The Journey from Bill to Law: What Aspects of an Environmental Policy Bill Help it Pass?

by Lindsey Hall, NU student

Abstract

Why do certain bills pass into law while others do not? This paper attempts to determine the differences between those bills that pass and become a law like the Endangered Species Act (1973); and bills that do not make it out of court like the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (2014). It will also interpret these problems and provide solutions that could ultimately lead to greater environmental policy change in the future. This was accomplished via researching and studying the court cases, scientific articles pertaining to the topic, and relevant news around the time that each bill went to the Supreme Court. The paper comes to the conclusion that although great strides have been made in environmental law in the past 70 years, there are still problems in the system that require attention. The bills analyzed might not cover the same issues (endangered species vs. energy conservation), but comparisons can still be made between the processes that brought these bills to the courts. Using these comparisons, changes can be made based on what was successful in the policy of the bill that passed.

Key words: Law, Environment, Supreme Court

I’m Just a Bill

         “It’s a long, long journey to the capitol city. It’s a long, long wait while I’m sitting in committee, but I know I'll be a law someday (at least I hope and pray that I will). But today I am still just a bill.”[1] Our friend Bill from Schoolhouse Rock helps us understand that many factors go into a bill’s becoming a law. The bill starts purely as an idea, then moves up through the levels of government until it reaches the President. However, with all of the different stages the bill has to go through, there are also a lot of places for a bill to die and not make it to becoming a law. Environmental bills seem to have even more problems making it through the court system than other legislation does. Because the bills face much more opposition. Many different factors go into why environmental laws do or do not pass. This paper will attempt to figure out the differences between bills that do not make it out of court—our example here is the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (2014)—and those that do pass become a law—like the Endangered Species Act (1973). This paper will also try to interpret the problems that laws face and provide solutions that could ultimately lead to greater environmental policy change in the future.

History

The Journey from Bill to Law

         As stated in the previous section, many steps are involved in the transition from a bill to a law. Because of all of the factors involved in the lawmaking process, comparing the components of two different bills can be helpful in determining changes that should be made in environmental policy. The process of a bill’s becoming a law starts with an idea, which then gets sent to a committee.[2] The committee can pass, reject or take no action on the bill. If the bill passes, it will then move on to either the House or the Senate. In the House or the Senate, the bill will have to make it through another series of committees, in which the bill is subject to debate and amendment.[3] Once the bill passes in one house, it moves on to the other and repeats the process again. If any changes are made in the other house, the first house must approve the changes. Once both the House and the Senate approve and sign off on the bill, it is sent to the President. If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it into law. If the President does not take any action for 10 days while Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law.[4] If the President opposes the bill, he can veto it; however, if he takes no action after the Congress has adjourned its second session, it is a pocket veto and the legislation dies.[5]

         With all of this protocol taken into account, one has to wonder what factors really effect a bill and what makes a bill successful in passing and becoming a law. This is where the Endangered Species Act of 1973 comes into play.

The Endangered Species Act (1973)

         The Endangered Species Act has changed significantly since it was signed into law in 1973, but the ESA itself was not the start of endangered animal protection and preservation in American environmental policy. The protection of endangered animals in the U.S. started with the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966.[6] The act provided a means for listing native animal species as endangered while providing limited protection to these animals. The main way that the government went about protecting these species was through habitat preservation and acquiring the land that these endangered animals inhabited. Congress then amended the act to include worldwide endangered species; the name was changed to the Endangered Species Conservation Act.[7]

         This change from national to worldwide protection required an international meeting. As a result a conference was held in Washington, DC, that brought 80 nations to sign the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).[8] CITES monitors and restricts international commerce of plant and animal species believed to be harmed by trade. This convention helped further U.S. environmental policy and aided by developing a new bill, improving upon the previous legislation that dealt with endangered species. This new bill was the Endangered Species Act (ESA).[9]

The Endangered Species Act

was signed on December 28, 1973, and provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant

portion of their range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA replaced the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969.[10]

The ESA provided a number of helpful changes to the previous act: It defined endangered and threatened; did not only apply animals eligible for protection, but all plants and invertebrates as well; made protection of the animals much more broad and allowed prohibitions to apply to threatened animal species; required federal agencies to conserve species on the list and regulate actions that may have an effect on populations; prohibited federal agencies from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species/ instead of destroy or modify its one true habitat; assisted states in carrying out this law by matching funds with cooperative agreements; provided authority and funding required for acquiring land for foreign species; and implemented CITES protection in the United States.[11] With all of the changes listed above made to the new bill, the main purpose of the act are as follows: “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth.”[12] Since the bill was passed in 1973, there have been 15 amendments sponsored, the most recent being in 2009 with the National Defense Authorization Act. The act established the authority of Defense facilities to participate in offsite mitigation banking for protected species.[13]

Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (2014)

         The 1970s were an interesting time in American politics. Many people consider it a continuation of the 1960s, as many of the ideas and beliefs were much the same: “Women, African Americans, Native Americans, gays and lesbians and other marginalized people continued their fight for equality, and many Americans joined the protest against the ongoing war in Vietnam.”[14] President Nixon came into office and began to smooth out many of the problems that were brought on during the Johnson Administration. Along with this new administration came a new look on environmental policy. The American people started to see the environment as something to be cared about because of problems like “toxic industrial waste in places like Love Canal, New York; dangerous meltdowns at nuclear power plants such as the one at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania; [and] highways through city neighborhoods.”[15] Americans also celebrated their first Earth Day in 1970.

         In contrast, the 2000s were a drastically different time when it came to politics. With George W. Bush’s election and the terrible event of 9/11 occurring, our nation’s focus was pointed directly toward security and very little else. Also, the Bush Administration brought with them many representatives from oil companies placed in leading positions in large environmental agencies such as the EPA. These appointments meant that the focus would mostly be on oil and the economy, which resulted in the environment’s being placed on the backburner. The 2008 election of President Obama brought along healthcare reform and a slow economic increase as the country tried to recover from the economic crash of 2008.[16] When looking back at all of the evidence, it seems as if the ESA passed because all of the parts were in the right place at the right time. The social implications, the support from the President, and the CITES all led up to the creation and implementation of the new law. This is the biggest difference between the two bills. Referred to as the bipartisan bill that would have strengthened U.S. energy efficiency, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act was introduced to the Senate on April 28, 2014. With the addition of an amendment that was to include the Keystone XL pipeline, just enough opposition rose up before the vote.[17] The pipeline would bring the U.S. its own source of fossil fuels, but ultimately the decision was that the amount of environmental harm that it would cause was not worth the money the U.S. would save.[18] It was discussed and ultimately the bill failed to become a law on May 12, 2014. The yea-nay vote came out to be 55-36, needing 60 votes to pass. Senator Jeanne Shaheen was quoted saying, “I’m disappointed the Senate failed to advance my bipartisan plan to create almost 200,000 jobs, reduce pollution and save taxpayers billions, but I will continue to fight for [the bill] because it’s a win-win-win for jobs, clean air and taxpayers.”[19] Many people were very hopeful that the ESICA would pass; consequently, it was surprising when it didn’t. However, the ESICA did not have nearly as much Presidential support as the ESA did; the public at the time had much bigger concerns besides conserving energy.

         If the bill would have passed, it would have accomplished several different purposes. First of all, it would have developed and updated national building codes for residential and commercial buildings in order to reach energy-saving targets set by this act. Next, it would have encouraged and supported states and local governments to follow in the footsteps of the federal government by setting regulations on building energy codes. Finally, it would have supported full compliance with the state and local codes. All of these improvements would have been part of the amendment to the Energy Conservation and Production Act (ECPA).[20]  

Problem

         Both of these bills were amendments to already existing laws, so why did one pass and not the other? Many different factors go into the decisions; there are many opportunities for a bill to fail in court before it even comes close to being a law. The Endangered Species Act and the Energy Savings and Competitiveness Act were written and brought to court at very different times (politically), so could this have been a reason that the ESA was successful and the ESICA failed to pass?

How did the ESA become a law?

         The 1960s and 1970s were a time when the environment was a huge political issue. Many Americans by this time owned cars and were contributing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; consequently, the air quality became a larger concern.[21]

          In 1962, Rachel Carson released her book Silent Spring, which is “acclaimed as the catalyst of the modern environmental movement,” condemning the overuse of pesticides in our farming.[22] In 1963, the Clean Air Act was passed, which provided $95 million to the study and clean up of air and water pollution. A couple of years later, the Water Quality Act and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Act both passed, which led to great changes in the areas of water quality and air quality.

         Then in 1966 came the predecessor to the ESA, the Endangered Species Preservation Act. This legislation brought the first list of endangered species in 1967, which included the bald eagle. In 1968, further changes were made, and the idea of going back to the land became popular. This caused communes to become a fad, so they began popping up all over the country. Ultimately, the communes did not last but many of the ideals were instilled in people’s minds. The environmental lifestyle became popular in the culture of the time. Between 1968 and 1970, a few other acts were passed, and other notable events happened (NASA’s photo “Earthrise” became the iconic image for the environmental movement, for example).[23] The biggest influence to the movement was probably Nixon’s State of the Union Address in which he stressed the importance of environmental issues.

         Soon after Nixon was inaugurated, he got to work on establishing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1972 brought along the Clean Water Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The MMPA especially helped in bringing up the issue of endangered animals because it “protects all marine mammals from importation, exportation, hunting, capture, or any form of harassment, thus encouraging natural resource management in the United States.”[24] In 1973 when the ESA was passed, Richard Nixon was President. He had a surprisingly environmentally-focused agenda while in office, which was a large motivator behind why the bill was successful. He declared that the current endangered species protection laws were inadequate and that it needed to change. Congress responded to Nixon’s call with a completely rewritten law transcribed by lawyers and scientists, which is another reason that it had so much support. It was very well written and supported by scientific evidence.

         With all the presidential support, it was not a huge surprise that the ESA passed. Perhaps it was the lack of support from the Obama Administration that caused the ESICA to fail.

Why did the ESICA fail to become a law?

         The Obama Administration has made some changes in the area of environmental policy, but with little to no success. President Obama has received quite a bit of opposition from Republican members in the government. He has struggled to find the middle ground of supporting environmental movements, while making everyone else happy in the process as well.

         According to the New York Times, the bill was ultimately “derailed by the contentious debate over the Keystone XL pipeline and President Obama’s plans to issue new climate change regulations.”[25] The Keystone XL pipeline was highly controversial, as it would have boosted the economy and provided thousands of new jobs to Americans. As well, it would have been the cause of much environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. The Obama Administration denied the permit to build the pipeline after the ultimate decision was made that the pipeline would have caused too much environmental damage to balance out the positives that it provided.[26] Up until a week before the bill died in the Senate, it had strong support from members of both parties in both chambers of Congress. It was strongly supported by many members until several amendments were made that people disagreed with (one of these was the keystone pipeline). Because of these new amendments, just enough supporters of the bill switched their vote to nay, causing the close loss of 55-36 votes (only needing 60 to pass). [27]

         The votes on the bill were extremely close. If the amendments would not have been made, perhaps the bill would have become a law. Looking at the differences between the ESA and the ESICA may help lead to solutions to bills not being passed. Once we have the solutions needed, our nation can start making bigger changes when it comes to environmental policy and law. 

Solution

What can we do to solve this problem?

         Back in the 1970s, people cared about endangered animals; when a name is given to a problem like that, it makes people listen. Giving the problem a name helps them understand how important the issue is. The likelihood of a bill becoming a law greatly increases when the public is well informed and they care about the problem that the bill is trying to solve. In the case of the ESA, it was created during a time of great environmental enlightenment in the U.S., not only in politics but in all areas of life (think of the communes and the hippies). The amount of awareness led to the substantial environmental policy changes during the Nixon Administration. Transitioning into the 1980s was a different story in environmental policy, however. With the election of Ronald Reagan came a conservative, pro-business ideology.[28] Under his administration, environmentalists were portrayed as radicals: “Between 1980 and 1983, the EPA lost one-third of its budget and one-fifth of its staff.”[29] With all of the understaffing and underfunding, the EPA could not fulfill all of its functions. Even with all of Reagan’s anti-environmental policies, the American public still remained greatly concerned with environmental issues. Many activist groups started forming, eventually leading up to the formation of the idea of deep ecology, or a “movement or a body of concepts that considers humans no more important than other species and that advocates a corresponding radical readjustment of the relationships between humans and nature.”[30] The deep ecology movement made the American people care more about the environment again, it slowly began to move priorities back toward a positive environmental policy change.

         In contrast to the ESA, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act was only created a few years ago when environmental policy was not as much in the forefront of the public’s mind. After the Reagan Administration, the EPA and other environmental agencies needed to recover. Slowly but surely, the U.S. has seen an increase in public concern for the environment (especially with the topic of global warming or climate change), but there has been much more opposition to environmental policy than there was during the time of the ESA. The Obama Administration was dealing with a large amount of opposition from big oil companies when it came to his policies on renewable energy, which made him stop pushing the issue by the time the bill made it to court. The main reason that the bill failed was because the Republican members of the Senate added amendments with which the Democratic members disagreed. It was a close loss, but just enough votes were swayed by the new amendments that caused it to fail. Ultimately, with the new Keystone XL amendment that was made, it was a good thing that the bill did not pass. However, the Republicans’ pushing for the pipeline to be created may have known that the Democrats would disagree with the amendment and perhaps used that to their advantage when trying to get the bill to fail. With all of that said, the main problem was that the amendment was made, which made the bill fail.

         The problem of environmental bills’ not passing can be solved, or at least improved in several ways. First and most importantly, is the needed change in public awareness. The 1960s and 1970s were a great example of this awareness. With the release of Silent Spring, the communal living, and the addition of laws like the Clean Water Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, U.S. citizens were more interested and educated on environmental issues.[31] If the people of today’s society became more educated and aware of environmental policy issues today, they would elect people into the House and the Senate who would more likely be on the side of environmental change. This was shown immensely during the era when the EPA was passed. People felt incredibly passionate about the subject; therefore, more people rallied and supported the politicians in favor of the bill. Also, if people are aware of the issues, they can start petitions to make changes or even give ideas of new bills to politicians to take to committee. Much change can be made when a few people care passionately about an issue. 

         Second, people of the nation should start making changes on the state level. California has always been a leader when it comes to environmental policy change. Usually when an individual state makes a policy change, the federal government follows suit not too long after (e.g. California’s emission standards, for example). California has put millions of dollars into many projects and agencies such as the California Energy Commission and the Air Resources Board.[32] California also has extensive air quality laws put in place, many because of the health and safety concerns that come with air pollution.[33] California has set standards for certain pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone, which are more protective of public health than respective federal standards. California has also set standards for some pollutants that are not addressed by federal standards.[34] When people know that something could affect them, whether through their health or the loss of an important animal species, people will be more interested and concerned with the issue. It has been shown in California that it is much more effective to enforce federal laws if taken down to the state level. They can make the laws more intensive, and it makes it easier for the laws to be enforced. Washington has similar successes with their environmental policy as California. With the addition of dams, Washington gets the majority of its electricity from hydroelectric power and also provides nearly 30% of all hydroelectric power produced in the United States.[35] Also in Washington, environmental policy is used to protect quality of life of its residents and ecosystems alike. The legislature and Washington’s governors have made it a priority of the state government to protect the environment and human health.[36]

         Third, change in environmental policy can greatly depend on who is in office. This means that in the future the people of the U.S. need to elect Presidents who have environmental policy in mind, those who will make great strides in the issues that the people believe to be important. The President is also in charge of who leads different federal agencies, and the relationship between agencies and the courts is crucial in environmental law.[37] By comparing the Nixon Administration to the Obama Administration, great differences can be seen in the area of environmental policy. Surprisingly, Nixon was a very big promoter of environmental policy. If Nixon would not have supported and pushed for the ESA so much, it probably would not have passed. Whereas, if Obama would have pushed the energy conservation bill a bit more, then maybe it would have passed. Obama is also a supporter of environmental policy, but during his administration he has had to worry more about other issues like improving the economy and getting troops out of the Middle East. With the addition of the Keystone XL pipeline amendment to the bill, there was much more for the Obama Administration to take into consideration, especially because the pipeline would have been the cause of more environmental degradation.[38] 

Conclusion

         Great strides have been made in environmental policy in the last 70 years. Even with the big changes, problems in the system still need to be rectified. There are obvious differences in the policy of the ESA and the ESICA. They might not cover the same issues (i.e., endangered species vs. energy conservation), but comparisons can still be made between the processes that brought these bills to the courts. Comparing the two, changes can be made based on what was successful in the policy of the bill that passed.

         The recent climate change conference in Paris is something that could be a start to a solution to our policy problems. With the rallying of all of the countries together, the signing of the treaty will hopefully inspire them to actually make these changes and stick to the goals that they have set for their own nation.[39] People saw how the Kyoto Protocol was not as successful as initially proposed, mostly because of the lack of Presidential support. With the support that the Paris treaty received, it seems that the treaty will be making a bigger difference than the Kyoto Protocol ever could.

         The solutions for the problem may not be easy, but once our nation finds a way to move past all of the issues, people will realize that helping the environment is actually something to strive for. Then significant change can be made. The more people who are educated on the subject, the better decisions will be made regarding the laws and policies that have to do with the environment. Hopefully, the treaty that the countries decided upon in Paris will bring about great environmental change. If not, something needs to be done soon in order to enact the changes that are necessary to make our environmental policies more effective.

Bibliography

Actions - S.2262 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2014. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015.

America’s Best History—U.S. History Timeline 2010-Present. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://americasbesthistory.com/abhtimeline2010.html

Auction Proceeds Funded Programs and Events (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/ggrfprogrampage.htm

California Air Pollution Control Laws (2003 ed.). (2003). Sacramento: California Air Resources Board.

California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm

Davenport, C. (2014, May 12). Amid Pipeline and Climate Debate, Energy-Efficiency Bill Is Derailed. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/us/politics/bill-to-encourage-energy-efficiency-fails-in-senate.html?_r=2

Deep Ecology definition. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deep ecology

Earthrise. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html

Endangered Species Act (ESA). (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/

The Endangered Species Act of 1973. (1973). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf

Farber, D., & Findley, R. (2014). Environmental Law in a Nutshell (8th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Corporation.

Geary, D., Whitney, C., & Goldstein, B. (2003). Environmental Movement. Retrieved 2015, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Environmental_Movement.aspx

A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, VA: Endangered Species Program.

I’m Just a Bill [Motion picture]. Schoolhouse Rock (1973). American Broadcasting Companies.

Lazarus, R. (2004). The Making of Environmental Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

More Details about the Agreement. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/more-details-about-the-agreement/

Neal, T. (1996). Lawmaking and the Legislative Process: Committees, Connections, and Compromises. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Steps in Making a Bill a Law: The Federal Legislative Process, National Association for the Education of Young Children, NAEYC. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.naeyc.org/policy/federal/bill_law

Timeline: The Modern Environmental Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/earthdays/

U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA

Valentine, K. (2014, May 13). Bipartisan Bill that Would Have Strengthened U.S. Energy Efficiency Dies in Senate. Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3437201/shaheen-portman-energy-efficiency-senate/

Vig, N., & Kraft. (2012). Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century (8th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Wachter, E. (2015, February 2). EPA Interagency Comments: New Keystone XL Pipeline Application. Retrieved 2015, from http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/249462.pdf

The 1970s. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.history.com/topics/1970s

[1] I'm Just a Bill [Motion picture]. Schoolhouse Rock (1973). American Broadcasting Companies.

[2] Lazarus, R. (2004). The Making of Environmental Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[3] Steps in Making a Bill a Law: The Federal Legislative Process | National Association for the Education of Young Children | NAEYC. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.naeyc.org/policy/federal/bill_law

[4]Neal, T. (1996). Lawmaking and the legislative process: Committees, connections, and compromises. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

[5] Steps in Making a Bill a Law: The Federal Legislative Process

[6] A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia: Endangered Species Program.

[7] Ibid.

[8] The Endangered Species Act of 1973. (1973). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf.

[9] Ibid.

[10]The Endangered Species Act (ESA). (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/

[11] A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia: Endangered Species Program.

[12] The Endangered Species Act of 1973. (1973). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf.

[13] The Endangered Species Act of 1973. (1973). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf.

[14] The 1970s. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.history.com/topics/1970s

[15] Ibid.

[16] America's Best History—U.S. History Timeline 2010-Present. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://americasbesthistory.com/abhtimeline2010.html

[17] Davenport, C. (2014, May 12). Amid Pipeline and Climate Debate, Energy-Efficiency Bill Is Derailed. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/us/politics/bill-to-encourage-energy-efficiency-fails-in-senate.html?_r=2

[18] Ibid.

[19] Valentine, K. (2014, May 13). Bipartisan Bill That Would Have Strengthened U.S. Energy Efficiency Dies in Senate. Retrieved October 17, 2015.

[20] Actions - S.2262 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2014. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015.

[21] Timeline: The Modern Environmental Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/earthdays/

[22] Timeline: The Modern Environmental Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/earthdays/

[23] Earthrise. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html

[24] Timeline: The Modern Environmental Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/earthdays/

[25] Davenport, C. (2014, May 12). Amid Pipeline and Climate Debate, Energy-Efficiency Bill Is Derailed. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/us/politics/bill-to-encourage-energy-efficiency-fails-in-senate.html?_r=2

[26] Wachter, E. (2015, February 2). EPA Interagency Comments: New Keystone XL Pipeline Application. Retrieved 2015, from http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/249462.pdf

[27] Actions - S.2262 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2014. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015.

