where the covenant was alive, invigo- rating, life-giving, and loving. Reconciliation requires a commitment to shared activities, hon- est communication, and the covenant.

Redemption. As noted above, the covenantal marriage has been traditionally held in Christiani- ty to be reflective of the relationship of God and humankind. As such, there is a redemptive nature to the marital covenant, presenting the hope of a better tomorrow. Covenantal forgive- ness is also redemptive in that it suggests that the partners and the marital bond will not only survive the infidelity, but will through the graces of work and prayer be transformed in a positive way by the experience.

60 THE ROLE OF COVENANTAL FORGIVENESS

Concluding Remarks

Helping couples heal from marital infidelity is a difficult task. Depending on the context, the commitment and motivation of both partners, and perception of the depth of the injury, heal- ing will vary. There are various professional and self-help resources available to both couples and clinicians related to healing from infidelity. However, this manuscript provides concrete suggestions from which to work when encoun- tering a Christian framework. In summary, clini- cians are cautioned to treat each couple uniquely and respectfully, as healing and progress cannot be achieved otherwise.

References

Abrahamson, I., Hussain. R., Khan, A., & Schofield, M. J. (2012). What helps couples rebuild their relationship after infidelity? Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1494-1519. doi:10.1177/0192513X11424257.

Atkins, D. C., & Kessel D. E. (2008). Religiousness and infidelity: Attendance, but not faith and prayer, predict marital fidelity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 7, 407-418. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00490.x.

Bagarozzi, D. A. (2008). Understanding and treating marital infidelity: A multidimensional model. Ameri- can Journal of Family Therapy, 36(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1080/01926180601186900.

Balswick, J. K., & Balswick, J. O. (1999). Extramarital affairs: Causes, consequences, and recovery. Mar- riage & Family: A Christian Journal, 2, 419-426. doi: .1037/cfp0000016.

Batson, M., & Shwalb, D. (2006). Forgiveness and religious faith in Roman Catholic married couples. P a s t o r a l P s y c h o l o g y , 5 5 , 119-129. doi:10.1007/s11089-006-0046-x.

Baucom, D. H., Gordon, K. C., Snyder, D. K., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A. (2006). Treating affair cou- ples: Clinical considerations and initial findings. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 375-392. doi:10.1891/jcpiq-v20i4a004.

Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in com- mitted relationships II: A substantive review. Jour- nal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 217-233. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01555.x.

Boekhout, B. A., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2003). Exploring infidelity: Developing the relation- ship issues scale. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 8, 283- 30. doi: .1080/15325020305882.

Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well- being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n , 3 4 , 182-195, :10.1177/0146167207310025

Catholic Church. (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday.

Center for Disease Control (2013). National marriage and divorce rate tr ends. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-divorce.htm

Dean, C. J. (2011). Psychoeducation: A first step to understanding infidelity-related systemic trauma and grieving. The Family Journal: Counseling and Thera- py for Couples and Families, 19, 15-21. doi: 10.1177/1066480710387487.

De Stefano, J., & Oala, M. (2008). Extramarital affairs: Basic considerations and essential tasks in clinical work. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 13-19. doi:10.1177/1066480707309128.

Duba J. D., Kindsvatter, A., & Lara, T. (2008). Treating infidelity: Considering narratives of attachment. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 293-299. doi: 10.1177/1066480708323198.

Escher, D. (2013). How does religion promote forgive- ness? Linking beliefs, orientations, and practices. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52, 100- 119. doi:10.1111/jssr.12012.

Fife, S. T., Weeks, G. R., & Strellberg-Filbert, J. S. (2013). Facilitating forgiveness in the treatment of infidelity: An interpersonal model. Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 343-367. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 6427.2011.00561.x.

Frise, N. R., & McMinn, M. R. (2010). Forgiveness and reconciliation: The differing perspectives of psycholo- gists and Christian theologians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 83. doi: 0091-6471/410-730.

Genovesi, V. (1997). The touch of God: Marriage and sacrament. America, 176 (13), 8-12.

Giblin, P. (2011). Men making and keeping commit- ments. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 39 (2), 124-138. doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.530173.

Gibson, D. M. (2008). Relationship betrayal and the influence of religious beliefs: A case illustration of couples counseling. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 16, 344-350. doi: 10.1177/1066480708323085.

Glass, S. P. (2004). Not “just friends:” Rebuilding trust and recovering your sanity after infidelity. New York, NY: Free Press.

Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The association between attitudes, behavior, and gender. Jour nal of Sex Resear ch, 29, 361-387. doi:10.1080/00224499209551654.

Gottman, J. (1999). The marriage clinic. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Gottman, J., & Silver, N. (2012). What makes love last?: How to build trust and avoid betrayal. Simon and Schuster.

Gordon, K. C. & Baucom, D. H. (2003). Forgiveness and marriage: Preliminary support for a synthesized model of recovery from marital betrayal. American Jour nal of Family Therapy, 31, 179-199. doi:10.1080/01926180390167188.