[28] Geary, D., Whitney, C., & Goldstein, B. (2003). Environmental Movement. Retrieved 2015, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Environmental_Movement.aspx

[29] Geary, D., Whitney, C., & Goldstein, B. (2003). Environmental Movement. Retrieved 2015, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Environmental_Movement.aspx

[30] Deep Ecology definition. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deep ecology

[31] Timeline: The Modern Environmental Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/earthdays/

[32] Auction Proceeds Funded Programs and Events . (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/ggrfprogrampage.htm

[33] California air pollution control laws (1979 ed.). (2003). Sacramento: California Air Resources Board.

[34] California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm

[35] U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA

[36] Laws and Rules | Washington State Department of Ecology. (2008, March 25). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/

[37] Farber, D., & Findley, R. (2014). Environmental law in a nutshell (Eighth ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Corporation.

[38] Wachter, E. (2015, February 2). EPA Interagency Comments: New Keystone XL Pipeline Application. Retrieved 2015, from http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/249462.pdf

[39] More details about the agreement. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/more-details-about-the-agreement/

What Way the Liquids Come

by Wesley Robertson, NU student

Abstract

This story takes place around my fifteenth or sixteenth year, and my brother’s thirteenth or fourteenth. My family had to leave the mission field in order to enter counseling, and my brother was attending to a life-controlling issue at the same time. The plot revolves around my own internal battle with what was happening; loss of home, loss of self, and anger. However, a small portion of my brother’s story is also included. Ultimately this is my conversion story. The person I portray in the text seems foreign yet familiar. I grew up in the church my entire life, but sadly it took a major event to actually accept Christ as my Savior. Northwest University has many students with a similar background as my own, and by participating in this story, Northwest no longer says: “these are my parents,” “I grew up in the church,” but rather says, “I believe this” and “I go to church here.” Psychiatry is also a large part of the story. I want it known that whether it is depression, anorexia, or any other ailment, one may not have just a spiritual battle but a physical one. Don’t be afraid to seek help. Christians, we are broken and we all need fixing. Be strong.

I.

Looney Toons was muted on the ancient box against the wall. The pale green room curled up to the ceiling, almost as if to spite me. It was a distinct contrast to the blues of the other wards situated in the hospital; a small hole in the wall where the staff didn’t visit much unless required to. My teen self was in the corner, the clock in the other, and the “Murse” assigned to this particular level of Inferno came through the box of the door. If you spend any time in a hospital, it becomes easy to spot these figures that dress as clowns. They can be seen from a mile away with their shining teeth, unnatural smiles, and pure-white shoes. That one looked young, probably not experienced, but nice enough. I didn’t hate him. I didn’t know him. Yet, somehow any type of perfection, even a façade, seemed unwelcome in a room where self-loathing desired to prosper.

         Time for lunch, I guess.

That was always the fun part. You couldn’t tell whether something was going to be digested by a stomach or a garbage truck in a few hours. Luckily, that time, it seemed to be the former.  The food was presented on a gray tray and laid down onto a swiveling table; one tall enough to hang over the bed. 

Guess it helps if the food is good.

Who knew a sandwich would bring about such relief? I looked down at the bed frame. The restraints lay there in the shade, and I knew the tube was situated nearby. They weren’t needed, luckily, but their presence was still known. Murse sat there while my brother ate, and they both discussed Looney Toons.

At least the clown tries.

My brother and I always loved Looney Toons; I liked the humor, and he liked watching them comedically kill each other. The Murse pointed out the rooster on screen and asked if we knew the clucker’s name. I knew the answer, but I simply couldn’t remember. My brother asked him as he tilted his head and shrugged. “Foghorn Leghorn,” Murse said as he adjusted his glasses behind sky blue eyes.  He waited until the plate was clear and then, weirdly smiling, left. I turned off the TV. My brother grunted toward me, as he had now lost his entertainment.

Just two more weeks.

II.

The clock was silent as it turned. No ticking or odd buzzing. Instead, never-ending hands spin, watching and circling like a lone patrol. They see all. They are time. They are infinite. My whole life was put to question by the silent judging watchers as I tried to wrestle with my own creation. I looked at the unspeaking numbers and made empty promises to God. Words to plead for an intervention on the reality of mine. “Outta time,” I could hear The Almighty, as I was thrown into hellfire. As long as silence exists there will be nothing. No pain. No mocking God. No this. I heard the sound of sneakers squeak their way into space down the hall. Snow-colored shoelaces and the desire to crush glasses entered my mind.

Damn, this is real.

III.

Counseling wasn’t something I looked forward to. How was counseling going to be beneficial for me? 

I’m not the sick one here!

As we drove to the clinic, all I could think of was lying in a chair, while a lady in glasses accused me of wanting to sleep with my mother. I stepped out of the car reluctantly and proceeded into the dark brown building that glared at my small frame. My mom and dad headed up to the reception desk while my brother and I sat in the lounge area. I never related Christianity with psychiatry before. Apparently, this was the place to be if you wanted both. The reception desk person smiled just like the Murse, just like everyone at Sunday church.

I hate those smiles.

         We waited to meet a lady with glasses who wasn’t so accusatory, yet somehow bugged me in odd ways.

IV.

The first session was over; a lot of emotions were thrown out. I honestly hadn’t thought that would happen.

Why did they make you talk so much?

I had never talked so much in my life. Even better, after that session, I started on my own with another therapist. “Having someone who can deal with your situation,” was what I was told. This therapist can’t work with me. All the dirt that I flung into the room surprised everyone.

I thought everyone else felt this way.

I guess I really am sick.

V.

Days were life, and life was routine. Every day my brother’s not-dying was a good one, every day I left the hospital was a godsend. Not that I didn’t want to see my brother; I simply didn’t want to see him like that. On days when I had no choice but to see him, I would sit in a little corner bench by the window and watch the static, if Looney Toons wasn’t on. There was a pool table across the green hall where we played during “down time,” and hours were spent hitting balls while my brother still had tubes connected to him. His opened-backed robe was not welcome when he tried his far-reaching shots. Murse, of course, had to be in the room. It wasn’t enough he had to get between me, Drew, and old Foghorn, but he also had to ruin this for us. This slowly became our place to be. It distracted me, and it distracted Drew. We didn’t have to talk; we just hit things into their proper places. It felt good. We got really good at it.

VI.

That morning, my mom drove me to my new therapist. I walked into the brown building, and the person at the reception desk said nothing.

Part of the system now.

We waited in a room filled with magazines and seemingly normal human beings. But these weren’t normal people. Normal humans didn’t struggle with difficulties; it was only those who deserved the punishment who received it.

 For me, this has been a long time coming.

The different therapists called a few names; none of them mine. After a time, “Wesley” a deep scratchy voice called over. The vibrations that touched my eardrums came from a short black man who looked to be in his late forties, early fifties. He babied a cane placed on his right side. He gave me a nice smile and called me back. Why did people always smile? Aren’t we all broken? As a Christian, I had accepted my sin a long time ago.

Why don’t these people accept it, too?

The limping black man tried introductions, but I was nervous and unacquainted with the hallway, so I sputtered thoughtless responses to questions he asked: “Yes,” “no,” “fine,” “Yea, my uncle’s a monster.” All that came through to my brain was his thick Southern accent and the bum knee he kept coddling. We reached the end of the hall, walked to the room, and shut the door. All I knew was that I didn’t want to be there, but I supposed Drew didn’t want to be where he was either, especially when that tube hung a foot under his feet, begging him to decline the food. But that wasn’t the same. He did that to himself, right?

Life can be a real jerk sometimes.

VII.

I came out somehow crying. The tissues in my hand were already soaked through and I dared not ask for more. I didn’t want to give the satisfaction to the man who created them.

I promised myself I wouldn’t do this.

I didn’t want to be subjected to some cliché counseling experience that made me feel better. I was not sure how to feel, and I was not sure I really wanted to find out. I was stuck between embarrassment and utter shock of myself. I went to the bathroom and wiped off my face, not wanting to have my mom see the rivers. I looked in the mirror.

Wow, Wes, you’re a real piece of crap.

VIII.

It doesn’t add up.

I had been there for a week, but it felt like it had been a year. My routine had been short, but it was ingrained into my mind. I went to the hospital every day for at least a few hours to watch the static, hear the sound of silence, and catch a glimpse of my brother’s butt as Murse glared from the corner. I went to counseling every other day. It was getting easier strolling past the silent crowd of onlookers in the lobby, all smiling, and waiting for the sound of thumping that came from my companion’s cane. I walked into the room and then an hour later walked out.

High and mighty… I might just injure your other leg.

I went to our temporary apartment situated behind an Outback Steakhouse. The small home where I stayed had the bare essentials: a couch, kitchen, and two bedrooms. The only real channel we got was something featuring Joel Olsteen. I liked the gym at the apartment, though, and went there often, typically when I really just wanted to get away from my parents. But that wasn’t my home; my home was thousands of miles away and not some backwoods Ohio home for the needy. I got bored very easily after working out, so instead I headed toward the Barnes & Noble down the street. I stayed there a few hours before I headed back to Them and went to bed.

IX.

The leather on the books reminded me of school. I missed it sometimes. When we became homeschooled I didn’t miss much about public school, but one thing I did miss was the library of books on the shelves for me to read. The smell of brewing coffee ripped me from my ecstasy, telling me that I sat with my laptop by the Starbucks inside of the bookstore. The Wi-Fi in the apartment was terrible, but gave me an excuse to leave and be by myself, though homework did have to be done from time to time. I liked taking small breaks and looking at the old, classic books. They seemed much nicer than the newer stuff on average.

I am sure now that I had succumbed to escapism (it’s hard being objective in this), but I thought of it, at the time, more as discovery. I liked the lives that live in books. That’s not to say that I didn’t like mine (though it was depressing), but rather I liked that the world seemed much more grand in books. As if something interesting had finally found me and said, “Well done.” When I left the store, I was immersed in a huge world that seemed so small compared to what I could hold in my hand.

Should I have faith in a world I don’t think deserves it?

X.

Questions like: “How would you describe your family?” were followed by: “Is that the way you think a Christian should live?”

I thought this wasn’t supposed to be judgmental.

         I became close to the man sitting across from me, and I opened up more and more as he continually grew more familiar. Even describing things that I knew would never leave that room. Things that I had never shared with anyone before. I probably cried every session, but it didn’t feel like an obligation to do so. No “let’s talk about our feelings” sentiments were exchanged, but rather an adult asking another how their walk with Christ was going and being supportive. I actually opened my bible for the first time in about a year after my fifth session.

 Halfway there, Wes.

XI.

Wes was situated in the corner of the room.

He likes that spot farthest away from me

Mom and Dad went to their own counseling session today, he wanted to stay. I had to pee, but the nice nurse just left, and it seemed important.

 I could wake Wes up maybe.

Even though he is stupid sometimes, he really does try.

My hair felt really weird. I wished there was a mirror around here, so I could have seen myself. I hadn’t really seen myself in weeks. I didn’t think they wanted me to look at myself; anorexics in recovery probably shouldn’t do that. I grabbed the remote and turned on Looney Toons. Foghorn came on, and I smiled, remembering the nurse liked the cartoon, too. Wes groaned in the next seat and woke up when the static comes on.

“Where are Mom and Dad?” he asked.

“They are doing counseling, but will be back,” I said.

Wes got cozy and stared at the ceiling. He then turned over. I knew what he was doing. He was crying. He had done it a lot the last few days. Mom, Dad, and Wes didn’t really talk about what they were going through in front of me, but I knew it was hard. I couldn’t cry anymore, on the other hand. I had done enough of that. My family didn’t want me to cry—I was sure. They needed me to be strong. I was sure Wes felt the same thing.

I’m sorry.

The nurse came in. I liked his shoes. He said we had to go do a scan. I was fine with that, but Wes looked like he was freaking out without Mom and Dad.
           Strength.

XII.

Drew was being hooked up to the shiny machine in the center of the room. I wasn’t entirely sure what it was; all I knew was that we needed to do it. Mom and Dad weren’t there, so I had to look like I knew what I was doing.

Basically like everything else I do.

Murse was there. He looked like he was being trained by another nurse who seemed much more clownish. He is asking her tons of questions. She looks annoyed. Drew removed the upper half of his gown and lied down on the table. The female nurse applied a blue gel to his chest while relating why and what she was doing.

Great. Drew is pregnant. 

The nurse asked my little brother if he wanted to watch some TV as they do this. He said sure, and they placed a little television screen in front of him. They flipped on the switch, and on came SpongeBob, my brother's favorite show. She grabbed an odd, rounded object and stuck it against the blue gel and probed around his chest. My brother started laughing at something Patrick had just said. I wasn’t really paying attention to the show; instead, I was focused on the other small screen that the white-shoed people are looking at. There was something moving. The nurse sees my expression and asked if I wanted to see. I nodded, still focusing. She tilted the screen toward me, and I saw the movement again. I knew what it was. It was horrifying. It was amazing. It was a heart. My brother’s beating heart. It was amazing that that thing, the object that pumped the veins of my baby brother, was right there for me to behold. It was terrifying because I heard the two others looking at it and saying how the heart was “not right.” I sat there frozen.

Is my little brother dying?

They said he was going to be OK. Is he?

What kind of an older brother am I to let this happen?

What the hell is going on?!

I have failed.

XIII. 

I walked into the room with the caned man. I don’t remember much of what we said. I just remember that I cried. I remember him crying. I remember joining our hands together and reciting something that I had recited since I was in diapers, but that time it actually meant something. I remember walking out feeling the same, but somehow new.

Now comes the hard part.   

Forgotten Children: A Plan to Combat the Global Health Disparity of Street Children in Ethiopia

By Shalliah King

Author Note  

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shalliah King, Buntain
School of Nursing, Northwest University, 5520 108th Ave NE, Kirkland, WA 98033. Email: 
Shalliah.king15@northwestu.edu

Abstract
It is estimated that there are more than 100 million street children globally (Kanth & Harris, 2016). This disparity between children raised in stable homes and those forced to survive in often hostile conditions greatly impacts the health and wellbeing of children from all regions. This paper examines in depth the conditions that street children in Ethiopia must endure. Current efforts to resolve the homeless crisis among Ethiopian children have been met with limited success to date. The traditional, external non-profit organization has not been able to meet the complex needs of these children (van der Wolf, 2013).  Two in-country, indigenous organizations offer revolutionary practices that are proven highly effective in alleviating suffering within this population. Retrak’s focus is on the reintegration of street children with their families and communities, while Sunshine Philanthropy Group assists impoverished students in receiving education and becoming leaders in their communities. I propose that a partnership between these two organizations will create the best outcomes for street children in Ethiopia and should be the foundational premise for assisting street children around the globe.

Problem Statement
Street children are children from the ages of birth-18 years, who work or live on the street.  Street children are divided up into several categories. The first category includes those whose entire livelihood is on the street, both waking and sleeping; they abide and work in menial jobs to eke out a small wage entirely outside. This category is called “children of the street.” These children have no parental or adult supervision and are often left caring for their younger siblings (Appendix A).  Children who work on the street during the day yet have a family to come home to are called “Children part of the street” (Kanth & Harris, 2016). These families live in destitute poverty and often overcrowded conditions.  Children of the street spend the majority of their time outdoors, in many cases to avoid abusive home situations. Children who work on the street, however, do not attend school; instead, they make money to earn their keep at their home.  The types of jobs vary among countries; some “jobs” may include panhandling, selling handmade trinkets or family goods, selling drugs, and resorting to prostitution (Huijsmans, 2014). This makeshift employment is most commonly related to times of conflict in a country, which forces the family to live a nomadic lifestyle. Children support their families by finding daily shelter, gathering food, or working laborious jobs (Kanth & Harris, 2016). 
No matter what category, all street children are exposed to the elements and other harmful agents. This exposure puts them at high risk for developing infections such as Tuberculosis (TB), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and other devastating infections (Kanth & Harris, 2016). They live in extreme poverty and are likely to be malnourished. As street children, they are in a vulnerable state, highly susceptible to abuse, both physical and sexual. Street children are known for their use of harmful drugs and involvement in gang and criminal activity (Huijsmans, 2014). Most street children are uneducated. These combined factors can lead to mental and physiological disorders. 
    The magnitude of this health epidemic is extensive. The current estimate of street children worldwide is greater than 100 million and has been on the rise (Kanth & Harris, 2016).  The highest density of street children is in Latin America, with 40 million children currently living or working on the street (Kanth & Harris, 2016). Street execution is the third-leading cause of death of children in Brazil. It is estimated that 14 children are executed daily throughout Brazil and Colombia (YXC Project, 2016).  Because of this high murder rate, street children are not expected to reach their 18th birthday (YXC Project, 2016).  The largest population of street children consists of 10- to 14-year-old boys. Boys are more likely to be sent off on their own, as compared to girls, who are more likely to be sold into sex trafficking or remain at home to help with the housework (Kanth & Harris, 2016). 
    The magnitude of street children stretches far beyond that of Latin America; it has become a global concern. A significant number of street children live on every inhabitable continent, such as Africa with 32 million; Asia-Pacific region with 25 million; Australia with 26,000; Eastern Europe with 166,000; India with 11 million; Latin America with 40 million, and North America with 2.5 million (Kanth & Harris, 2016; YXC Project, 2016; Wikipedia, 2016; Consortium for Street Children, 2016). See Appendix B for more on the global nature of the impact on street children.
    These population numbers can seem overwhelming. Focusing exclusively on the street children in Ethiopia may help to produce a solution to the issue in this country.  Over 150,000 street children live in Ethiopia, with 17,000 living within the capital city of Addis Ababa alone (YXC Project, 2016; van der Wolf, 2013).  According to recent studies, in Ethiopia more than 50 percent of Ethiopian street children lack access to shelter or adequate food (van der Wolf, 2013). Similar to street children around the world, Ethiopian street children are exposed to the elements, making them at high risk for injury and infection. Because of their limited access to food, many street children are malnourished. Children in Ethiopia leave home for the streets for many different reasons. A survey done by Retrak found that 55 percent of the children who left home said that their inability to attend school was their reason for leaving. (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013, p. 20). Of the children surveyed, 33 percent were asked by their parents to go to the capital and work to help pay for school, while 29 percent of children surveyed were being forced to work (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013, p. 20).  Many of the younger street children have been orphaned by parents’ deaths due to HIV/AIDS and, consequentially, are left alone to fend for themselves (Mannert, 2014). Arranged child marriage is a custom in Ethiopia. Because of this widespread cultural practice, many 10- to 14-year-old girls leave home to escape these marriages (Mannert, 2014). Children also leave home because of abuse from family members, both physical and sexual. A population of street children unique to Ethiopia is the children of the Mumbai soldiers. Since the last revolution in the 1900s, people associated with the Mumbai soldiers have been shunned by society. They are denied work or entrance into public places. These children receive some of this same hostility. Along with not having the resources to support their children, many end up on the street. Street children in Ethiopia are exposed to incredible violence, including murder (Mannert, 2014). 

Current Efforts
Several organizations have stepped up to meet the needs of street children in Ethiopia. The largest organization is Save the Children, which is an international organization that advocates for child justice. Save the Children started working with the Ethiopian government in the 1980s. Together they focus on two goals regarding street children. The first goal is changing the public perception of street children from criminals to lost children. Secondly, the group focuses on providing basic needs such as water during a recent drought (van der Wolf, 2013). 
In theory, this organization is highly effective, but according to Azeb Adefrsew, a researcher with Save the Children, 
[t]he limited services provided by local NGOs do not match what the kids see as their greatest needs. The children say that their major problem was shelter.  But the street children organizations were providing mainly food and other items, clothing and so on, Adefrsew explained. But the children were not satisfied with the services they were receiving. (van der Wolf, 2013).
It is hard to gauge their cultural competency when they are failing to meet their main goals. The local NGOs are failing to see what they need to change within their plan of care for a different population (Fountain, 2014). Save the Children is a very large organization; they do not always work with street children nor do they always work in Ethiopia. In this instance, this NGO is stretched too thin. Save the Children has not taken the time to adapt their program to the needs of the children in Ethiopia (Fountain, 2014). One positive point is that this charity works directly with the Ethiopian government. This gives them local support and some insight. 
Private and locally-owned organizations abound as well. Sunshine Philanthropy Foundation is a charity foundation run out of a major construction company that is owned and operated by local business owners Samuel and Fetlework Tafese (Appendix C).  The goals of Sunshine Philanthropy Foundation is to “create life-enhancing opportunity for [a] disadvantaged group of people” (Sunshine Investment Group, 2015). They do this in a number of ways, but their most productive method is their building of four schools for the impoverished children in Ethiopia. These schools are located in rural areas that lack Ethiopia’s national school systems. Schools are at no cost to the children, including books and uniforms. On top of the free education, children are given a monthly allowance of 200 birr, equivalent to 10 U.S. dollars (Sunshine Investment Group, 2015). This allowance helps children have time to come to school by eliminating the need to earn this pittance or to locate food to eat. For children whose families own livestock, it gives them funds to hire someone, so that they can afford to let their child go to school (Sunshine Investment Group, 2015). 
The Sunshine Investment Group program has been effective in gathering and retaining students. They now sponsor over 832 students, almost doubling in size annually (Sunshine Investment Group, 2015). One reason that the program has been so effective, is because it is locally owned and operated. Because of this, Sunshine’s schools are naturally more culturally aware. (Fountain, 2014). For example, Sunshine, knowing that free school is not free until one can pay for the time it takes out of the day, gives a monthly allowance to their students. The school also requires uniforms, which may seem extraneous to Westerners, but this custom is expected in all Ethiopian schools, so the neglible fee required makes sense.
  Being a culturally competent program does not mean that Sunshine schools operate without blind spots. My husband had the opportunity to visit one of the Sunshine Philanthropies schools; what he noted was that many of the children still went back to the street at night (Appendix D). Even with the monthly allowance, the children’s basic needs were not being met. This shortfall is understandable because the allowance is just intended to cover the missed work time during school hours, but not enough to live adequately. Sunshine Philanthropy is meeting its goal of educating children, but it is falling short in supporting their more basic needs. 
The final organization being considered reports that they offer a “beginning to end approach” to helping street children (Retrak, 2016). Retrak is involved within communities in Ethiopia, Uganda, and recently Brazil. They contend that family unity creates the best environment for a child to live in, and that a decent living environment is a right that should be upheld. Because of this conviction, Retrak focuses on reintegration of street children into their homes or their communities over institutionalization (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013). Retrak’s goal is to (whenever possible) reintegrate the children with their families, a foster family within the child’s community, or an independently stable living situation. Retrak’s program equips the children to be economically independent. They consistently achieve this goal through their multi-faceted process.
 The first step is outreach. In this phase, locally-trained volunteers go into the community and build trusting relationships with individual street children. Once trust is established, the children are invited to come to Retrak to socialize or to receive medical services from their free clinic. The medical clinic serves as a way to help recruit street children to the program as well as continued care for those enrolled in the program. Also at this phase when children may remain reticent about accepting outside help, emergency shelters are available for the children to use as well. Once the child decides they want to be a part of the program, the child gets paired individually with a local social worker who spends days with the child. This period provides the child’s baseline assessment to see what action Retrak should take. The children are placed on a scale to rate their level of deprivation in Retrak’s six categories of wellness, which are health, safety, emotional wellness, economic independence, education, and training. The categories of wellness are used as a way to assess a child’s needs and document their progress throughout their journey (Appendix E). 
Counseling is deeply integrated within Retrak’s program. Counseling is always available and is used to help the children learn to regain the ability to attach themselves to a caregiver and work through traumatic events, or to assist the family throughout the reintegration process. Formal education and job training are done on the Retrak campus, as a way to get children into a learning environment again. It is necessary to help the children regain basic skills and return them to a learning level that will be sufficient for the public school system. Once a child’s level of wellness has advanced to a stable, healthy state according to their scores, the reintegration process can begin. Reintegration to the child’s own family is always investigated before attempted. This is determined by the family’s ability to meet all the areas of wellness for the child. Ample amounts of counseling and social work are used to assist the family in this process. If it is unsafe for a child to return home, foster parents within the child’s community are found. Lastly, it is a goal that the eldest children become economically independent. The reintegration process involves the community and utilizes many forms of resources and support, including checkups from Retrak. This organization is also involved in legal child protection, by working within communities, with law enforcement, and alongside the country’s legal system—all bringing attention back to the protection of the individual child’s rights. Most importantly, Retrak works to prevent children from returning to the streets. This prevention is accomplished through giving counseling services to at-risk families and fostering a relationship with the children. 
The Retrak program has been wildly successful. The issue of street children is complex, yet Retrak has been able to successfully reintegrate 1,200 children with a 70 percent retention rate after six months. This program’s achievements have now been endorsed by UNICEF as the research behind the new Standard Operating Procedure (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013, p. 7). In all six fields of wellness, the children showed improvements in their deprived areas compared to when they first entered the program (Appendix F). In Retrak’s yearly outcome review for Ethiopia, their biggest struggle was keeping the children in school after they became reintegrated with their families. 
Compared to other aid organizations that are helping street children in Ethiopia, Retrak has the most conclusive, holistic, and culturally competent care. Their effectiveness is seen from the very beginning in how they form trusting relationships. To an Ethiopian, to be asked a question is to be cared for (Chiatti, 2016). Ethiopians want to know that they have been heard, requiring that others listen for longer periods of time than what Western society would usually dictate. Retrak intuits this need and puts it into practice with the use of the one-on-one social workers talking with the street child over the course of four full days (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013). Retrak strongly believes in the power of the family unit and deinstitutionalization of children—affirming the belief that children need to grow up in their own communities.

Recommendation
Upon review, there is great work already taking place in Ethiopia by Retrak and Sunshine Philanthropy Group. Retrak is successful at getting children off the streets and back into a steady environment in their community, while Sunshine is concerned with educating children. Together, Retrak and Sunshine, have created sustainable, effective, and culturally competent systems for addressing the needs of street children. Because of these two significant organizations, no need to create a new entity is warranted. (Fountain, 2014).  Partnering together can improve upon the weak points of the individual organizations through the strength of the other.   
According to Retrak’s latest outcome review, the largest deficiency of children, is their remaining in school after reintegration into their communities (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013). What is the root of this problem? Children report from both Retrak and Sunshine Philanthropy Group that they are excited to learn and understand that education is the key to their future (Retrak, 2016; Sunshine Investment Group, 2015). Education is highly valued by Ethiopians, to the point that society considers the uneducated person worthless (Chiatti, 2016). The desire to be educated is not the problem. 
The basic problem contributing to the street children epidemic stems from inability to pay for school. Research shows that the number one reason a child turns to the streets is that they can no longer afford school (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013). The second-leading cause is that the child’s parents encouraged them to leave home and go to Addis Ababa, to find work in order to pay for school. Many of the children who leave the city end up on the street and never return home. There is a definite increase in the incidence of recent street children ages 14 and above.  This is related to the Ethiopian school system. Secondary school starts when a child becomes 14 years old, equivalent to starting high school in the United States. Secondary school is not paid for by the Ethiopian government like primary school is. This creates a dilemma for poor families and their eldest children. In many cases, children are forced to work to pay for their tuition. 
 On the other hand, Sunshine Philanthropy Group uses a proven model to get street children into secondary school. Sunshine Philanthropy can reach out to the children who are graduates of Retrak. In this partnership, Retrak would alert Sunshine Philanthropy Group of a new child placement. If the child’s home was near one of the four existing schools, then the child would be guaranteed a place in the school program. If the child stays more than a 20-minute walk away from one these schools, the student will need to attend school in their own community. Studies show that if students have to walk more than 20 minutes, they will not attend school (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013).  Sunshine Philanthropy Group would pay for the child’s tuition and supplies along with the 200 birr monthly allowance at their community’s school, just as if the child was attending Sunshine’s institution. This proven method of getting street children into school, will increase Retrak’s school retention rate and provide the students with skills for the future. 
 In return, Retrak will reach out to Sunshine Philanthropy Group’s school populations who are living on the streets. By doing this, Sunshine Philanthropy Group’s students will have the opportunity to reintegrate with their families, giving them a stable living environment where they can thrive. This partnership uses two organizations that are already established and effective. These organizations are operated by locals and meet the needs of the children in their own communities. Through Retrak’s and Sunshine’s working together, they are removing their weaknesses by combining their strengths.  
Evaluation will be integrated into the programs’ existing procedures. Retrak will continue to monitor school attendance during their check-in visits, at the three- month-, six-month-, and one-year checkpoints. At the same time, Sunshine Philanthropy Group teachers will document school attendance, and will alert Retrak if a child misses more than one week of school. Teachers will also inform Retrak of children who are currently living on the streets, so that Retrak can intervene. This data will be compiled to evaluate the effectiveness of the particular interventions intended to meet the following goals. First, school attendance of Retrak graduates will increase by 70 percent at their six-month checkup. Second, Retrak will successfully reintegrate 70 percent of the street children attending school at Sunshine Philosophy Group in one year’s time. These percentages are consistent with Retrak’s data on retention rates that form the current standard for UNICEF.

Appendix A
A young street child taking care of his younger sibling in India (Holley, 2012). 

Appendix B

A figure of current data about street children around the world (Consortium for Street Children, 2016). 

Appendix C

Children from one of Sunshine Philanthropy Group’s schools with its founders, Mr. Samuel Tafese and his wife, Mrs. Fetlework Elala (Sunshine Investment Group, 2015).

Appendix D

This is a picture taken of my husband Kevin in 2009 in Ethiopia. Panagiotis Hatziandreas, was an Ethiopian faculty member of Kevin’s, at Cascadia Community College. Hatziandreas had a heart for learning and wanted to bring that opportunity to his home country. Kevin was the student body president at the time. He took Hatziandres’s passion and implemented it. Kevin started a textbook drive and generated over 2,000 lbs. of textbooks for the children in just two months. Kevin was sent to Ethiopia to deliver the books. He took the books to a school funded by a local business owner allied with the Sunshine Philanthropy Group that provides free education and a monthly allowance for the extremely impoverished. 

Appendix E

Table 1b: Child Status Index Domain Goals and Sources (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013, p. 13).
This is an example of how a child’s deficiencies are rated in each domain. This chart shows the criteria for the physiological, psychological, and educational domains (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013). This scoring system is used to help assess the child’s wellbeing throughout the program, in order to best assist and document their personal situation.  

Appendix F
Figure 3: Spider plots showing the changes in wellbeing (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013, p. 20)
This graph represents children’s wellbeing in each of the six states of wellness and their related subsections (Corcoran & Wakia, 2013). Clearly, as a whole, the group moved from a place of great deprivation to a state of wellbeing. 

References
Chiatti, B. D. (2016, March 1). Considering cultural preferences in the delivery of health care to Ethiopian immigrants. 1-5.
Consortium for Street Children. (2016, April 6). Get involved in international day for street children 12th April. Retrieved from streetchildren.org: http://streetchildren.org/get-involved-in-international-day-for-street-children-12th-april/#more-2094
Corcoran, S., & Wakia, J. (2013, April). Retrak research evaluating outcomes. Retrieved from Retrak: https://us.retrak.org/content/uploads/sites/2/2015/05/Retrak-Research-Evaluating-Outcomes-May-13-F.pdf
Fountain, D. E. (2014). Health for all: The Vanga story. Pasadena: Willam Carey Library.
Holley, G. (2012, December 1). Children and poverty. Retrieved from Moms against hunger: http://momsagainsthunger.typepad.com/moms-against-hunger/children-and-poverty/
Huijsmans, R.B.C. (2014). Becoming a young migrant or stayer seen through the lens of ‘householding’: Households ‘in flux’ and the intersection of relations of gender and seniority. Geoforum, 51, 294-304. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.007
Kanth, A., & Harris, B. (2016, April 16). Street children. Retrieved from Youth advocate program international.org: http://yapi.org/childrens-rights/street-children/
Mannert, K. A. (2014). Quality of life in Ethiopia's street youth at a rehabilitation center and the association with trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27(5), 593-601.
Retrak. (2016, April). About Retrak. Retrieved from Retrak: http://retrak-shop.myshopify.com/pages/about-us
Sunshine Investment Group. (2015).Philanthropy foundation. Retrieved from Sunshine Investment Group: http://sunshineinvestmentgroup.net/philanthropy-foundation/index.html
van der Wolf, M. (2013, May 1). News/Africa needs of Ethiopia’s street children not met, aid group says. Retrieved from Voice of America: http://www.voanews.com/content/needs-of-ethiopias-street-children-not-met-aids-group-says/1652302.html
Wikipedia. (2016, April 12). Street children. Retrieved from wikipedia.org: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children
YXC Project. (2016, April 16). Street children by country. Retrieved from youthxchange.net: http://www.youthxchange.net/main/b236_homeless-h.asp
 
 

Life as I Knew It: A Memoir with a Critical Introduction

By Kristen N. Hernandez, NU Student

Abstract

The canon of literature written by and for the survivors of child sexual abuse is (understandably) densely populated by studies on the victims themselves. There exists, however, a gap in the literature regarding siblings of the survivors. These siblings are termed Secondary Survivors and are in need of much more attention from writers of poetry, fiction, memoir, and nonfiction. This paper serves to expose the current gap in the literature and to make a case for the importance of the production of new works to fill this gap. Following this critical introduction, the author provides the first chapter of a memoir from the perspective of a Secondary Survivor of child sexual abuse (CSA).

Life as I Knew It: Critical Introduction

Child sexual abuse (hereafter CSA) is an alarmingly rampant problem that has affected the lives of countless families. There are many consequences for both the survivors and the families after the abuse occurs. Survivors often struggle with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, feelings of guilt and shame, future intimacy issues, low self-esteem and self-worth, and difficulties in trusting others. Without counseling and treatment, these issues frequently lead to survivors’ acting out in self-destructive ways. The families of survivors also face a number of difficulties following the disclosure of abuse. Non-offending parents are sometimes required to struggle their way through the court system in order to maintain custody of their children. The entire family can often feel as if they are under constant scrutiny from the courts, social workers, concerned family members, and well-meaning friends. Non-abused siblings of survivors face their own struggles, as well. These siblings deal with many of the same emotional and mental struggles that the survivors do. Depression, distrust of others, anxiety, feelings of survivor’s guilt, feelings of shame that they were unable to help, and a loss of family identity can hit the siblings of survivors after they learn that abuse has occurred (RAINN: Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network).

Abuse survivors have many support systems to help them, including memoirs to let them know that they are not alone, but their siblings have largely been forgotten. Many of these siblings are desperate to know that the trauma they experience and the healing journeys that they have to embark on are real and shared. The creative piece I have written, entitled Life as I Knew It: A Memoir, aims to reach those who still don’t know that they are not alone. My hope is that this memoir will begin to acknowledge and empower the lives of the previously overlooked brothers and sisters of the survivors of CSA, while telling my own personal experiences with this topic.

Life as I Knew It: A Memoir tells of the healing journey I have been on for the last seven years. In the summer before my freshman year of high school, my family exploded when long-kept secrets of sexual abuse came out. This revelation ripped us apart and launched me down a long and extremely difficult road to recovery. I, as a non-victim, was affected by this tragedy in a number of different ways over the next few years. At different points, I found myself fighting a sometimes losing battle against depression, attempting to re-establish my identity in self-destructive ways, and battling thoughts that told me I could have helped if I had only been able to see, and struggling through many other mental and emotional challenges. This memoir details my struggle to find a new normal, reach a place of genuine healing, and, eventually, discover what Jesus meant when he said, “‘Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven’” (Luke 6:37, ESV). Life as I Knew It: A Memoir is a testament to the very real trauma experienced by the siblings of children who have been sexually abused. My memoir fills a gap in the current literature on the subject of CSA.

According to research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately one in six boys and one in four girls are sexually abused before their 18th birthday (“Facts and Statistics: Raising Awareness About Sexual Abuse”). Other research conducted by Darkness to Light, a CSA awareness and prevention organization, suggests that one in 10 children will be sexually abused before they reach adulthood (Townsend and Rheingold 5). With the CDC’s reporting 3,941,553 births in 1998, this data suggests that up to 394,156 of those now 18-year-olds were sexually abused during their childhood (Ventura, Martin, Curtin, Matthews and Park 3). Approximately 34.2% of people who abuse children are family members, so, according to these statistics, approximately 134,801 families of children born in 1998 have been affected by CSA (Snyder 10).

The current canon of CSA literature is populated by numerous memoirs from survivors of CSA and countless self-help books for the primary abuse survivors. As the push to raise awareness for this pervasive problem has increased, so have the works written by and for the survivors. An effort to break the culture of silence surrounding the dark topic has led to the publishing of many memoirs and healing stories such as Hush: Moving from Silence to Healing After Childhood Sexual Abuse by Nicole Braddock Bromley; Out of the Darkroom, Into the Light: A Story of Faith and Forgiveness After Child Abuse by Tracey Casciano; and Little Girl Mended by Niki Krauss, to name just a few. Many self-help-style books for survivors have also been published. Titles like The Wounded Heart: Hope for Adult Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Dan B. Allender and Breathe: Finding Freedom to Thrive in Relationships After Childhood Sexual Abuse by Nicole Braddock Bromley provide advice and guidance for the adult survivors of CSA. As survivors, family members and organizations strive to raise awareness about the prevalence and effects of child sexual abuse, the amount of literature on the subject continues to increase.

Nonetheless, there is a surprising lack of books published for the other family members involved in situations of CSA perpetrated by family members. A small number of books marketed toward Secondary Survivors do exist, the unabused and non-offending family members and eventual significant others of CSA survivors. Informational literature like Allies in Healing: When the Person You Love Was Sexually Abused as a Child by Laura Davis and other titles geared toward parents and future spouses provide information. The main focus of this literature, however, is still on helping the primary survivors on their recovery journey. No titles out there are really written for the purpose of assisting the Secondary Survivors in their own recovery.

            The question becomes, why is it important that there be literature written by and for secondary survivors? How can reading and writing about the mental and emotional struggles that result from the revelation that a sibling has been abused help Secondary Survivors? The answer to these questions is based on research that has found the process of disclosing painful information “is a key feature in resolution of a stressful or traumatic event” (Lutgendorf and Antoni 423). By discussing and engaging with the emotions of a traumatic experience, the survivors are able to integrate the event into “existing mental schemes” which allows them to reach a greater level of resolution (Lutgendorf and Antoni 423). It is important for writings about the experiences of secondary survivors to exist because focused writing that explores the deepest emotions related to a traumatic experience “is related to improvements in health and well-being” (Smyth and Helm 227). By writing about their experiences, secondary survivors can process through the unique trauma they have experienced and receive benefits comparable to those gained through therapy in which many may never participate (Smyth and Helm 227).

            My own experience in writing this memoir is in line with much of the research discussed above. Through interacting with the trauma that I experienced in a creative way, I managed to find a new level of resolution. Writing about my journey has allowed me to take ownership of our family story as mine to tell as much as it is my brother’s. Revisiting the difficult to discuss memories and allowing myself to release the emotions attached to them has been a cathartic and therapeutic experience for me. In writing my story down for others to read, I have finally begun to feel as if my experiences can help someone else deal with theirs. This kind of writing is important because literature focused on the unique experiences of secondary survivors will begin to open a new branch of conversation. This venue could allow for more secondary survivors to share stories that they previously felt were not theirs to share.

            Life as I Knew It: A Memoir will begin to fill the hole in the canon. This memoir will begin the discussion and create a new branch of CSA literature that is focused on the unique experiences of secondary CSA survivors. In addition to this memoir, I have plans to gather the literary works of other secondary CSA survivors into a collection entitled The Rest of Us: Stories from the Siblings of Child Sexual Abuse Survivors. My hope is that these works will encourage others to speak up and speak out about the unrecognized secondary survivors.

Life As I Knew It: A Memoir

Chapter 1

            Hot tears stung my eyes. Another wave of nausea hit my already uneasy stomach. I wretched, again, but my depleted body had nothing left to give. I had not thrown up since before leaving the house, but my stomach still refused to settle.

            As I sank back into the second-row seat of our tired, old Toyota Sienna, the tears that I had been holding back finally spilled over. The dam broke. Deep and uncontrollable sobs wracked my frame.

            The concrete walls of the parking garage kept me comfortably cool though outside in the sun it was a warm California day. Our van was surrounded by numerous cars and people came and went frequently, but the tinted windows gave me some level of privacy. This, at least, was a small relief. I couldn’t have handled knowing that anyone passing by could see me falling apart. I was normally so good at keeping myself together.

            Inside, my mom, my older brother and my younger brother were probably just entering the courtroom for our second custody hearing. My aunt was most likely approaching the cafeteria counter to pay for the water bottle and crackers that she went in to retrieve for me. And there I was, sitting in the van, feeling utterly miserable and pathetic and helpless for reasons that went far beyond whatever bug was attacking my body. I kept imagining my bed at home, my old home, in my room, my old room. I just wanted to curl up in a ball on that bed and sleep until I could wake up from this nightmare.  

            How did I get here? When did it come to this? How did I wind up being this girl, sick and crying in the courthouse parking garage?

            As I sat there, my mind couldn’t help but go back to the day, a little over two months ago, when I started to become this girl. The day that everything about life, at least as I had known it for the last fourteen years, changed forever.

++++++++++++

            It happened halfway through the summer before my freshman year of high school. It was a hot, humid summer in Texas. The water of our housing development’s community pool usually warmed up to bathwater-like temperatures by early afternoon, providing no respite from the heat. All around the up-and-coming neighborhood, June bugs and crickets could be found congregating along the sides of houses and in any dark corner they could find. This was our third summer in Texas and each seemed to be more oppressive than the last. Moving there from Washington for my mom’s job with a magazine start-up, we had no idea the weather would be so harsh.

            On that morning, the morning of the day that changed my life, the day was just beginning to grow warm. Temperatures would soon rise and we would be surrounded by the sticky heat that had characterized every preceding day. Our home, that dream home that had been built specifically for us, that home where we all finally had our own rooms and bathrooms and more space than we knew what to do with, had central air, but we hadn’t been using it much lately. The energy bills could get too high so fast. So, the AC served only to take the worst edge off the sweltering heat. 

            That day, a Wednesday, my dad had the day off. The whole family was actually getting to spend a rare day all together. No one was hiding up in their room, being anti-social. All five of us were downstairs, watching an old episode of NCIS. I was sitting on the couch, dressed in a loose-fitting pair of basketball shorts and a tank-top with a Sudoku book in hand, multitasking. My dad sat next to me; my mom and younger brother shared the loveseat; and my older brother was in the kitchen forging for snacks.

            It really was a rare, pleasant moment of family time. Usually Joseph, the oldest of we three siblings, would be in the office off the entryway playing some game on the computer. Cameron, the youngest, was almost always outside, finding adventures in the greenbelt behind our home. Mom would most often be bustling about the house, doing laundry or dishes or cleaning. Dad was usually working, either on his laptop in the office for his work-from-home position or at Dominos where he delivered pizza to make ends meet. But that day, the last day of its kind, we were all spending the morning together.