DUBA SAUERHEBER AND PONTON 61

Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. (2004). An integrative intervention for promoting recovery from extramarital affairs. Journal of Marital & Family Ther- apy, 30, 213-231.

Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dis- solution following infidelity: The roles of attribu- tions and forgiveness. J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 2 5 (5), 508-522. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.5.508.

Harris, V. W., Marshall, J. P., & Schvaneveldt, J. D. (2008). In the eyes of God: How attachment theory informs historical and contemporary marriage and religious practices among Abrahamic faiths. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39, 259-278.

Hill, P. L., & Allemand, M. (2011). Gratitude, forgiv- ingness, and well-being in adulthood: Tests of moderation and incremental prediction. Journal of P o s i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 6 , 397–407. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2011.602099.

Johnson, S. M. (2005). Broken bonds: An emotionally focused approach to infidelity. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 4(2/3), 17-29. doi:10.1300/J398v04n02_03.

Kim, L. M., Johnson, J. L., & Ripley, J. A. (2011). “Perfect" storm: Perfectionism, forgiveness, and marital satisfac- tion. Individual Differences Research, 9, 199-209.

Krause, N., & Ellison, C. G. (2003). Forgiveness by God, forgiveness of others, and psychological well–being in late life. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 77–93. doi: 10.1111/1468- 5906.00162.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexu- ality: Sexual practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E., & Rye, M. (1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321-338. doi:10.1037/0893- 3200.13.3.321.

McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relation- ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321-336. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.321.

Nelson, J. A., Li, C. S., Eckstein, D. G., Ane, P., & Mullener, W. (2008). Antidotes for infidelity and prescriptions for long lasting relationships: Four couples' activities. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 375- 378.

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differ- ences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1 1 4 , 29-51. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.114.1.29.

Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2003). Adolescents' willingness to forgive their parents: An empirical model. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3, 155-174.doi: 10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_03.

Pittman III, F. S., & Wagers, T. P. (1995). Crises of infi- delity. Guilford Press.

Reibstein J. (2013). Commentary: A different lens for working with affairs: Using social constructionist and attachment theory. Journal of Family Therapy, 3 5 , 368-380. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 6427.2011.00562.x.

Rey, L., & Extremera, N. (2014). Positive psychological characteristics and interpersonal forgiveness: Identify- ing the unique contribution of emotional intelligence abilities, Big Five traits, gratitude and optimism. Per- sonality and Individual Differences, 68, 199-204, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.030

Reynolds, P.L. (1994). Marriage is the western church: The Christianization of marriage during the patristic and early medieval period. Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill.

Softas-Nall, B., Beadle, M., Newell, J., & Helm, H. M. (2008). Spousal disclosure of extramarital relation- ships: Attitudes of marriage and family therapists. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for C o u p l e s a n d F a m i l i e s , 1 6 , 328-337. doi:10.1177/1066480708323203.

Subotnik, R. B., & Harris, G. (2005). Surviving infideli- ty: Making decisions, recovering from the pain (3rd ed.). Avon, MA: Adams Media.

Wall, J., & Miller-McLemore, B. (2002). Marital therapy caught between person and public: Christian tradi- tions on marriage. Pastoral Psychology, 50, 259-280. doi: 0031-?2789/02/0300-0259/0.

Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Preva- lence and correlates in a national survey. Journal o f S e x R e s e a r c h , 3 4 , 167-174. doi:10.1080/00224499709551881.

Winek, J. L., & Craven, P.A. (2003). Healing rituals for couples recovering from adultery. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 25, 249- 266. doi: ?10.1023/A:1024518719817.

Witte, J. (1998). Between sacrament and contract: Mar- riage as a covenant in John Calvin's Geneva. Calvin Theological Journal, 32, 9-75.

Zola, M. F. (2007). Beyond infidelity-related impasse: An integrated, systematic approach to couples thera- py. Jour nal of Systemic Therapies, 26(2), 25-41. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2007.26.2.25.

Authors

Dr. Jill Duba Sauerheber, a Licensed Professional Counselor, is a Professor and Department Head of the Department of Counseling and Student Affairs at West- ern Kentucky University. She has published numerous articles and conducted research related to religion in counseling. Additionally, she is trained in the Gottman Couples Therapy Method, serves on the Diocese of Owensboro Marriage Formation committee, and is an annulment Advocate for the Catholic Church. She maintains a private practice in which she provides Christian-based counseling services.

62 THE ROLE OF COVENANTAL FORGIVENESS

Dr. Richard Ponton is an assistant professor and Director of the Graduate Program in Clinical Mental Health Counseling in the Department of Psychology and Counseling at Georgian Court University. He serves as editor of the Journal of Mental Health Counseling. His private practice, Faith Matters Consultation, pro- vides counseling for individuals, families, and couples in New Jersey.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited

without permission.