A knock at the door marked the end of my generally normal, overall happy childhood.

We all looked toward the front door, a straight shot from the living room where we were sitting. A mildly confused look passed over Dad’s face.

“I wonder who that could be,” he said, getting up to answer it.
            He walked over and opened the front door. His body blocked my view, so I couldn’t see who had interrupted our lazy morning, but I heard a female voice.

Brushing the visitor off as a solicitor or Jehovah’s Witness, I turned my attention back to the TV screen. I was writing a nine in the top-right box of a Sudoku puzzle when Dad called Mom to the door. The same perplexed look that Dad had when he heard the knock furrowed her brow as she went over to stand beside him in the small entryway.

I looked after her and listened to the faint sound of their lowered voices for a moment. But then Gibbs was scolding his agents on the TV screen, and I turned back just in time to see him slap Tony on the back of his head. My brothers and I chuckled a little at the classic NCIS moment.

Then something happened in the entryway that commanded all of my attention. Mom and Dad let the woman at the door in. She was a Hispanic woman, probably around thirty years old. Her dark hair was pulled back in a professional, dignified-looking bun. She wore a dark gray pantsuit with a fuchsia blouse under the blazer.

It was odd: the way she entered our house and led the way into the living room with such easy confidence. The woman walked over to where my brothers and I were now staring at her, and introduced herself.

“Hi, guys. My name is Melanie. I’m a caseworker with Family and Protective Services, and I’m here to take you and your parents down to our offices to talk about some things,” she said.

 If she had spoken to us in a foreign language, I don’t think my brothers or I could have been any more baffled. We sat there for a moment, staring at her blankly before I found the presence of mind to ask the most obvious question.

“Um, why?” I asked. I could feel my face twisting up in some ugly mix of confusion and defensiveness. I’ve never had much of a poker face.

Oddly, my question seemed to catch Melanie flat-footed. She hesitated to answer. Instead, she looked over at my parents, who were now standing beside her.

My dad cleared his throat. When he spoke, the calm, upbeat tone of his voice sounded forced. “Well, guys, I’ve been in counseling for a few months now. A couple weeks ago, I told something to my counselor that he told me he was required to report to Family and Protective Services. They got in touch with me and let me know that a caseworker was going to come by to do a home check and ask us all some questions, but we didn’t know when someone was going to show up,” he told us.

Again, I imagine my face was a study in bewilderment as I stared at my dad now. What could Family and Protective Services possibly want with us? When did Dad start going to counseling? Why? And what in the world did he say to have someone show up at our door unannounced?

The moment must have dragged on too long for Mom’s comfort because, after a few seconds of silence, she interjected, “Come on, kids. Just go get ready, please.”

Slowly, I got up and headed towards the stairs, my brothers following behind me.

“And be quick about it, please,” Mom called after us as we headed up to our rooms.

I could not imagine what this all could possibly be about. Unless… unless this was because our house was nearing foreclosure. Could this be about money? It was no secret that our financial situation as of late had been less than great. Mom had just been talking to us last week about how we might all have to go to California to stay with family for a while. Maybe Family and Protective Services just wanted to make sure that Mom and Dad could still provide for us.

As Cameron was about to head into his room to get dressed, I turned to him and said, quietly, “Don’t wear your shorts with all the holes in them.”

Maybe that will help, I thought, and I headed to my own room to get ready.

When we came back downstairs, Melanie informed us that we wouldn’t be allowed to ride over to the offices with our parents. Instead, we piled into the back seat of her black SUV and spent the twenty-minute trip mostly in silence. She tried to strike up conversation a few times, but I shut her down each time. I had no interest in building any kind of rapport with this woman. My brothers seemed to agree, as they didn’t even bother responding to her lame questions.

“Are you guys having a good summer vacation?” she asked.

“Yeah,” I responded.

“What kinds of things have you been doing?” she inquired.

“Different stuff,” I replied.

And so it went, until we arrived at the bland-looking, concrete exterior Family and Protective Services building.

My parents had been following behind us in the van, and we all met up in the parking lot before entering the front doors. The cool air inside the building was a welcome respite to the sweltering heat outside, but that was about the only thing that brought any relief. My growing unease became more and more apparent as Melanie introduced us to another caseworker. This one was a man around the same age as Melanie. He was also dressed professionally, with his blond hair cut short and neatly combed. I was too stuck in my head to catch his name.

“Hi, kids. I am going to take you to our kids’ room. We’ve got a TV and some videogames. Also books, art supplies, and other fun stuff,” he told us.

He began to lead my brothers and I down a hallway while Melanie quietly led my parents off to another part of the facility. I guess we weren’t supposed to notice that they were separating us again.

“You guys will hang out in here until your parents are done talking with Melanie,” the caseworker guy said. “We’ll want to ask each of you some questions, so I will be coming in to get one of you at a time in a little while. Until then, you’re free to do whatever you like in this room.”

With that, he opened the door to what looked like a rec-room. There were couches in front of a TV with a PlayStation hooked up to it on one side of the room. On the other, there was a table with kid-sized chairs around it. There were shelves and drawers with whatever you could need for arts and crafts. One large shelving unit held books for all age levels and, beside it, another bookshelf held every board game imaginable.

“Just go ahead and relax, and I’ll be back in a little bit,” the caseworker said, ushering us in.

There were snacks laid out on the table: pretzels, chips, goldfish crackers, and other individually-portioned bags. Mini water bottles were bunched together beside those items. Everything a bunch of kids could need for an indeterminate amount of time.

I don’t remember what we talked about, but I do remember that none of us kids wanted to discuss the fact that we had been taken from our home in the middle of the morning and brought to a strange government building where we were separated from our parents. Joseph and Cameron set up in front of the TV. Cameron was easily distracted by the PlayStation, as twelve-year-old boys tend to be. Joseph didn’t give any of his thoughts away, but then, he never did. He just sat quietly, playing Super Smash Bros with Cameron.

I wandered around the room for a little bit, perusing the books and checking out the art supplies. After a while, I picked a book off the shelf and attempted to read it. But I couldn’t focus. I found myself rereading the same lines over and over again, but not drawing any meaning from the words on the page. My mind was restless and couldn’t settle on any one thought for more than a moment. I was consumed with anxiety about our family and my parents.

            Why are we here? was the only question that kept finding its way back into my head.

            Eventually, after the caseworker guy had called Joseph and Cameron out of the room, separately to ask them questions, my turn came. I followed him into a small, closet-like interview room where yet another female caseworker was waiting. By this time, nothing about her registered. I only knew, from the moment she started asking questions, that she was an enemy to the stability of my family. She was trying to find reasons to tear us apart.

            “Do your parents fight much?” she asked.

            “No,” I answered.

            “How about yelling?” she asked. “Do your parents ever yell at you?”

            “Sometimes. Only when I ignore them and they need to get my attention. Or when I’ve done something dangerous.”

            “Have your parents ever hit you?”

            “No! Never. Only spankings, sometimes, when we were younger.”

            “Do you know what verbal abuse is?”

            “Yes,” I answered, beginning to feel even more defensive than I had before.

            “Can you tell me what it is?”

            “When someone is really cruel and mean to you and uses their words to make you feel bad, or unsafe, or like you aren’t worth anything.”

            “Have you ever been verbally abused?”

            “No.”

            “Do you know what qualifies as physical abuse?”

            “Hitting, being violent.”

            “That’s right. Have you ever been physically abused?”

            “No. I’ve never been abused,” I said, my frustration coming through in my voice.

            “How about sexual abuse? Do you know what that means?”

            “Yes, I know what that means. We’ve talked about all of this in school. It’s inappropriate touching,” I replied. This woman must have thought I was stupid. What fourteen-year-old wouldn’t know what these things mean?

            “Right. So, have you ever been sexually abused? This is a safe place. You can tell the whole truth here.”

            “No. I said I’ve never been abused.”

            It was the most uncomfortable and, seemingly, unfounded line of questioning I had ever had to respond to. By the time I answered all of their questions and the caseworker guy walked me back to the rec-room, I was ready to leave and never come back ever again. I hated this place and everyone in it.

            Where are Mom and Dad? When are we going home?

            “We’re going to miss youth group if they don’t hurry up,” I said, partially to my brothers, partially to myself.

            “Yeah, I guess,” Joseph responded, only half paying attention.

            It felt like that day dragged on forever. There wasn’t a clock in the room, so I kept asking Joseph to check his phone for the time. He didn’t seem to care as much as I did and told me to stop asking. Cameron seemed blissfully oblivious to the gravity of the situation. He just kept busy, working his way through the PlayStation games one after the other.

            We didn’t talk about the questions we were asked when they called us out of the room. It was almost as if, by refusing to address the elephant in the room, we thought we could keep it from becoming real.

            Finally, after it had gotten dark outside. The caseworker guy came back for us.

            “Melanie and your parents are ready for you guys in the conference room,” he told us. “I’m gonna walk you over. Follow me.”

            We got up and followed him further down the hallway, past two more closed doors before he opened a door on the same wall that the rec room door had been on. Inside the room there was a big U-shaped conference table. Melanie sat in the middle of the U with a bunch of papers and folders spread out before her. Dad sat on the far side of the tables, and Mom sat across from him, on the other side of the U, with her back to us. She turned to look at us when we walked in. Her eyes looked red and a little puffy, like she had been crying.

            “Go ahead and have a seat,” Melanie instructed us.

            I chose the seat right next to Mom, hugged her arm and rested my head on her shoulder. I hated seeing her upset. I needed the closeness or I might have exploded from frustration, confusion, and all other kinds of inner turmoil. She wrapped her arm around me, hugging me.

            “Ok, kids, your dad has some things he needs to tell you,” Melanie said, turning to look at Dad, giving him the floor.

            Dad cleared his throat and seemed to have a hard time finding his voice. Joseph sat on the otherwise empty side of the U-table, and Cameron was sitting near Dad. We all stared at him intently, waiting for him to speak. To explain why we were here in the first place.

            “So, I told you guys, at the house, that I have been in counseling for a little while,” Dad began. “I’ve been going because I have an addiction. I’ve been trying to get help for it. We ended up here because I told my counselor about something that happened a long time ago and he had to call Family and Protective Services to report it. Your mom and I have been talking with Melanie to try and figure out what needs to happen now. We have decided that I need to go away for a while. I need to be away from you guys and not see you for a while, while I get help for my addiction. I have to do some things to get right before I’m going to be able to see you guys again.”

            He had to choke out the last few sentences past the tears that were now falling from his eyes.

            For me, time stopped, or at least slowed down. Everyone was crying. I was crying, though I felt somehow disconnected from what was going on.

What addiction does Dad have? Why does Family and Protective Services care? What did he do that was so bad he can’t be around us anymore? I didn’t understand. How could I understand? My dad was just a normal dad. There was nothing wrong with our family. Was there?

            “You kids should go ahead and say goodbye to your dad,” Melanie said. “He won’t be going home with you tonight. This will be the last time you see him for a while.”

            I was sobbing now. I felt the tears flowing hot down my cheeks and heard myself sucking in air like I had been punched. But I couldn’t connect to the emotions. I was feeling the sadness, the grief, but from a distance. I felt myself getting up, hugging my dad, and leaving the room with just my mom and my brothers, but it seemed as if my body was functioning on autopilot.

            This can’t be real. This can’t actually be happening.

            We drove home without speaking. The radio was on to the Christian station. The only sounds from us came in the form of sniffles.

            This can’t be real. This whole day, it has to be a dream.

            Mom must have called our friends, Tom and Trisha, from the Family and Protective Services office, because we headed to their house, not straight home.

            “We have to give your dad time to go in and get some things,” Mom explained, her voice seeming strained.

            This isn’t real.

            When we entered their house, our pastor, Pastor Chance, was there too, waiting for us. He prayed with us, and told us his family and he would be there for us, whatever we needed.

            This is not real.

             After a having a brief conversation with Mom, Pastor Chance left. Tom and Trisha sat with us in their living room until Mom got the text that said we were clear to go home.

            This is not happening.

            We only lived three houses down from Tom and Trisha, so while Mom drove the van home, I opted to walk the short distance. The day had cooled by that time, but the night was still warm. The great, big, Texas sky was filled with stars. The crickets were chirping from somewhere just out of sight. I could still smell that damp humidity hanging in the air. I noted all of these things through what felt like a long-view lens. It was all so far away.

            I walked home slowly, with nothing but a million jumbled half-thoughts filling my mind.

            This has to be a dream. This can’t be real.

            I had stopped crying somewhere along the way. Maybe it was in the car when we drove away from that wretched government building. Maybe it was while Pastor Chance was praying for us. Maybe it was while we were sitting there, listening to the hushed tones of Trisha’s voice as she spoke with Mom. All I knew was that the tears were no longer falling when I got home.

            Mom had us all sit down in the living room when we got inside.

            “I need to talk to you guys about something,” she began.

            I could tell that she was just as shaken by this day as I was, if not more so. She looked exhausted and sad. Her face showed her struggle to find words.

            “I told you a few weeks ago about how our house is entering foreclosure and that we’re going to need to move soon,” she continued. “Well, I think it would be best for all of us if we move back to California. I called Papa and Nana, and they have invited us to come live with them for a while, while we figure things out….”

            She trailed off as she looked at us, her children, tired and emotional as we were. She was looking for our reactions.

I had none. I just stared at her blankly.

Coming over to sit beside me on the couch, Mom explained more. “Right now, in all of this, we need to be with family. And, with how quickly all of this has happened, I think we need to leave soon.”

Joseph, Cameron, and I all nodded our heads in numb agreement, or maybe it was just understanding. No one argued. No one questioned it. We all just accepted it as yet another thing we hadn’t been expecting but didn’t have much of a choice in.

“When?” Joseph asked.

“We will probably be leaving within the next two weeks,” Mom replied. “As soon as I can get a plan together.”

Again, I could manage no more than a stiff nod in response.

Wake up. Wake up. Wake up.

Some part of my brain registered the need for a bathroom break, so I slowly rose and walked over to the restroom, off the kitchen. I was so locked into autopilot that I really thought of nothing at all until I caught my reflection in the mirror. My hair was a disaster. My ponytail had slipped throughout the day and left loose strands of hair free to do as they pleased. My face was pale, drained of almost all its color. And my eyes, those big, brown eyes that I was so often complimented on, were red and puffy. But there was something else about my eyes. The look in them was hollow. Empty. My expression was not one of sadness or apparent grief or even anger. It was one of profound disconnection.

            Something about seeing that reflection fractured the wall, the barrier that my mind had created to protect me. Suddenly, I was overwhelmed with all the raw emotion that I had managed to keep out, until now. My chest constricted; it was hard to breathe properly. Deep, gut-wrenching sobs overtook me. I leaned against the wall and sank to the ground, weeping violently but silently. Even in my pain, I didn’t want to cause anyone else to worry about me.

            This can’t be real. God, please don’t let this be real. I’m begging You, let this be a nightmare. Please….

The tidal waves of emotion rolled over me as I sat there, hugging my knees to my chest. I couldn’t catch my breath. I could do nothing but let the crying run its course, nothing but hold myself together as best I could until the waves died down. And they did, eventually.

Eventually the weight lifted from my chest. Eventually, I could breathe again. Eventually, the tears stopped. Eventually, I lifted my head from my knees and looked around me.

The emotions were distant again—far enough away that they were just a dull ache in my belly. Far enough away that I could smile wryly at the thought of what I must have looked like, curled up like that on the bathroom floor.

Maybe this is real. Even my wild imagination couldn’t make up this much pathetic-ness.

Mom knocked on the bathroom door just as I was wiping my eyes and standing to my feet.

“You okay in there, Kristina?” she called.

I opened the door and there she stood, her fist poised to knock again and her eyes filled with exhausted concern.

“I’m okay, Mama,” I replied, forcing a half-smile. “I’ll be okay.”

She wrapped her arms around me in a warm hug, saying quietly in my ear, “Yes, you will. We all will.”

++++++++++++++++

By the end of the week, we were packed into our navy blue Toyota Sienna, driving through New Mexico. The tiny U-Haul trailer hitched to the back was filled with only the possessions we absolutely needed or couldn’t part with. The trailer was filled with family scrap-books, suitcases of clothes, some mementos, some practical items, and other miscellaneous things we might need.

My box was full of books and pictures, a couple of stuffed animals, some rocks from a family trip we took to a beach near Seattle one summer, and other miscellaneous sentimental artifacts from my childhood. It also held my school supplies, most of my clothes, and some shoes. Supposedly, my dad would be sending us the rest of our things in the next few months. I didn’t know if I really believed that. With the way everything was changing so quickly, I didn’t know which promises would really hold. I had grabbed the things that were important to me, only the items that I couldn’t leave behind.

Before we had left, I asked my mom about the mysterious “addiction” that Dad was dealing with.

“What is it?” I had asked.

She took her time responding. It must have been hard for her to say.

“Your dad has a pornography addiction,” she finally told me. “He has for a long time.”

I was stunned by this response. Though any response would probably have surprised me, this one caught me entirely off-guard.

Pornography? After all of his warnings for us to be careful what we watch? After he put filters on all of our computers to prevent us from accidentally stumbling onto a page that we shouldn’t? After we invested in a ClearPlay DVD player so that we wouldn’t have to watch anything inappropriate in the movies we enjoyed? Pornography, of all things?

It didn’t make sense to me. But, then, did any of this? No. It was all entirely unreal to me. All of it.

We drove on, each lost in our thoughts. It was still hot here, halfway through New Mexico, hotter than Texas had been. This was a dry heat, though, which made it somewhat more bearable. Still, even with all the windows rolled down or, when we tired of the warm wind blowing in our faces, the AC cranked to maximum, we were sweating in our seats. As I stared out the window, wondering if I would ever set eyes on Texas again, the seemingly endless, scorched, desert landscape raced by.

Hooked to the back of the front seat headrests were two portable DVD player screens. These were leftovers from the frequent road trips our family used to make from Washington to California when we had lived Seattle. My brothers and I bickered intermittently on this long trip, longer than any of those bygone road trips, about what movie to watch next.

Trisha, whose house we had gone to after that day at the Family and Protective Services office, had kindly offered to help us with the trip. Trisha and Mom took turns driving. She would help Mom drive there, and then take a plane home from LAX. It was a good plan, and Trisha was a good friend.

It took us days to get to California, to my grandparent’s house. I passed most of the trip silently. Though I had always been a talkative person, it seemed my words had all abandoned me. After that day at Family and Protective Services, I had nothing much to say about anything for a good while.

Instead, I did a lot of thinking. I thought about my childhood and our family. I thought about God and how he was supposed to be good and just. I thought about what I would do without my faith. I thought about that one a lot. And then I prayed. I prayed hard and fervently that God would be with me, that He would help me not to lose my faith. Surviving without my faith was something that I knew I could not do.

Another way I passed the time was by writing. I wrote a lot on that trip, filling half a composition book with journal entries and poems and short stories and whatever else came into my head to write down. The love of writing had always been a part of my life and now it was an escape. It was a chance to be someone else for a while, to be a character instead.

When we finally arrived at my grandparents’ house, the house I had always looked forward to arriving at when I was younger, I didn’t quite know what to expect. We pulled up in the middle of the day. The sun was still high in the sky and shining down on that little, stucco-sided, tan-painted, one story house. The lawn was neatly manicured, as always, and my grandma’s rose bushes still held a few slightly wilted blooms.

It was strange, really, to be taking in these sights now. Where I would have previously been filled with excitement and joy upon our arrival at Nonno and Nonna’s house, I now felt only a mild trepidation. How were they going to react to us? How was I supposed to act? Aside from that, I couldn’t feel much of anything.

The small front porch beckoned us to come inside, but we sat in the car for a few moments, waiting. Waiting for what? I don’t know. Maybe we were waiting for courage to pile out of that van and accept that our lives were changed forever. Maybe we were waiting to feel ready for other people to become a part of our family’s brokenness. Maybe we were just waiting for my mom to text my grandpa and warn him that we had arrived. Whatever it was, we only waited a few brief moments before we piled out and went to knock on the door.

“Jamie!” My grandma exclaimed with joy upon seeing Mom when she answered the door. She gave Mom a big hug as she welcomed us in, and then hugged each of us kids just as warmly. My grandpa was standing just behind her and he, too, hugged each of us in turn. Next in line was my Aunt Madison who also lived with my grandparents, and we hugged her, too.

“How are you?” my grandma asked Mom as we all stood in the living room, just inside the door. Her eyes told us that she was asking about more than just the long drive.

“We’re…okay,” Mom replied, her face earnest as she nodded her head slowly.

I had felt relieved to arrive when we first walked in the door, but I slowly began to feel claustrophobic in the little house. My grandparents, Nonno and Nonna, and Aunt Madison were asking us questions about the drive and questions about how we were and wanting to know as much as we would tell them. I could feel them watching us. It felt like they were waiting for one of us to crack, for someone to fall apart or break. I felt them looking at us like we were damaged or broken. I had to fight back feelings of hostility.

This is not their fault. They just don’t know how to handle us. I don’t even know how to handle us, how should they? I talked myself back from the edge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Over the next few weeks, we all learned how to live together. The feelings of being trapped and constantly observed eased. They had to. We were all sharing the same space all the time. My grandparents only own a three-bedroom house, so Mom and I bunked with Aunt Madison. We got a bunkbed with a roll-out trundle and called it “the dorm room.” My brothers shared the other room on that side of the house. They had a bunkbed, too. None of it was ideal, but we made it work.

From having our own rooms to two and three people per room… This is the life.

In those first days in California, I began to notice a split forming in my mind. Maybe it was a kind of self-defense, but my mind created two distinct lives for me. One life was real life. That was the life in which my perfect, beautiful, baby cousin was born. Easton’s birth was one of the first things after that day in Texas that really filled me with joy.

We were watching his big brother and sisters on the night he was born. We got the call from my uncle, Jack, sometime before midnight that he had arrived.

“Joselin, Kacey, Jackson, wake up! Your baby brother is here! We’ve got to go to the hospital to meet him,” I said, rousing each little body from sleep. “Let’s get shoes on. We’re gonna go.”

I was just as excited as they were, if I were honest. All of us, the whole clan, piled into our van and my Aunt’s Ford Escape and headed to the hospital. We must have looked like a crazy mob as we hurried eagerly to the birthing wing. When we arrived at Aunt Victoria’s room, we let Nonno, Nonna and the kids go in first. Then, they called my brother, my mom, and me in.

I was surprised by how red and puffy he looked. Still, though, when Nonna put him in my arms, I swear he was the cutest newborn baby I have ever seen. He already had that nose, that signature family nose, we all have.

“Sorry, little guy,” I whispered to him as I looked down at his tiny, new, little face. “You’ll grow into the nose, I promise.”

Real life also included starting high school. That was a shock to my system. Not only was I starting a whole new level of schooling, but in a whole new place, and that whole new place was an L.A.-area high school. Needless to say, it was a rough start, but I managed to find my way and a few friends.

The one good part about being in a school that didn’t always feel entirely safe was getting my first cellphone. We weren’t supposed to get cellphones until we turned sixteen but, with everything, my mom thought Cameron and I needed our own phones, just in case of emergency. She just wanted us to be safe.

We also started attending the church my grandpa pastors. I had visited many times on our frequent visits to see my grandparents. Actually, the summer just before the one that changed my life, I had spent a month with my grandparents and went to youth camp with the church. So, fortunately, I already had some friends there. I was never one to make friends very easily, and I count myself as blessed for already having had some in the church.

I managed to handle real life pretty well. I was coping with the changes. It was the other part of life, though, the part that had to do with the reason for all the changes, that was hard to handle. That was the part of life that still didn’t feel real.

Before we got to California, Texas Family and Protective Services notified California Child Protective Services that we were coming. The police came knocking at Nonno and Nonna’s door just a few days after we arrived, wanting to see Joseph and do a quick home check.

Why are they just asking about Joseph? Why do they need to see where we live? It’s not like Dad came with us. Don’t they know he’s back in Texas?

That was far from the end of it, though. We had to go to the CPS offices in California now, and give statements to them. I only vaguely remember those offices. I remember sky blue walls and an open, centrally located waiting area with a little kids’ zone off to the side. I remember a bunch of families who looked far worse off than us sitting around in that waiting room.

I particularly remember that the new caseworker to whom we were assigned seemed to be twisting my words and my mom’s words and my brothers’ words to fit what she wanted to hear. I don’t think she liked my mom. I don’t think she liked any parents. Her face had this look like she had seen too many things to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. What kinds of horrible situations must have walked through her door for her to look like that? For her to be so against any parent who sat in front of her desk?

“In any case with allegations of sexual abuse…” I heard her say.

What?

The caseworker was talking with my mom while Cameron and I sat in two chairs against the wall, not really listening until I heard those words.

“What?” I asked, suddenly paying sharp attention to what was going on around me. “Sexual abuse? That has nothing to do with us or any of this.”

I was certain. That’s absurd.

But, then, my mom looked at me and did the last thing in the world I expected. She shook her head at me, motioned for me to be quiet, and said, “We’ll talk about it later.”

Talk about what later? Is that what all this is about? Did someone accuse Dad of sexual abuse? Did Dad abuse someone? How do I still not know what’s going on?

We finished up at CPS for the day shortly after that. Joseph wasn’t with us that day because he had something important going on at school, so it was just Mom, Cameron and me in the car on the way home.

“What was that about in there?” I asked. My tone accused my mom of keeping secrets from me. Me, the person who needed to know everything. Me, the kid who used to sit on the stairs and eavesdrop when my parents sent us downstairs to play because I wanted to know everything there was to know.

“I wanted to ask Joseph before I told you guys this, but it looks like I just need to tell you now,” Mom said, keeping her eyes on the road. She glanced in the rearview mirror to make sure Cameron, in the back seat, was paying attention. “CPS didn’t get involved just because your dad has a pornography addiction. He does, but that’s not the whole story….”

She took a deep breath and gathered her thoughts. This was visibly difficult for her.

“What your dad told his therapist,” she continued, “was that, when Joseph was little, he abused him. He touched him inappropriately. Joseph never said anything, and your dad never said anything.”

Her words hung in the air like a thick fog, filling the cabin of the Sienna, settling in my chest.

No, no, no, no, no! my mind screamed. That can’t be true. It can’t be. I know Dad. Dad is a good man. Dad is my dad…. That can’t be true!

“That is why we are here. That is why the government is involved. And that is why we have to go to court in a few weeks for a custody hearing,” Mom finished, seeming to have said all there was to say, all she had to say.

Just like that, the truth, the whole truth was out in the open.

I sank back into my seat and fixed my eyes on the window. I looked without seeing, out at the road rushing by. I knew now. I knew what I had wanted to know. I knew it and I knew it all. That was the truth, laid bare for me. It was what I had wanted, but it wasn’t. Now that I knew the true, horrid, ugly truth, I wanted none of it. I suddenly wished I had never asked.

No, no, no….

I wanted her to take it back. To take the words back. To take it all back. But she couldn’t. She couldn’t and she shouldn’t. I needed to know.

But I didn’t want to know.

But I needed to.

But it was better before.

Ignorance is not bliss.

Yes it is; yes it I;, yes it is!

How could the man I knew, the man who raised me, the daddy I had loved and clung to do something so evil, so terrible? Could I really have been so wrong about him? Could my entire childhood really have been such a massive lie?

I started to get sick after that. The week before our first court date, I couldn’t keep anything down in the mornings before school, but I pushed through it and when to class anyway. Our hearing came around, and it didn’t go well.

The hearing was supposed to be about taking custody away from Dad, but then suddenly they were talking about whether or not Mom was fit to retain custody. Her ability to protect us was in question. Someone accused her of covering up for Dad and accused Nonno and Nonna of not understanding the gravity of the situation. Suddenly, everything was at risk. Everything.

My stomach trouble got worse after that. I started dry heaving and refusing breakfast every morning before I left for school.

“Eat something, Tina,” Mom urged, one morning. “Maybe it will help settle your stomach.”

“It won’t,” I assured her, as I sat curled up in a ball on the couch, willing the nausea away.

What is wrong with me?

None of us could figure it out.

“Time to go!” Mom announced on the morning of our next hearing, two weeks later.

“I- I need a minute!” I shouted as I ran, frantically, to the sink and lost my breakfast. The tears that always followed getting sick snaked down my cheeks as mom rushed over to hold my hair.

“Oh, Tina,” she said, softly. “I’m sorry, honey, but we have to go. We all have to be there.”

Wiping my eyes and wrapping my arms around my stomach to fight the nausea, I nodded and followed Mom, my brothers, and Aunt Madison out the door.

Today, we might not be coming home, I thought as I shut the door behind me.

++++++++++++++++

            So there I sat, sick with worry and grief and genuine nausea, in the back of our old, navy blue Toyota Sienna. Aunt Madison was very worried about me. Mom and Joseph and Cameron were sitting in a courtroom, waiting to hear the judge’s decision.

            What is the judge going to decide? God, if you’re there, please intervene.

            I couldn’t stand not knowing what was going to happen. I couldn’t believe I was out here when the only place I wanted to be was in there, finding out what the judge would say.

            I sniffed and snorted and tried to control my breathing until I managed to stop the worst of the sobbing.

            I may not go home today.

            Tears, silent, and far more gentle than those that had come before, raced down my face.

            God. God, if You’re up there, if You’re really listening, if You care at all, don’t let them take us. Please, God, don’t let them take us… Please.

            At that moment I caught sight of Mom, my brothers, and Aunt Madison making their way toward the car. Mom and Aunt Madison were talking. I couldn’t tell if they were happy or upset from this distance, but my brothers were with them. That had to be a good sign.

            And then it happened, Aunt Madison and Mom stopped walking. Auntie turned to Mom, smiled wide, and threw her arms around Mom in a great big hug.

            I knew, even without knowing for sure.

            Maybe, just maybe, everything is going to be okay….

Works Cited

Allender, Dan. The Wounded Heart: Hope for Adult Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2008. Print. 

Bromley, Nicole Braddock. Breathe: Finding Freedom to Thrive in Relationships after Childhood Sexual Abuse. Chicago: Moody, 2009. Print. 

Bromley, Nicole Braddock. Hush: Moving from Silence to Healing After Childhood Sexual Abuse. Chicago: Moody, 2007. Print. 

Casciano, Tracey. Out of the Darkroom, Into the Light: A Story of Faith and Forgiveness After Child Abuse. Bloomington, IN: WestBow, 2015. Print. 

Davis, Laura. Allies in Healing: When the Person You Love Was Sexually Abused as a Child. 1st ed. New York: William Morrow, 1991. Print. 

"Facts and Statistics: Raising Awareness About Sexual Abuse." National Sex Offender Public Website. United States Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.

Kloss, Jacqueline, and Stephen Lisman. "An Exposure-Based Examination of the Effects of Written Emotional Disclosure." British Journal of Health Psychology 7.1 (2002): 31-46. PsycINFO. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

Krauss, Niki. Little Girl Mended. N.p.: Vox Dei, 2015. Print.

Lancaster, Steven, Keith Klein, and Allison Heifner. “The Validity of Self-Reported Growth After Expressive Writing.” Traumatology 21.4 (2015): 293-98. PsycINFO. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

Lutgendorf, Susan, and Michael Antoni. “Emotional and Cognitive Processing in a Trauma Disclosure Paradigm.” Cognitive Therapy and Research 23.4 (1999): 423-440. PsycINFO. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

RAINN: Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. RAINN, 2009. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.

Smyth, Joshua, and Rebecca Helm. ‘Focused Expressive Writing as Self-Help for Stress and Trauma." Journal of Clinical Psychology 59.2 (2003): 227-235. PsycINFO. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

Snyder, Howard. “Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics." (2000): n. pag. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.

Townsend, Catherine, and Alyssa Rheingold. “Estimating a Child Sexual Abuse Prevalence Rate for Practitioners: A Review of Child Sexual Abuse Prevalence Studies. Darkness to Light. N.p., Aug. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.

Ventura, Stephanie, Joyce Martin, Sally Curtin, T. J. Matthews, and Melissa M. Park. “Births: Final Data for 1998.” National Vital Statistics Reports 48 (2000): n. pag. National Center for Health Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24 Mar. 2003. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.

An Exposition on Romans 4:13-25: The Example of Abraham

By Kiana Worley, NU Student

Abstract

Romans 4 has been variously interpreted throughout Christian history. The tension present between Luther’s perspective on Paul’s relationship with Mosaic Law and the conclusions drawn by scholars of the New Perspective on Paul demand theologians and lay people alike to reexamine this chapter. Both Romans and the biblical canon need to be analyzed for an accurate understanding of this passage. Romans 4:13-25 offers a greater understanding of the role of faith in justification, identity in Christ, and the nature of salvation. This exposition seeks to reach a conclusion on its interpretation by using Abraham’s faith as an example for all, referring to individual salvation and justification by faith in Christ. Moreover, the New Perspective’s argument that Romans 4:13-25 is referring solely to maintaining covenant involvement must be rejected.

INTRODUCTION

            In his poem “The Inchcape Rock,” Robert Southey weaves a tale of warning, irony, and judgment as he details how Sir Ralph the Rover inadvertently causes his own demise. In an effort to harm other sailors, Sir Ralph cuts the warning bell away from the deadly Inchcape Rock. By severing the bell from the rock, Sir Ralph essentially relinquishes his right to be warned of danger and guided to safety. Ironically, his actions cost him his ship, his crew, and ultimately his own life.

In Romans 4:13-25, Paul focuses on the nature of Abraham’s faith and its relevance for New Covenant believers. By using Abraham as an example of how Christians should trust God and believe that He will fulfill His promises to them, Paul ties a warning bell to the deadly rock of “justification by works”—a rock that is sure to sink the ship of any Christian. This exposition on Romans 4 will include relevant and appropriate contextual work, an exploration of the influence of the New Perspective on Paul’s writings, and an exegesis of verses 13-25.[1]

HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT

            The book of Romans, like each epistle in the Pauline corpus, begins with an introduction of Paul as the author. While it is clear that Paul used the services of Tertius as an amanuensis, scholars agree that the detailed and concise nature of Romans suggests that it was composed by dictation.[2] The specific method, whether it was written out longhand directly from Paul’s word-for-word dictation or shorthand and later written out is a nonissue, since the final product represents the thoughts and guidance of the Apostle Paul to the church in Rome.[3]

            Many scholars suggest that both internal and external evidence point to the Roman church as being predominantly Gentile at the time of Paul’s letter.[4] While Paul references both Jews and Gentiles throughout the Book of Romans, he begins his letter by highlighting Gentiles within the Roman church (1:5-6) and later emphasizes his ministry to Gentiles as a whole (15:14-22). The fact that half of the names Paul mentions in the last chapter are Jewish dismisses the idea that Paul is writing to an entirely Gentile church.[5] Historical-political events during this time also support the idea of a large Gentile population within the community of Roman believers. In A.D. 49, Claudius’s edict expelled the Jews from Rome, leaving a mostly Gentile church. After Claudius’ death in A.D. 54, the edict lapsed, and Jews were welcomed back into the capital. While there is overwhelming evidence, both internally and externally, that the Roman church was Gentile in ethnic composition, some scholars forego mentioning the specific nature of the groups present.[6] Cranfield instead argues that Paul’s commitment to the Christian community in Rome was not a matter of ethnicity but rather of geography. This erasure suggests that any church at the center of the Roman Empire, in Gentile territory, is “within the sphere of his responsibility,” and, therefore, Paul has a right to address it with authority.[7]

            The epistle to the Romans, which F.F. Bruce describes in part as “a sustained and coherent statement of the gospel,” was intended for a body of mature believers.[8] This intended audience is shown throughout the letter when Paul mentions their notable faith (1:8) and expresses his desire for mutual edification among them (1:12; cf. 15:24). Paul’s consistent reference to the Old Testament and the patriarchs (mostly in chapter 4) make it clear that his audience had a working knowledge of the Old Testament. While Paul was confident that those in the Roman church were “full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another” (15:14), he was also aware that theological disagreements existed between the Jews and Gentiles.[9] Given Paul’s recurring emphasis on unity (14:19; 15:5-6; 16:17), it is clear the theological disagreements present between the groups were a serious threat to the harmony that existed within the church. Though Paul had not established the Roman church or even visited Rome at the time of his writing, he felt that it was his responsibility—not only as a minister to the Gentiles (1:5; 15:16) but as a servant of Christ (1:14-15)— to provide instruction and guidance so the believers in Rome may glorify God with “one mind and one voice” (15:6).

LITERARY AND STRUCTURAL CONTEXT

            The epistle is generally divided into four main sections: opening greetings (1:1-17), theology (1:18-11:36), paraenesis (12:1-15:13), and final greetings (15:14-16:27). Due to the variety of forms and styles used within the letter, most scholars are cautious not to force it to conform to one specific genre. Instead, Dunn proposes that “the distinctiveness of the letter far outweighs the significance of its conformity with current literary or rhetorical custom.”[10]

Though several themes arise throughout Romans (e.g. faith, atonement, and the distinct persons and roles of the Trinity), the overarching theme, to which Schreiner alludes in his outline, is God’s righteousness and the outworking thereof.[11] The content of Romans 4 springs from 3:27-28, as Abraham is the paradigm of one who is “justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” The structure of Romans 4:13-25 is threefold: the reception of the promise by faith (4:13-16), the characteristics of Abraham’s faith (4:17-22), and an application for all Christians (4:23-25).

THE INFLUENCE OF THE NEW PERSPECTIVE[12]

            The nature of Paul’s relationship with the Law has long been a topic of discussion in the arena of New Testament scholarship. The New Perspective argues that Paul’s discussion of “justification by faith” in Romans refers to the maintained covenant relationship with God.  In contrast, the Lutheran perspective argues his discussion to be about the initial entrance into the covenant.[13] The perspective chosen undoubtedly affects the interpretation of Romans 4.

            Supporters of a New Perspective understanding of Romans 4 largely construct their argument based on three factors: an alternative interpretation of Genesis 15:6 (i.e., since Gen. 15:6 is both preceded and succeeded by covenantal language it must therefore be interpreted in terms of covenant involvement); the rendering of dikaiosune present in Romans 4:11 (cf. Gen. 17:10-11) as meaning “covenant membership”; and a study of the dikaiosune language present in Psalm 106:30-31 (cf. Numbers 25), which supporters maintain refers to the identification of Jews and Gentiles (i.e., covenant) as opposed to the personal justification of the sinner.[14]

            While Wright and Dunn’s arguments have their strengths, to accept the New Perspective understanding of Romans 4 in its entirety would be to misunderstand the nature and context of Romans as a whole. Diluting Paul’s instruction as being primarily ethno-focused disregards the careful consideration he puts into developing “his own line of thought” and proving his own point.[15] The New Perspective attempts to form a conclusion out of the covenant and promise-oriented language found in Romans 4, instead of recognizing it as pointing to a greater truth: Each human, including Abraham, is justified through faith alone (cf. 3:22-24; 3:28; 4:10).

EXPOSITION

The Reception of the Promise by Faith

v. 13: It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

            Verse 4:13ff is intimately connected with 3:27-28. Boasting in a perceived state of righteousness solely based on one’s ethnicity or ability to follow the Law is excluded because all—Jews and Gentiles alike—have sinned and are unworthy of a life, earthly and eternal, spent with God (cf. 3:22ff).[16] Paul goes on to write in 3:24 that though all are condemned because of their sinful nature, “all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” The focus on Abraham’s faith in chapter 4 therefore serves as proof that “the principle of justification by faith apart from works of any kind was in fact the principle operating in the Old Testament.”[17]

            The original context of the “promise”—epangelia—received through faith is in Genesis 15, where God made the promise to Abraham that he would have a son, Isaac, and through him would come an immeasurable progeny (15:4-5). Though there are no Old Testament passages that correspond directly with Paul’s statement of Abraham’s being “heir of the world,” many scholars agree that Paul speaks not of earthly territory but rather of the divine and eternal kingdom that is fulfilled in Christ.[18] In Romans, Paul has a different kind of epangelia in mind: The promise to Abraham is not just the guarantee of biological heirs (as it was in Genesis 15) —it is rather “the ultimate restoration…of man’s inheritance which was lost through sin” and, therefore, full justification and restoration before God.[19] Abraham, the father of both the circumcised and the uncircumcised (15:11-12), and his spiritual offspring receive “the world” because it is through Christ that “all things” belong to us, including “the world” (1 Cor. 3:21ff).[20]

v. 14-15: For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

            These verses continue the argument that Paul makes concerning the nature of faith and its relation to the Law. “Those who depend on the law” are those who “are governed by law as the guiding and determining principle of their religion.”[21] If reliance on the Law is what brings salvation, then faith is “of no effect” and has been made void —kekenotai[22]. The promise is rendered “entirely idle”—katergetai.[23] In other words, if faith “has failed to attain its end,” then the promise “fails to take effect” and both are rendered useless in the grand scheme of salvation.[24] Paul contends that while faith brings the promise to fruition, the law brings wrath and judgment. Without faith, there would be no heirs, since Christ alone has fulfilled the Law in its entirety and is, therefore, the only one who has a claim on God on the basis of obedience.[25]

The role of 3:15b (viz., “and where there is no law there is no transgression”) is unclear. Many scholars suggest it is a parenthetical statement explaining the nature of wrath mentioned in the preceding catena of verses.[26] Others contend that while it is an important statement, it is not logically connected to the argument at hand.[27] The latter explanation can surely be discarded since the themes in vv. 14-15a are also present in v. 15b. The presence of “de” at the beginning of v. 15b signals an explanation of the previous section, namely that Paul is offering clarification on exactly how the law brings wrath.[28] The meaning of the sentence hinges on the Greek word parabasis, meaning “transgression.” While sin was present before the Mosaic Law, transgression—the violation of a stated law or a given commandment—would not have been possible before the proclamation of the Law.[29] Therefore, since the Law exists, transgression exists. It is the Law that holds people even more accountable to God’s will and the consciousness of the infraction that ultimately brings wrath.[30]

v. 16: Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

            Paul uses the term dia—meaning “therefore”—at the beginning of this verse to signal that he is drawing a conclusion from his previous statements. Throughout chapter 4, Paul goes through a list—works, circumcision, obedience to the Law—and in each case affirms “the priority of Abraham’s faith,” proving that it is only through faith in God that the promise can be secured.[31] Not only is this promise secured by faith for Abraham but also for “all Abraham’s offspring”—natural and spiritual, “those of the law” and “those who have the faith of Abraham.” This further proves that “circumcision or uncircumcision is irrelevant to a man’s status before God” (cf. vv. 11-12).[32] In this way, Abraham is the “father of us all” to those who believe: Jewish and Gentile Christians who come into the promise through faith.

The Characteristics of Abraham’s Faith

            The following passage has been subdivided different ways. Some scholars choose to treat vv. 17b-22 as a thematic whole;[33] others prefer to exegete each verse individually;[34] while still others employ a different structure entirely.[35] Due to limited space in this exposition, it is necessary to exegete the following verses as concisely yet as accurately as possible, maintaining the fidelity of the existing themes and natural divisions.

Despite the differing subdivisions between scholars, the focus here remains on the nature of Abraham’s faith and Paul’s desire to prove how he can be the father of both Jews and Gentiles apart from circumcision (4:1).[36] The importance of this proof lies in its relevance to the formation of an accurate understanding of salvation and justification for Paul’s original audience as well as all “who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (4:24).

v. 17: As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

            By citing Genesis 17:5, the Old Testament passage regarding God’s promise of making Abraham the “father of many nations,” Paul affirms that his role of father over all nations “was God’s intention from the beginning.”[37] Abraham is “our father” in the sight of God, the same God whom Abraham believed would fulfill His promise. Paul goes on to describe this God as the One who “gives life to the dead” —referring, in this context, to Sarah’s womb and to Abraham’s body, which was “as good as dead” (17: 19).[38] God also “calls into being things that were not,” alluding to both Isaac and the innumerable descendants who came as the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham in Genesis 15. In light of verses 24-25, Moo argues that this verse also carries another application: Not only is God the One who “gives life to the dead” generally, but He is also “the One who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.”[39]

This truth ultimately points back to the character of God and His power as Creator. In Romans 1, Paul states that while Gentiles were equipped with a “fundamental knowledge of God the creator, mediated by God’s revelation in nature,” they still rebelled against Him and turned to idolatry (vv.19-20, 23).[40] Abraham, however, places his trust in God. When “confronted with God the creator—the one who calls into existence that which has no existence,” Abraham responds with faith, trust, and acknowledgment.[41] Parallels with Romans 1 are present throughout Romans 4 and will resurface in verse 20.

v. 18: Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

Paul continues his discussion of the characteristics of Abraham’s faith as he draws nearer to the conclusion of his overall argument. The word hope in verse 18 carries a different meaning each time it is used here. Against all human hope, Abraham placed his hope in God and trusted Him to fulfill His promise. It should also be noted that Abraham’s hope was not impassive—it was an expectant hope rooted in “a firm confidence in God as the one who determines to the future according to what he has promised.”[42] Through this hope, Abraham’s offspring became as innumerable as the stars (Gen. 15:5-6), and he became the “father of many nations” (Gen. 17:5).

At this point, Paul states that Abraham “faced the fact that his body was as good as dead” (v. 19). Abraham recognized his circumstances and took them into account “without attempting to deceive himself”[43]  or “weakening in his faith.” The interplay between a “weak faith” and “strong faith” is present throughout Romans. Dunn states the implication is that “faith is weak when it allows itself to be determined by or depend upon what lies within human power,” which is certainly not the faith of Abraham.[44] On the contrary, Abraham “did not waver through unbelief…but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God” (v. 20).

vv. 19-22: Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead – since he was about a hundred years old – and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Paul’s second and final use of his “dead/gives life” wordplay occurs in verse 19 (cf. v. 17); Abraham’s body was “as good as dead” and Sarah’s womb “also dead.” Jipp makes the point that the Greek word used, nekrosin, is not typically used “to describe natural decay of sexual organs or a female’s barrenness, but is rather a word reserved for a corpse (see 2 Cor. 4:10).”[45] This diction once again alludes to God’s resurrecting power.

Abraham “did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God” but displayed a strong faith in God’s character by giving glory to Him (v. 20). Johnson points out a significant parallel that exists between Abraham’s actions here and those of idolaters in Romans 1:21. Idolaters, despite knowing God, “did not glorify him or give him thanks,” while Abraham “gave glory to God,” recognizing and acknowledging God’s presence and power.[46] Abraham was also “fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised,” which is why “it was credited to him as righteousness” (v. 22).

An Application for All Christians

vv. 23-25: The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness – for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

            Paul concludes his argument by discussing the relevance of God’s promise to his readers. God’s promise to Abraham is “not for him alone,” but also “for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (vv. 23-24). It is through the fulfillment in Jesus Christ that a believer’s faith—the same “dynamic faith as Abraham”—can be “credited to them as righteousness” as well.[47] The initial audience of Romans, and believers today, do not trust God to fulfill the same promise for them as He did for Abraham (e.g. raising to life a “dead” body and womb), but rather they believe in the character of the God who has “raised Jesus from the dead.”[48]

             The chapter ends with Paul’s statement that Jesus “was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” The Greek word for “delivered over”—paradidomi—was also used in the Gospels when Jesus was “‘handed over’ by Judas, the priests and Pilate.”[49] In this verse, however, the verb carries a different meaning. The fact the Father “did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32) affirms that “both the death and resurrection of Jesus are attributed to the Father’s initiative.”[50] It was for our sins that Jesus Christ was handed over to death, and for our salvation—our justification before the Father—that He was raised to life.

CONCLUSION

            Paul’s letter to the church in Rome serves as a testimony to God’s righteousness and as an exhortation for all Christians to live in a right relationship with Him. Romans 4:13-25 challenges believers to look to Abraham’s faith as a model for their own. Paul provides his readers a detailed description of how Abraham’s belief “was credited to him as righteousness” when he believed God would make him a “father of nations” (Gen. 15:6; 17:5).  Paul encourages his audience to anchor themselves in the hope that they too are credited with righteousness when they believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead (Rom. 4:24). When believers look to Abraham’s faith and choose to trust God, they see His righteousness guiding them to safety, now and forever.

Bibliography

Adams, Edward. “Abraham’s Faith and Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links between Romans 1

and 4.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (March 1997): 47–66.

Bruce, F.F. The Letter of Paul to the Romans: an Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids,

MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1963.

Cranfield, C.E.B. Romans, a Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.

Co., 1985.

Donfried, Karl P. The Romans Debate. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988.

Jipp, Joshua W. “Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and ‘Us’ in Romans 4.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32, no. 2 (2009): 217–24. Accessed July 18, 2016.  EBSCOhost.

Johnson, Luke T. Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary. New York, NY: Crossroad Pub., 1997.

Kruse, Colin G. Paul's Letter to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.,

2012.

Lambrecht, Jan. “Romans 4: A Critique of N.T. Wright.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Online) 36, no. 2 (2013): 189–194. Accessed July 18, 2016. EBSCOhost.

Moo, Douglas J. Romans 1-8. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1991.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and        Notes. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.

Stott, John R.W. The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World. Leicester, England:   InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Strong, James. The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2010.

Wright, N.T. “Paul and the Patriarch: The Role of Abraham in Romans 4.”Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Online) 35, no. 3 (2013): 207-241. Accessed July 18, 2016. EBSCOhost.

[1] All Scripture references are in the New International Version unless otherwise stated.

[2] See Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 2; C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans, a Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985), 9.

[3] Schreiner, Romans, 2.

[4] F.F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans: an Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1963), 17; Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2012), 2; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), xxii.

[5] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 2.

[6] Cranfield, Romans, 9.

[7] Cranfield, Romans, 9.

[8] Karl P. Donfried, The Romans Debate, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 182.

[9] John R.W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 34.

[10] James D. G. Dunn, Romans (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), lix.

[11] Schreiner, Romans, 25.

[12] Heading adapted from Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 14.

[13] Dunn, Romans, lxv.

[14] N T Wright, “Paul and the Patriarch: the Role of Abraham in Romans 4,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Online) 35, no. 3 (2013): 218-223, accessed July 18, 2016, EBSCOhost.

[15] Jan Lambrecht, “Romans 4: a Critique of N T Wright,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Online) 36, no. 2 (2013): 192, accessed July 18, 2016, EBSCOhost.

[16] Douglas J. Moo, Romans 1-8 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 192.

[17] Robert H. Mounce, Romans (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 121.

[18] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 213; Dunn, Romans, 213; Cranfield, Romans, 90.

[19] Cranfield, Romans, 90.

[20] Stott, The Message of Romans, 130.

[21] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 142.

[22] James Strong, The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010), 137.

[23] Strong, Concordance, 133.

[24] Moo, Romans 1-8, 281.

[25] Cranfield, Romans, 91.

[26] See Cranfield, Romans, 91; Moo, Romans 1-8, 281.

[27] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 214.

[28] Moo, Romans 1-8, 282.

[29] Strong, Concordance, 188.

[30] Schreiner, Romans, 230; Moo, Romans 1-8, 282.

[31] Stott, The Message of Romans, 132.

[32] Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 108.

[33] Stott, Kruse.

[34] Dunn, Moo.

[35] Cranfield, Murray, Schreiner, and Mounce.

[36] Joshua W. Jipp, “Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and ‘Us’ in Romans 4,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32, no. 2 (2009): 231, accessed July 18, 2016, EBSCOhost.

[37] Schreiner, Romans, 235.

[38] Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 216.

[39] Moo, Romans 1-8, 286.

[40] Edward Adams, “Abraham’s Faith and Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links between Romans 1 and 4,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (March 1997): 52, accessed July 18, 2016, EBSCOhost.

[41] Adams, “Abraham’s Faith and Gentile Disobedience,” 52.

[42] Dunn, Romans, 219.

[43] Cranfield, Romans, 94.

[44] Dunn, Romans, 220.

[45] Jipp, “Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and 'Us' in Romans 4,” 235.

[46] Luke Timothy Johnson, Reading Romans: a Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Crossroad Pub., 1997), 79.

[47] Schreiner, Romans, 241.

[48] Johnson, Reading Romans, 79.

[49] Stott, The Message of Romans, 135.

[50] Stott, The Message of Romans, 135.

Free Will or Sovereignty: Conflicting Views on Eternal Security

By Nathan Kennedy, NU Student

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to tease out the issues associated with the debate on eternal security, linking the viewpoints to corresponding understandings of human free moral agency and the sovereignty of God. This paper dives most deeply into the divide between classical Arminianism and classical Calvinism. Because the author is more familiar with Arminian theology, this presentation includes a wider critique of Calvinism but does not fail to turn the mirror of criticism on Arminianism as well. This paper advocates for a theological middle ground, one that grants man legitimate freedoms but does not fail to support the sovereign nature of our God. Advocates from a number of positions around the circle of debate are given entrance into the proverbial ring in order to bring diversity yet clarity to the discussion.

Introduction

            The topic of eternal security[1] is one fraught with no small degree of uncertainty and polarization. It is, as it were, the theological title match of soteriology in which two prizefighters (viz., Calvinism and Arminianism) battle each other for the exclusive rights to the interpretation of the gospel. The roots of this dissention run deep: They are founded along an epistemological fissure, not merely a singular point of doctrinal preference. On the one hand, Arminians[2] tout the primacy of man’s free moral agency. Antithetically, Calvinists absolutize the sovereignty of God. In their most distilled constructions, both free will and sovereignty exist to the abatement (and near exclusion) of the other. Because eternal security is a conversation so deeply entrenched in the Calvinist/Arminian debate, it is heavily nuanced. In order to answer whether or not one can lose his salvation, one must understand how (or if?) he received it in the first place.

            This author comes from a Foursquare Pentecostal background and, as such, is more familiar with and inclined towards Arminianism (free will) than Calvinism (absolute sovereignty). This author’s previous experience with a staunchly Calvinist pastor and with misrepresented (and radical) Calvinist teachings has led to jadedness with Calvinism in general. However, strict Arminianism has been presented in a way that has led to legalism and has caused unnecessary fears and doubts about the permanence of salvation. Because of this author’s theological location and as a result of study and thorough contemplation, the following presentation will be a demonstration of the need for a middle ground in the polarizing debate between absolute free will and absolute sovereignty.

            First, each of the five points of Calvinism will be examined and critiqued in their assertion of absolute sovereignty by both Arminians and moderate Calvinists. The next portion will assess the Arminian view of free will and will logically deconstruct it in order to find a workable compromise with God’s sovereignty. Finally, this author will present a hybrid view that embraces aspects of both free will and sovereignty in order to express a relational dynamic in the salvific process and eschatological conclusion. We can have both eternal security and present assurance. We can have both a sovereign God and a free will.

Absolute Sovereignty and the Will of God

But of all the things which happen, the first cause is to be understood to be His will, because He so governs the natures created by Him, as to determine all the counsels and the actions of men to the end decreed by Him.[3]

Calvin introduces the foundation for the concept of sovereignty by identifying God’s interaction with human will. Though there is a certain beauty and grandeur to a view of God inspired by this framework, one would be remiss to discard the painting because it is a shade too dark (errors in our theology rarely occur in black and white, but rather along a spectrum of interpretation). One author uses the story of Bill Vukovich (a prestigious driver who died in a crash caused by a malfunctioning 10-cent cotter pin) to illustrate the need for God to be totally sovereign over everything.[4] Everything that occurs has been ordained by God, and thus everything happens at least by his permission.[5] However, if this ordination prohibits the human capability for real, high-stakes decision-making, there are alarming implications.

            If we cannot view pre-sin-nature Adam as capable of free will, we must attribute the fall to the determination of God. Indeed, God is sovereign, omnipotent, and capable of reconciling even the darkest of deeds[6], but we must allow mankind a larger role in the determination of “the counsels and the actions of men,” lest we credit God with the causation of our failures as well as of our successes. God’s omniscience and omnipotence must not necessarily include actively fixing every human thought and decision, but rather can imply that his presence to all things at all times includes precise awareness of every human thought and decision. Indeed, nonconformity with the will of God is not the same as escaping his ultimate control, for the former is possible and the latter is not.

            Oftentimes, Calvinist thinkers fail to distinguish between the perfect will of God (that which he would have us do) and the actualized will of God (that which we actually do). Because of this, they refute the idea that man’s will can prevail over God’s, and they struggle with anything less than an actively sovereign God.[7] However, we have a name for when free humanity violates the perfect will of God: sin. God sovereignly desires that humanity would live in accordance with his perfect will (that which we find in Scripture and by the work of the Holy Spirit), but we don’t always live up to that standard. Are we to say then that God did not will sinlessness? No! Of course, that would be his desire. But since we are presently faced with the problem of sin, we must make a distinction between that will of God which is broken by our sinful actions and that will of God that sovereignly foreknows every human conception and works in them as they happen. We can assert that the two will eschatologically align (for he does have the power to make them one), but that until then, God allows us real choices for the sake of real community. Holding a lesser view of God’s sovereignty is not questioning the extent of his power, but is instead questioning the degree to which he limits himself in order to have true relationship with us. Thus, we must allow salvation (for him who accepts it) to be an area of overlap, the “already/not yet,” of the perfect and actualized will of God as the will of man is given a voice. Though man’s part is limited to a mere receipt or denial of grace, this author holds that the alignment of wills is necessary for the relational dynamic of salvation to be present.

Totally Depraved

            Calvinism’s first point is a commentary on the fallenness of human nature and an assertion of our inability, outside of Christ, to be anything more than the enemy of God.[8] This tenet of Calvinism is a response to Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian thought. The first posits that man can achieve moral perfection without God, and the second asserts that mankind makes the first move in the salvific process. This author also denies the validity of these positions.[9] However, Calvinism takes a right view of depravity and takes it farther than can be properly warranted by a holistic understanding of Scripture. James White writes,

Salvation is surely the free gift of God’s grace, but it is a long leap to assume that the nature of the gift indicates the autonomy of the recipient. Life was a gift given to Lazarus, but the giving of the gift did not in any way indicate an ability on the part of the one who received it.[10]

            Calvinism has colored its theology a few shades darker than Calvin ever intended.[11] Though perhaps not the intent of this first tenet of the synod of Dort, “Total Depravity” now includes an assertion of man’s inability to even willfully accept the gift of God’s salvation. In contrast to the moderate Calvinist presentation of the life preserver analogy, in which “[l]ike a drowning person, a fallen person can reach out and accept the lifeline even though he cannot make it to safety on his own,”[12] strict Calvinism seems to view the drowning person as either bound in chains or already dead. It is this extremism that must be addressed.

            It would seem as though Calvinist thought exists outside of an understanding of the Old Testament. Any theologian (or even layperson) versed in the OT recognizes the relational dynamic of covenant.[13] The first covenant between God and the people of Israel included some amount of mutuality. Though God remained ever faithful and quick to forgive, the covenant could not be lived out in fruition if the human party failed to fulfill his/her end of the deal. If we are to recognize salvation as the new covenant, we must allow for at least some overlap between the two, that being relationality and community. We are image-bearers of the divine: We were created for relationship with him. Why, then, should we embrace a doctrine that tells us we have no part in the initiation of covenant? Norm Geisler writes,

… the image of God is not erased in fallen humanity but only effaced… Even fallen human beings have the ability to accept or reject God’s gift of salvation. For even though salvation does not come from our will (John 1:13), yet it does come “through [our] faith” (Eph. 2:8) by our act of “receiving” Christ (John 1:12).[14]

Unconditional Election

            This, the second of the five points, asserts that salvation is unconditional both for the Giver (God) and the recipient (man).[15] This view eliminates the necessity for man to have a positive response to the gospel. It, like each of the five points, is a construct meant to amplify a view of the sovereignty of God. Let us return to the life preserver analogy.[16] For a Calvinist, God’s election is sending Jesus down to the depths of the sea to drag to shore those who have already drowned and are in need of spiritual resuscitation. They are completely and totally dead. This belief is based on the interpretation of passages such as Eph. 2:1-10, which states that we are “dead in sin.” The word dead here is interpreted to mean that, in sin, they are totally and completely incapable of anything else. They are unable even to seek or accept God unless he and he alone completes the act of regeneration.

            How then does a Calvinist view passages like Romans 6? Here, Paul claims we are “dead to sin.” If we understand “dead” in the same way as it is applied in Eph. 2, then apparently the regenerated person is utterly and completely incapable of sinning. Obviously, this depiction is a blatant misunderstanding of Scripture. There are many things unsaved people are completely and totally incapable of doing as a result of sin. They are depraved, enslaved, condemned, and alienated. They cannot save themselves, and they are incapable of initiating the relationship with God. God wooed us by sending his Son, and he worked in us in ways we will never know this side of heaven. It is unnecessary, however, to take away man’s freedom of choice (as Calvinists seem to do) in order to embrace the sovereignty of God. R. C. Sproul also introduces another analogy in which the unsaved person is likened to either a very sick person who must at least open his mouth to receive medicine (Arminianism) or a dead person who is completely incapable of helping himself at all (Calvinism).[17] Sproul condemns the former position, claiming it does not line up with the Ephesians passage. Perhaps the opening of one’s mouth to the lifesaving cure of salvation is exactly the “through faith” that Paul writes of in Eph. 2:8 – “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith”.[18]

            If we acknowledge that Calvinists deny synergism for the sake of preserving God’s sovereignty, we can better counter the position. If it is possible for God to remain sovereign and for man to have a place in responding to salvation, it would seem that the dissention on this topic would diminish. Moderates from both camps have submitted that there may be a way, as does this author. The following are models by which we can better understand the extent of God’s sovereignty and man’s relationship with it.

            No person would deny that a driver controls a car simply because he does not manually rotate the wheels, turn each gear, and engage each cylinder. Similarly, God is not weakened by the fact that we are free within the environment in which we have been placed. He need not forcefully micromanage each human thought and action in order for his will to be effected.

The doctor in the “sick person” scenario does not fail to be in control simply because the sick person refuses medicine. Rather, he is limiting himself. If he wanted, he could easily overpower a bedridden and nearly comatose person and force medicine down his throat. It is no question of “can he,” but rather, “would he.” A patient’s cooperation with his doctor does not deprive the doctor of honor, nor does it take away credit. In a further extension of this metaphor, the patient is beset by an unknown, incurable, and terminal disease. The patient knew nothing of this illness before being told by the doctor and can do nothing to prevent its spread and eventual deadly conclusion. The doctor infects himself in order to find a cure. In this view, salvation is submission to go into surgery under anesthesia in order to have life renewed. In this sense, the patient is totally and completely yielded. The cooperation is not in the actualizing of the salvation, but in the deciding to receive it. This scenario once again takes no credit away from the doctor, who took on sickness and death in order to find the cure. Rather, it glorifies One who sacrifices for the sake of relationship. A final depiction is presented by Norm Geisler: “The act of receiving is no more meritorious than it is to give credit to a beggar for taking a handout”.[19] Indeed, our God takes on everything, even the risk of rejection, as he offers new life to those whom he loves.

Limited Atonement

            The third point of Calvinism is the logical outflowing of the previous points, but is simultaneously the logical antithesis to every other point. If indeed man is completely uninvolved in the process of salvation (as the first two points would have us believe) then God is entirely responsible for all those who are saved. However, not all are saved. Logically, then, Christ’s atonement was never meant to be universal, but was meant to apply only to those whom God had predetermined and predestined for salvation.[20] This would indicate that God has also predestined some for eternal damnation. The problems with this point are manifold.

            The first issue is an internal one. Limited atonement is a denial of God’s absolute sovereignty. When confronted on the issue of limited atonement, a good Calvinist will say, “It’s not that God can’t save everyone, it’s that he doesn’t, and we will never know why. He is gracious for saving any, so let’s be thankful for what we can get.” This is the same thing Arminians and Catholics have been saying all along. God is still entirely sovereign, even when he restricts himself. Why then can he not limit himself in his dealings with humanity? Why can we not view God as capable of decreeing, destining, and determining, but limiting himself to simply foreknowing? When the logical end of an argument is also its logical undoing, the argument is on thin ice indeed.

            This tenet also arms those who see God as impotent, malicious, or aloof. They think that God isn’t really able to save, that he really doesn’t want to save, or that the stakes are low in this cosmic game that fails to engage his interest. Atonement is indeed limited, but that limitation is because of the unyieldedness of human wills. It is limited not in extent or intent, but rather in result or application.[21] Christ died for all, but his propitiation is only effective for those who work with God by accepting his gift. In Chosen but Free, Geisler demonstrates that saving faith is available to all, not just the elect.[22] He also provides a wonderful illustration of Calvinist thought by rephrasing John 3:16: “God so loved his elect throughout the world that he gave his Son with this intention, that by him believers might be saved.”[23] He also points out that, though the term elect is a fairly commonly employed part of New Testament vocabulary, it is never once used to assert that Christ’s atonement was limited in intent.[24] Indeed, Christ died “for the world,” and “for the ungodly.”[25] In addition to the many difficulties found in this point, it raises the logical possibility that a person intent on seeking God could live his entire life with a false assurance of salvation. It is for this reason that, although Calvinists have eternal security, they lack present assurance because they are unable to discern what it takes to be “the elect.” The simple equation of universal atonement available to all who believe is more in line with the gospel narrative and allows for less-complicated evangelism.

Irresistible Grace

            Norman Geisler makes a distinction between the moderate and strict Calvinist views on irresistible grace, describing the former as a “persuasive” grace and the latter as a “coercive” grace.[26] This point is heavily nuanced and depends wholly on the nature of “the elect.” Strict Calvinists view the elect as sinners whom God has chosen to raise to life and to whom God has decided to apply all the benefits of Christ’s atonement.[27] Moderates believe that the grace of God is relentless and persuasive, but that is only effectual for those who are willing to receive it.[28] Once again, we run into logical issues when we try to incorporate this point into the whole picture of Calvinism.

            If, as Calvinists would have us believe, God’s grace brings to salvation even those who are unwilling and uninvolved in the process of receiving it, then the logical end of this point would be universalism (grace is even given to those who never encounter the gospel). We are left feeling uneasy as we try to contemplate the motives of a God who, uninhibited by any force (even the unwillingness of man), still applies Christ’s atonement to a select few. In an attempt to set up for a persuasive argument for eternal security that is rooted in the sovereignty of God, Calvinists have taken every last ounce of human participation out of the mix. It is an understandable misstep, for error lies only with man and not with God, and thus any human participation in the bestowal of salvation could adversely affect its permanence. If God can affect whatsoever he desires despite the will of man, that means that God’s desires cannot be impeded by the sinful will of man. Thus, we can only attribute the eternal damnation of the reprobate to the desire of God. Stated another way, the unsaved go to hell because God wanted them to. We serve a God who apparently is willing that many should perish.

            We must allow the unwillingness of man to be that which leads to perdition. Though any Calvinist would deny its occurrence, it is logically possible (i.e., within the Calvinist schema) for an unwilling recipient of grace to inherit eternal life while a person positively dispositioned to the gospel is excluded from the eternal community of the elect. God’s grace is not forceful and demanding. Yes, God is the potter and we are the clay,[29] but he did not create us for the express purpose of molding pots. We are living clay, imbued with the ruach and image of our maker. This is a much more intimate relationship than that of a potter to his clay, for we were made to bring him glory as we enter into covenant relationship with him. We were created to walk with him, to experience community with him, and to spend eternity with him. His kindness leads us to repentance, as we experience the love that was poured out for us by Christ’s sacrifice. His grace is unfathomable, inescapable, persistent, and genuine. However, as is truly the greatest tragedy of sin, his grace can be rejected.[30] Because of the sinful desires of human hearts, many will consider autonomy to be of greater value than submission. They will consider isolation as preferable to community. Moreover, God, whose mission is to reconcile that one lost sheep, is genuinely heartbroken as he sees his beloved creations, his children, turn away from that which is unconditionally given. This is the sin that leads to death: to deny the grace of God.

Perseverance of the Saints

            White provides a clarifying distinction: “Perseverance of the Saints—that all the truly regenerated are kept by the power of God unto ultimate salvation.”[31] This final point is the culmination of the previous four and is of utmost importance for this work. Though this author has vehemently disagreed with many aspects of Calvinism, it is granted here that, at least in principle, this tenet is essential to a life walked out in grace rather than in fear. This point is also logically consistent with the previous four. If God is indeed sovereign and does not allow mankind any role in accepting or receiving the gift of salvation, then mankind would also be unable to do anything to prevent God from securing the permanence of the salvation.[32]

            There are, however, some issues with the Calvinist model.[33] The primary problem is found as one follows a logical flow. If one must remain faithful to the end in order to be eternally secure, then he is not elect (and eternal security was not his after all) if he falls into sin at the time of his death or at the time of the rapture. Because both death and rapture are unpredictable and could potentially take place at any time, then one can only have eternal security if he is faithful at all times. If this is true, then no person who falls into sin is truly elect. What, then, is said to the churchgoer who repents of an affair? “Well, you weren’t faithful to the end, so you can go ahead and do your thing. You are not one of God’s elect.” Surely this explanation denies the ability of Christ’s death to atone for sin once and for all. No, truly, we must make a distinction between faith and faithfulness. The latter requires persistence in moral perfection, but the former requires dependence on the grace of God who continues to sustain, love, and forgive in the midst of sin.

Absolute Freedom and the Will of Man

            The Arminian view of eternal security can be summarized as follows: If I can get myself in, I can get myself out. This viewpoint is founded on an understanding of the primacy of the will of man. There are merits to a strong view of man’s free moral agency, but once again, Arminians tend to shade the topic too darkly. One advantage of a high view of free will is found in the interpretation of the fall. Here, we are able to assert that God made humans in his likeness and that, as a part of that likeness, he gave us the ability to choose. When Adam sinned, the image of God in man was marred, but the ability to choose remained. That is the purpose of the forbidden tree, is it not? Before eating of its fruit, every choice was based in trust and obedience: in complete and total submission. Afterwards, choice stemmed from the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. This differentiation is devoid of importance if it fails to culminate in decision. The Fall occurred because man’s will could allow him to do things that God’s perfect will would not permit. The Fall resulted in man’s saying, “I want control,” and in that control, receiving ownership of an un-payable debt. In the atonement, God says, “You were made for me. Come back to me. Submit to me. Let me love you. I can fix this.” Overcome by his persistent grace, man is brought to restoration as he yields his will to God’s.

            There are limits to the will of man, as many (even strict) Arminians will admit. A Reformed Arminian author writes, “My view of depravity is that the will is bound by sin until it is drawn, enabled, and excited by grace.”[34] This is because Arminians, as well as Calvinists, refute Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian thought. It is these postulates that deny the true depravity of man, which every Arminian holds to some degree. Semi-Pelagianism claims that man is capable of acting first, that fallen man is able to, uninfluenced by grace, desire God wholeheartedly. This author and Arminians everywhere cringe at this extreme presentation of the free will of man. Semi-Pelagianism would have us think the drowning person is actually not in much peril at all. Indeed, God, in Christ, acted first. He wooed and pursued us. This is a necessary limitation of the will of man: Our will is not unconditioned. God can, has, does, and will influence our decisions. We must indeed respond to his grace if it is to be efficacious, but the fact that it is a response signifies that our decision has been conditioned. Similarly, our Christian lives are the playing out of decisions conditioned by his love and by our desire to respond in kind.

            Another limitation to free will is that it is not absolute. If this is true, humans can simply opt out of salvation at any time. Geisler writes,

Arminians contend that if we can exercise faith to “get in” Christ then we can use the same faith to “get out” of Christ. Just like getting on and off a bus headed for heaven, we can exercise our free choice at either end. Not to be able to do this, they insist, would mean that once we get saved, then we are no longer free. Freedom is symmetrical; if you have the freedom to get saved, then you have the freedom to get lost again.[35]

He follows this argument with its logical conclusion: If our freedom means we can get lost again and we retain freedom in heaven, we can become lost even after we get to heaven.[36] This is, of course, preposterous. In our assertion of freedom, we must take care to retain a stalwart view of God’s sovereignty. We must not be so flippant as to think we can toy with the transformative gift that he bestows. Indeed, the only choice that absolutely leads to damnation is the decision to reject Christ’s atonement, and this is not a decision that a genuine believer is capable of making.

            The final major flaw in the Arminian understanding of salvation and free will comes from a breakdown in the most ubiquitous model of salvation found in this paper and elsewhere: salvation as a gift. Arminians have become so mentally saturated with this notion that it is the only model that makes sense. They have built the entire framework of their understanding around this model. But salvation is so much more transformative than a simple gift. It is new life, new birth. It is the radical regeneration of old to new. It is becoming dead to sin and alive in Christ.[37] In his critique of Arminianism, a moderate Calvinist author points out that some decisions (such as suicide), though enacted through free will, cannot be undone.[38] A gift can be both accepted and returned voluntarily, but the decision to take on a new nature cannot be undone. Similarly, one who is born again cannot become unborn: He cannot reenter the womb of unregenerate and un-atoned sinfulness. The New Testament is a powerful testimony to the fact that we have been made new. It also tells us that, though we have a new nature, we will sometimes act in ways contrary to it. This is the struggle of which Paul speaks in Romans 7:

So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord![39]

Indeed, this is the tension of our Christian walk. We have been made new—eikons restored by God’s grace through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. We are not to live in constant fear that our sin will tear us away from the promise of God. Rather, we must daily depend on his grace and mercy to sustain us, as we engage the very real struggle of denying our old master and following the new. We can have eternal security, despite the fact that we still sin—and like it. Security is ours because our salvation is given by a God who reconciles our failures and walks with us in our sin, pursuing and persuading us with his grace. Our salvation hangs not upon our works but upon the cross: it is in him who died to bring us back into community and relationship with God. As is always the case in true community, we must examine the heart (not just the actions) in order to assess the health of the relationship, for a right heart reads of authenticity.

A Hybrid Moderate View

            Salvation is that which differentiates Christians from the world. It is the starting point in our relationship with God. It is of utmost importance to us, and as such, we cannot allow ourselves to live our lives questioning our status in God’s eyes. Salvation is not a guessing game. We can believe that God will bring to completion the work he began in us, but in that belief, we must acknowledge that, at times, we will still sin—and like it. However, if one’s heart is right, “[a]lthough apostasy is a fearful and real evil… the man who trusts in God and seeks after godliness will find that God is able and willing to keep him for His heavenly kingdom.”[40] We serve a God who is faithful when we are not, who forgives his children that come before him in repentance. We can trust that God has provided a salvation that is sufficient for all and is efficient for those who believe and confess. Though our hopes are only realized eschatologically, we can have both present assurance and eternal security. 

            This discussion has so often included “what if” questions that have no bearing on day-to-day living. Arminians seem to be particularly guilty of this type of self-questioning: “What if I do this? What if I think this? Will I lose salvation if—?” It is at this juncture that we must remember the purpose of theology. It is for us to understand God and our relationship with him better in order that we may live out our walk more effectively. The central, philosophical questions in this debate prove especially thorny: “Can a person of genuine faith backslide so far that he no longer wants salvation and spends the rest of his life defaming the Lord? If so, does this person lose his salvation?” Maybe. But what does that have to do with real Christian living? In our attempt to understand the unrevealed aspects of the mind of God, we are asking the wrong questions. The point of this discussion ought not be the analysis of the theoretical but of the practical. This author can assert with confidence that no Christian whose heart yearns after God will ever have salvation torn away. Moreover, what does genuine, authentic, heartfelt faith even look like?

            A Northwest University professor said recently, “If you are the type of person who is worried about losing your salvation, you have no reason to be worried about losing your salvation.” True faith is an issue of the heart. However, there are many (especially within Arminian circles) who are needlessly worrying about their status in eternity. Strict Arminianism has led them to, on some level, believe their salvation stands upon the edge of a knife: “stray but a little and it will fail, to the ruin of all.”[41] John MacArthur’s book, Saved Without a Doubt, is tremendously helpful in laying out a foundation for both present assurance and eternal security. He provides 11 tests that give the genuine believer faith in the promise of salvation.[42] These tests are posed in question form:

            1. Have you enjoyed fellowship with Christ and the Father?

            2. Are you sensitive to sin?

            3. Do you obey God’s Word?

            4. Do you reject this evil world?

            5. Do you eagerly await Christ’s return?

            6. Do you see a decreasing pattern of sin in your life?

            7. Do you love other Christians?

            8. Do you experience answered prayer?

            9. Do you experience the ministry of the Holy Spirit?

            10. Can you discern between spiritual truth and error?

            11. Have you suffered rejection because of your faith?

Though this list is by no means meant to be exhaustive or to be perfectly inspired as the Word of God, it functions as a guideline that puts our perspective on the purposes and desires of the heart and the vitality of faith. We are a goal-oriented race. Oftentimes, our desire to live as we ought is not for the joy of experiencing the Lord and his work in our lives, but is instead done to make sure we are being “good enough” to cash in on the ultimate goal: heaven. When we reprioritize our hearts and earnestly seek his face to serve, love, and obey him, we have no need to be worried about whether we are good enough, for in the intimacy of his presence, his love is made known. The above list is not a chart of pharisaic rules that must be followed to the letter; it is a mirror of the heart. We will be known by our fruit,[43] and the vitality of our faith will be known by our works.[44]  

            Total sovereignty destroys the relational aspect of the covenant into which we enter as we accept God’s gift of salvation and transformative, new work in us. It gives us certainty that the truly elect will attain eternal security, but at the expense of robbing man of his participation in the program of God’s mission here on earth. It grants eternal security, but leaves the believer with no guarantee that God’s grace was ever meant for him (for indeed, Calvinism teaches that there are many for whose sin Christ did not pay). Total free will logically leads to the ability to, at any time, opt out of God’s gift. It leads to the necessity for repentance after every sin lest God tear away his gift. It leads to complete lack of security in Christ’s work, thus undermining God’s sovereignty. In its attempt to give man a greater role in the divine drama, Arminianism has reached the conclusion that man can spoil even the most perfect gift. We must allow for some degree of backsliding or continuing to succumb to the allure of the sin nature without thinking that this allure is equivalent with forfeiture of salvation.

            Our adjudication may not be precise (and it must not be allowed to morph into legalism), but it allows us flexibility. It allows us to assert that there are those who appear to be Christians but eventually choose another path because their heart was not right. Likewise, there are those who, like David, have a God-oriented heart, despite struggling with serious sin. We can have a means of attaining both eternal security and present assurance, while simultaneously working out our faith with fear and trembling, assessing our actions and living with a contrite and repentant heart. We submit and follow not because we lose our salvation if we don’t, but because we are compelled by a love for God and a true preference for his way over ours. He implants in us a preference for him, who accepts us as we are but gives a new nature, so that, in him, we can become who he wants us to be. We were created and reconciled by him for the sake of community, in order that, by willfully striving (by his grace) to be conformed to his image, we can bring glory and honor to our worthy Lord, our loving Father, and our sovereign King.

Bibliography

Calvin, John, and J. K. S. Reid. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. Louisville,             KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

Geisler, Norman L. “A Moderate Calvinist View.” In Four Views on Eternal Security, edited by   J. Matthew Pinson, 63-134. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.

Geisler, Norman L. Chosen but Free. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001.

Harper, J. Steven. “A Wesleyan Arminian View.” In Four Views on Eternal Security, edited         by J. Matthew Pinson, 209-81. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.

Holy Bible, ESV. Crossway Books, 2016.

Horton, Michael Scott. “A Classical Calvinist View.” In Four Views on Eternal Security, edited by J. Matthew Pinson, 23-59. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.

MacArthur, John. Saved Without a Doubt: Being Sure of Your Salvation. Colorado Springs,           CO: Victor, 2006.

Marshall, I. H. Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away.       Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1974.

Sellers, C N. Election and Perseverance. Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle, 1987.

Shank, Robert. Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election. Springfield, MO:        Westcott Publishers, 1970.

Sproul, R. C. Chosen by God. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986.

Tolkien, J. R. R., and Douglas A. Anderson. The Fellowship of the Ring: Being the First Part of    The Lord of the Rings. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012.

White, James R. The Potter’s Freedom. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000.

Additional Works

Ashby, Stephen M. “A Reformed Arminian View.” In Four Views on Eternal Security, edited by             J. Matthew Pinson, 137-205. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.

Morrison, J G. A Dialog on Eternal Security. Kansas City, MO: Nazarene Pub. House, 1900.         Kindle Edition.

[1] Eternal Security proper is a position within soteriology, but “eternal security” will not be used to identify that position in this paper.

[2] In this paper, unless preceded by “moderate,” the terms “Arminian” and “Calvinist” will refer to the classical (i.e., strict) form of each doctrine.

[3] John Calvin and J.K.S. Reid, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 178.

[4] R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 27.

[5] Sproul, Chosen by God, 26.

[6] Calvin, Concerning Predestination, 174.

[7] James R. White, The Potter's Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000). On pages 64-65, White’s understanding of God’s sovereignty disallows him from believing in human freedom.

[8] White, The Potter’s Freedom, 39 & 98.

[9] Rom. 3:10-12, Eph. 2:1-10, 1 John 4:19.

[10] White, The Potter’s Freedom, 98. Emphasis original.

[11] Calvin’s first tenet is presented here stripped of much of its nuance, including a quote by Calvin that would be contested by many strict Calvinists today. C. N. Sellers, Election and Perseverance (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle, 1987), 10-11.

[12] Norman L. Geisler, Chosen but Free (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), 59; and Sproul, Chosen by God, 116.

[13] Horton, a classical Calvinist, does present a covenantal approach to understanding eternal security, but he seems to miss the cooperative aspect of the New Covenant. Bafflingly, (and concerning the OT) he writes, “The covenant of grace requires acceptance,” but he criticizes Geisler for his nearly Arminian position of synergism. Horton has all of the pieces but fails to logically assemble them. Scott M. Horton, “A Classical Calvinist View,” in Four Views on Eternal Security, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 24-34.

[14] Norman L. Geisler,  “A Moderate Calvinist View,” in Four Views on Eternal Security, ed. J.

Matthew Pinson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 65. Brackets, parentheses, and quotes in original.

[15] On strict Calvinism’s view of unconditional election, “One receives eternal security apart from any act of faith on his or her part. Indeed, people are incapable of receiving it until God first saves them.” Geisler, “A Moderate Calvinist View,” 65.

[16] Sproul, Chosen by God, 116.

[17] Sproul, Chosen by God, 115-116.

[18] Eph. 2:8, emphasis added.

[19] Geisler, “A Moderate Calvinist View,” 65.

[20] “…it is limited in its extent, …Christ died only for the elect.” Geisler, “A Moderate Calvinist View”, 65.

[21] Ibid., 66.

[22] Geisler, Chosen but Free, 196-197.

[23] Geisler, Chosen but Free, 202.

[24] Ibid., 206.

[25] Robert Shank, Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election (Springfield, MO: Westcott Publishers, 1970), 70-87. This Arminian source engages many of the issues with limited atonement and posits an atonement that is “sufficient for all men, efficient for the elect.”

[26] See charts on pp. 64, 67, and 68. Geisler, “A Moderate Calvinist View,” 64.

[27] “Arminians teach that God sends his grace to ‘persuade’ men to believe, but they deny that God can actually raise a man to spiritual life without his assistance and agreement. They deny that there is an elect people, based solely on the choice of God, to whom God will infallibly apply the benefits of Christ’s atonement. Grace is limited to being effective on the ‘willing,’ i.e., it is submitted to the power and will of man and his decisions. It becomes a mere ‘wooing’ force” (White, The Potter's Freedom, 301).

[28] “God is found by those who seek Him, yet when they find Him they discover that He first sought them… Furthermore, moderate Calvinists do not deny that God’s grace works on the unregenerate to move them to faith. It only denies that any such work is irresistible on the unwilling…” (Geisler, Chosen but Free, 67).

[29] White, The Potter’s Freedom, 301.

[30] “Yet this choice by God is not independent of the willingness of the individual to receive it, nor is its nature such that man cannot renounce it.” I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1974), 71.

[31] Sellers, Election and Perseverance, 11.

[32] Geisler includes a wonderful quote from the Westminster Confession. Geisler, “A Moderate Calvinist View,” 67.

[33] It is important to note that this point is not meant to indicate that the elect can do whatever they want without fear of losing security. It is an assertion that the elect have eternal security, but that a qualification of election is perseverance in faithfulness.

[34] Stephen J. Harper, “A Wesleyan Arminian View,” in Four Views on Eternal Security, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 158. Emphasis original.

[35] Geisler, Chosen but Free, 126-127.

[36] Ibid., 127.

[37] Rom. 6.

[38] Geisler, Chosen but Free, 127.

[39] Rom. 7:21-25. Read also vv. 15-20.

[40] Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 136.

[41] J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012), 401.

[42] John MacArthur, Saved Without a Doubt: Being Sure of Your Salvation (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 2006), 81-108.

[43] Matt. 7:16

[44] James 2:1

Sin, Salvation, Judgment, and Repentance: The Holiness of Yahweh

By Alexa Lindseth, NU Alumni

Introduction
           The Book of Isaiah, which is split into three sections or three books, begins with a message addressed to Judah, a tribe led by Davidic kings (Ahaz and Hezekiah), in the shadow of the Assyrian Empire (Isaiah 1-39). It transitions into a narrative of Judah’s suffering as exiles at the heart of the Babylonian Empire (Isaiah 40-55). It comes to an end with the Judean colony’s being addressed at the fringes of the Persian Empire (56-66). The address to the three differing audiences is confirmed in the final form.[1] The first book of Isaiah is especially concerned with judgment and woe oracles contrasting the last book, which is filled with the sound of hope, the echo of redemption, and the freedom of salvation.

Throughout all three texts, the holiness of Yahweh unifies the major subtopics of the writings—such as salvation, judgment, and the human activity of sin and repentance—which are delivered through prophetic oracles and then either responded to or ignored by the people. Despite its differences contextually and chronologically, Isaiah as a whole is a testament to the sovereign Lord of all nations. Much of the following discussion will be centralized around the unique, yet key, passage of Isaiah 6, but theology will also be explored throughout the text as a whole. Because of the holiness of Yahweh, there is judgment and salvation for a sinful people who struggle with rebellion and the necessity of true repentance.

Oracles Against the Nation (OAN)

The major collection of Oracles Against the Nations (OAN) is found in the first book of Isaiah from 13.1-23.1 and also in 30.6. The oracle against the leading power of Babylon (13.1-14.23) is followed by the oracle against the older representation of power: Assyria (14:24-27). There is an oracle against Philistia (14:28-32), Moab (15.1-16.14), Damascus (17.1-3), Ethiopia (18.1-7), Egypt (19.1-25), again Babylon (21:1-10), Dumah (21:11-12), the desert places (21.13-15), Kedar (21.16-17), and then Tyre (23.1-18). While these oracles are given within specific sociopolitical military contexts, the recovery and full understanding of these contexts are difficult, but the theological context is evident.[2] The holy Yahweh’s judgment and salvation will reign over the nation, and the point will be made that he is sovereign and Lord over Israel.

The display of God’s relationship with Assyria preconceives a way that intertwines divine sovereignty with human response. In 5.26, Yahweh summons the army of Assyria. In 10.4, the club or staff that is wielded is an expression of God’s wrath Assyria is being criticized because of its action—it is not simply a means for Yahweh to act against Ephraim, but there is also the goal of devastating an entire series of nations (10.7-8). The treatment of Jerusalem and Samaria is that of the other Middle Eastern cities (10.9-11).[3]

The OAN is clearly an intrinsic aspect of the Isaianic message of judgment on Israel. Isaiah’s theology is greatly affected by his OAN and the view of history is that Yahweh controls the destinies of all the nations and takes a particular interest in Israel. According to Northwest University associate professor of Old Testament studies Dr. David Hymes, the purpose of the Oracles Against the Nations in Isaiah, is not as much about pronouncing judgment on nations as it is about announcing the salvation of Israel—if they would just trust the Lord.[4] The part about trusting the Lord is what Israel greatly struggles with, and their tendency to look for help in other places, especially in the first book of Isaiah, is what elicits the OAN. The House of David is referred to in 7.2, telling of a nation that can and should trust in the ever-steadfast, but is doubting and fearfully looking to an alternative—another nation—for help. This oracle found in 7.1-9 displays the unfounded distrust Yahweh’s people have in him, even though long-term support was pledged to the House of David in 2 Samuel 7.11-16.[5]

Chapters 13-23 of Isaiah are known as the Prophecies Against the Nations because of the amount of suffering and trouble it addresses to other nations, contrasted with any sort of blessing. The descriptions of these intimidating oracles are named by titles such as “Babylon Prophecy” or “Moab Prophecy.” It is interesting to note that there is a neutral naming of these oracles and that they were not actually delivered to the other nations; they are in fact delivered to Judah, just like many of the other prophecies. The point of these Oracles Against the Nations seems to be an effective implementation of Yahweh’s intentions for these nations. They were a word of God that allowed his purposes to unfold, but the relaying is an aspect of a prophet’s ministry to God’s people. The objective of delivering messages about other nations to Judah is found in some major parts: The emphasis on catastrophe connects with Judah’s inevitable terror of those nations, and the flipside is that Judah has a tendency to put their hope and trust in other nations. Additionally, Yahweh wants to assert his lordship over all nations and remind Judah of his power to do with them as he pleases. These oracles are meant to get that point across; in order to do so, they go to extremes—shown in chapter 20 when Isaiah is barefoot and naked while wandering through Jerusalem to physically symbolize the fate of those nations (Egypt and Sudan).[6]  

Hoy (Woe) Oracle
            The hoy or woe oracle has a pattern that is made up of two parts: accusation and threat. The last oracle that pertains to this study is the one that has to do with admonition. The pattern in this one includes a call for repentance. Its three parts are: messenger formula; admonition (often utilizing an imperative, which elicits the call for repentance); and reason.[7]

            One especially unique oracle is when Isaiah, in his call narrative in chapter 6, pronounces a woe on himself that is normally reserved for the nations. When he sees the Holy One, he becomes more aware of himself than he has ever been and his consciousness of sin is intensified in 6.5: “Woe is me for I am lost; I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people with unclean lips; for my eyes haves seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

            Isaiah 28-35 includes six distinctive parts denoted by the word “woe.” The first three “woes” have to do with divine action, and the latter three deal with relaying similar application to history and eschatology. The inherent message found in the repetitive hoy oracles is that trust must be in Yahweh. One thing each occurrence has in common is the fact that they come to a climactic head at the last day. The faith the people to whom God is revealing his sovereignty is a practical key to live how they are supposed to: in fear, in faith, and in obedience to the holy Yahweh. In chapter 28, the principle found is that destruction succeeds the people’s rejection of God’s word and covenant. In chapters 33-35, one can see the application in that though the people may think and appear to be in control, divine sovereignty not only remains, but rules; the adversaries will eventually be destroyed and the redeemed will collect at Zion.[8]

            If the OANs were imparted so Yahweh’s lordship could be displayed over the nations and Israel would truly see and fear God as the one who had control and sovereignty, the prerogative of the Hoy Oracle was given so God could address Judah’s foolishness in not trusting him. Both serve as warnings steeped in judgment and devastation, but that is so the people will hear and repent. If the people see the direness of their unfaithfulness, and, therefore, their faithfulness also, they will turn and repent. Moreover, the possibility remains that the prophecies will become obsolete. If the people collectively respond, there may be salvation before judgment.

Judgment Oracle

For the judgment oracle, one can expect to see three major parts: the messenger formula; followed by a threat or predictive statement; and the accusation, which constitutes the reason for the threat.[9] Chapter 2 is clearly an oracle of judgment. It is Yahweh dealing with his people through the prophet’s oracle, which is utilizing the messenger formula. His people are consumed in their arrogant pride and caught up in materialistic and pagan ways. The predictive statement is found in the announcement of judgment through the three-time repetition of the phrases “in that day” and “there is a day belonging to the Lord.” This is indicative of the Day of the Lord. The gravity of this threat is found in verse 9, when it says that man will be humbled, brought low, and not forgiven. The expected result of this oracle is to glorify Yahweh by penetrating and destroying man’s narcissistic acclamation. The reason for this judgment is seen in the intensity of Israel’s unorthodox worship and wrong religious practices. This leads to the harshness of Yahweh’s response and affirms the ideas that forgiveness is impossible without castigation of sin, and that specifically the sins of arrogant pride, idolatry and obstinacy may impede forgiveness. This is not insinuating any desire of destruction on the part of the prophet, but the urgency and finality of the oracle may be in hopes of quickly pushing the people into repentance.[10] The judgment oracle is necessary in not only communicating the power and the holiness of Yahweh toward Israel, but also his desire for their worship.

Salvation Oracle

Like the other oracles, there is a structure for the Salvation Oracle—found in four parts: the messenger formula, the explanation of the situation, the promise, and the reason.[11] The Salvation Oracles found in Isaiah are rooted in the Old Testament theology. Going through the initial deliverance at the start connotes for Israel that the Holy One of Israel will remain their savior. Just as he was the savior at the beginning, so it follows that his rescue continues to be anticipated, prayed for, and known. Yahweh is the God who saves. In reference to God’s rescue of the Israelites from Egypt (the Exodus), “God’s saving act at the beginning of the history of Israel is regarded as the nucleus of the tradition, of the transmission to future generations.”[12]

It is the multi-faceted lament after the demise (e.g. Isa 40:27) to which the revelation of the prophet, in the form of the salvation oracle, results in the divine response to the people’s lament. Forgiveness of amassed sin is an innate aspect of Yahweh’s salvation and has to be explicitly relayed to the people: “… [T]he message of comfort in Deutero-Isaiah is, in the initial words, immediately based upon the announcement of forgiveness (Isa. 40:2).”[13] 

Throughout Isaiah 44.21-22, God assures that he has removed the Israelites’ transgressions, sins like a metaphorical thick cloud or heavy mist, and by this has redeemed them. This allots them the chance to “return to [him].” God’s extension of grace is not contingent on the people’s repentance, but in some cases goes before it. Within Isaiah, sin is cured through what is articulated in the opening chapter: the urgent beckoning for man’s repentance and the divine act of refining. In lieu of the time of God’s refinement, it is the proclamation and action of divine grace that is displayed as crucial to human repentance.[14] 

The Holy One of Israel is the one who is capable of salvation and judgment. Salvation and judgment are best understood when they are seen together like in Isa. 10-11, 13-15. Once again, there is a consistency in the poetic format of the oracle, and a pattern is found in the combination of the two being relayed together. This pattern consists of five parts: the accusation or threat, the promise, the accusation or threat again, oracles of salvation and judgment, and the concluding promise of salvation.[15]

The Sin Problem

            From the start of the Old Testament, sin is seen as a violation of God’s command and, therefore, a betrayal of the relationship between God and humans. In the Latter Prophets, it is often the sins against humanity that come more into focus with special emphasis, not exclusively on the violation of orthodox worship, but also acts of social injustice, killing, deceiving, thieving, and sexual immorality. Throughout the Old Testament, sin is not necessarily of individual intent, but it can be, and often is, a corporate or generational act—for the Latter Prophets, there is no exception. There are various remedies presented in the Old Testament for sin, and the prophets play a role in the delivery of those remedies. Divine discipline, which is what sin elicits, is interchanged or accompanied by the prophetic voice, interpreting or warning about the divine punishment with the hope of a penitential repentance of the people.[16]

            Isaiah 53 sheds new light and gives another dimension to theology regarding sin, salvation, judgment, and repentance. This is the dimension that displays how vicarious suffering deals with the problem of sin. This passage is understood as the fourth of the servant songs and it has five strophes that allow the speakers to be somewhat identifiable (52.13-15; 53.1-3, 4-6, 7-10, and 11-12). Vicariousness and atonement reveal their importance in the face of sin. There is a link between the attitude and exercise of individual and collective retribution; it is natural that there would be a law punishing guilt and that there would be no avoiding the consequences. It may at first seem that vicarious suffering and atonement would not work, on account of every individual’s being responsible for their sin, but once it can be clarified that every sin collectively affects the created order, it begins to make more sense. When it comes to suffering, it does not mean replacement, as much as it means sharing in the wretchedness and pain. The difference comes in the attitude of submission to the suffering and this allows for reconciliation and restoration collectively, as well as individually. The heart of willing atonement on behalf of others’ sins denotes the necessity of counteraction against the collective nature of guilt. As a result of the overarching effect of sin, healing actualizes when a person (or persons) are willing to suffer atonement for others’ guilt. The crucial point in this vicariousness is being able to identify the interconnectedness of guilt, punishment, and atonement. The more people see sin as a socio-communal facet, the brighter, more hopeful the servant’s song. This is the best representation of the desired response of God’s beckoning to repentance for the result of reconciliation and restorative healing. Shared suffering and decisive atonement are demanded so that there is a display of true righteousness and a representation of the mercy and grace of the Holy One.[17]

Repentance

Although repentance may not always necessarily bring about God’s salvation or spare God’s judgment, it can play a role. The discussion of repentance and its effect on salvation through judgment can begin in Isaiah 6. In that passage, it states God’s holiness from the holistic and broader context, which establishes God as the one who is absolute and distinctively divine in being and activity. When this is truly revealed to Isaiah, he begins to comprehend where his people and he truly stand in relation to God. His consciousness of collective and individual sin is deepened in his vision, and he speaks the woe on himself that is generally pronounced over others. As a result of this devastating revelation, Isaiah does not beg for mercy but instead cries out in a despair that rings with the expectation of judgment. Surprisingly enough, instead of what Isaiah anticipates, there is divine intervention on his behalf and the prophet’s sinfulness and guilt are taken away. This is what qualifies Isaiah to play the role of emissary-prophet.[18] This commission sets the stage for the rest of First Isaiah in regard to salvation through judgment, and begins to help answer the question of whether or not human repentance is necessary for salvation.

Examining the argument posed in Isaiah 1:19-20, it is clear that there is no offer of repentance nor escaping of judgment. This is a case where Yahweh has made his verdict of judgment for the sinful people, who presumptuously assumed that Yahweh would just wipe out their iniquity and save them. How their sin is to be handled differs from the expected conditional exhortation of the covenantal context. This is a disregarded exhortation that lends to the accusatory nature of the passage. In this text, there is no indication that repentance will spare them from judgment.[19]

The Remnant

            In Isaiah, both salvation and judgment entail a remnant. Remnant is most commonly used in regard to a people who have remained alive through catastrophe or undergone devastation. The theological sense indicates either God’s judgment on his sinful people or his mercy in conserving a few as a source of hope in expectation for the future.[20] The idea of the remnant unfolds throughout stories of the prophets and in the prophetic books. An example displayed in Isaiah is that the concept of the remnant is not a static notion, only maintaining a singularly constant linguistic piece. Therefore, static definitions are insufficient and one could define the remnant as being the remainder of a community succeeding a catastrophic event—given that there is an understanding of the dynamic nature of the actual catastrophe and community throughout the numerous stages of the history of Israel.[21]

In Isaiah 6.9-10, God sends Isaiah with an unusual, unexpected, and ironic message that has the opposite intent and effect than the repentance of the people. If one first takes into consideration that throughout scripture God’s longing for his people focuses on reform and deliverance, one can then accept the assertion that repentance is not always necessary for God’s salvation. This is proved by the fact that when God saw that his people were beyond repentance and their stubbornness and pride were irrevocable, he still sent Isaiah. The prophet’s message only hardened the people even more, because they were so caught up in their own wisdom, they condemned themselves. Even though Isaiah pleads for their mercy, it is apparently too late (Isa. 6:11b-13). The hope is intended for future generations—although Isaiah himself has been saved because of his desire for restoration and submission to the divine. Isaiah is speaking to a specific generation of people. Despite the absolute nature of his message, it is only temporary. This is a divine beckoning for the obedience and redemption of future generations. Future generations have to exist in order to adhere to this, though, so the destruction of the current generation cannot be absolute—God would not send a prophet with a message such as Isaiah’s if there were no hope. If Isaiah and his family are purified and become the remnant, this leaves open the possibility for others to do the same. This is showing that God’s judgment is not always equivalent to total destruction and, in fact, can lead to salvation. There is a positive effect in God’s divine judgment: he destroys in order to rebuild. A holy nation can come up from a remaining root, and it will be one that has experienced cleansing judgment.[22]

The message within Isaiah is that the Lord is trustworthy, and the focus is on the providence of God. This is Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, who is capable of judgment, but also salvation. This underlying theology creates the necessity for the prophet’s urgent pushback against Israel’s pride, unrepentance, and pretense. That pushback is the announcement of total destruction. It is this reality that produces the difficulty in understanding the provenance within the prophecies that deal with the future deliverance.[23]

 The remnant of his people is a phrase used to describe the restoration of the purified people as set apart from the section of the community that had been wiped away.[24] Mark J. Boda finds the second vision of Zion in Isa. 4.2-6 to be a safe haven for Israel. It sees Zion filled with the remnant, the survivors, after God’s cleansing judgment—the remedy for sin and the path to salvation.[25] Boda later argues that repentance requires more than just a change of allegiance, but also a behavioral change. His example comes from Isaiah 28-33. Succeeding a passage that had rejected trust in Yahweh and ended in a fear-stricken flight, 30.18-26 speaks to the Israelite people seeking a day when Yahweh will show grace and compassion to the ones who wait upon him. This grace is found for those who cry out of affliction to Yahweh. He will rescue them, lead them out of idolatry, and heal the wounds of discipline and judgment—once again leading to salvation and creating a transformed people.[26]

Remnant theology is unique in its tie to judgment and salvation and its unveiling of the holiness of Yahweh because it provides a way out for the faithful, but it still allows for the devastating judgment of the whole of the community. Yahweh will keep his covenant to his people who repent and trust in him (like the prophet Isaiah in chapter 6), but his holiness is still displayed in the catastrophic judgment of his people. There is a paradoxical tension shown in the holiness of Yahweh—bringing salvation through judgment.

Isaianic Theology

            Isaianic theology can be brought together through the holiness of God. The themes of sin, judgment, salvation, and repentance find themselves subject to, and a result of, Yahweh’s holiness. In each text, it uniquely shows his holiness—whether it is through his wrath and judgment, through his mercy and salvation, in a combination of the two. Within the call narrative of Isaiah 6, the trajectory for all of the theology of Trito Isaiah (the third section of Isaiah) is directed. The judgment of the Holy One is clearly seen in the trembling realization that Isaiah himself is a sinner and should not be in the presence of Yahweh, because the individual and national sin of the people are subject to the judgment of the Holy One. There could be a connection back to Exodus 19.18, in that it is the holiness of God that ushers in salvation. Similarly in Exodus, the smoke of holiness left the resources for salvation at the altar. Keeping verse 6 in mind of Isaiah 6, while still relating it to this Exodus passage, the seraph flew to minister the cleansing atonement for the sinner. Isaianic theology centers around the Holy One of Israel and the judgment and salvation he brings to repentant and unrepentant sinners.[27]

Conclusion

            Salvation can come through judgment and restoration through punishment. The varying types of oracles and interactions between Yahweh, the prophets, and his people are displays of the dynamic relationship within the framework of the covenant. It can be seen that though some things are foretold with resounding finality, and Isaiah may be considered the prophet of doom, things can be subject to change. The repentance of the people is key and returning to true worship of Yahweh is the underlying motivation that the prophecies and oracles are founded on. The holiness of God is the factor that brings everything together, and it is where judgment and salvation stem from. While the hoy and judgment oracles may appear as solely bleak and hopeless, a sinful and rebellious people are in relationship with a holy God, who desires to give them salvation. This may be Yahweh’s purpose in sending prophets to declare doom and devastation. The holy God of Israel is constantly providing a way out and a way of hope—even for those who do not deserve, or seemingly desire, it. All that is required is trust and repentance—human action affects the Holy One of Israel. If they truly turned and feared, trusted and served God, the problem of sin would be reversed and salvation could precede judgment, instead of coming through it.

Bibliography

Alexander, David, and Pat Alexander. Eerdmans’ Concise Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1980.

Boda, Mark J. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Brueggemann, Walter. Isaiah. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

Goldingay, John. The Theology of the Book of Isaiah. Downers Grove, IL; InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Hunter, A. Vanlier. Seek the Lord! A Study of the Meaning and Function of the Exhortations in Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, and Zephaniah. Baltimore: John D. Lucas Printing Co., 1982.

Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.

Krasovec, Joze. Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 1999.

Umoren, Gerald Emem. The Salvation of the Remnant in Isaiah 11:11-12: An Exegesis of a Prophecy of Hope and Its Relevance Today. Boca Raton, FL: Dissertation.com, 2006. Accessed April 20, 2016. https://books.google.com/books?id=ocZ9r7YCkiQC&lpg=PP1&dq=remnant theology of Isaiah&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=remnant theology of Isaiah&f=false. Westermann, Claus. Elements of Old Testament Theology. United States of America: John Knox Press, 1982.

Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40-66; A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.

Windsor, Lionel. “The Development and Significance of the Remnant.” Remnant in the Old Testament Prophets. 2003. Accessed April 29, 2016.http://www.lionelwindsor.net/bibleresources/bible/old/Remnant.htm.

[1] Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009, 190.

[2] Walter Brueggemann. Isaiah. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, 112-113.

[3] John Goldingay. The Theology of the Book of Isaiah. Downers Grove: IL; InterVarsity Press, 2014, 131-132.

[4] Hymes, 2016.

[5] Brueggemann, 65.

[6] Goldingay, 38.

[7] Hymes, 2016.

[8] J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1993, 227-228.

[9] Hymes, David. Lecture, General Handout of the Isaiah Material, Northwest University, Kirkland, WA. January 28, 2016.

[10] Krasovec, 392-393.

[11] Hymes, 2016.

[12] Westermann, 37.

[13] Westermann, 142-143.

[14] Boda, 205-206; 222.

[15] Hymes, 2016.

[16] Boda, 519-521.

[17] Krasovec, 497-498.

[18] Krasovec, Joze. Reward, Punishment and Forgiveness; The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in Light of Greek and Modern Views.  The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 1999, 377.

[19] Hunter, A. Vanlier. Seek the Lord! A Study of the Meaning and Function of the Exhortations in Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, and Zephaniah. St. Mary’s Seminary and University. Baltimore,1982, 198.

[20] Gerald Emem Umoren, The Salvation of the Remnant in Isaiah 11:11-12: An Exegesis of a Prophecy of Hope and Its Relevance Today. Boca Raton, FL: Dissertation.com, 2006, 18. Accessed April 20, 2016. https://books.google.com/books?id=ocZ9r7YCkiQC&lpg=PP1&dq=remnant theology of Isaiah&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=remnant theology of Isaiah&f=false.

[21] Windsor, Lionel. “The Development and Significance of the Remnant.” Remnant in the Old Testament Prophets. 2003. Accessed April 29, 2016. http://www.lionelwindsor.net/bibleresources/bible/old/Remnant.htm.

[22] Krasovec, 378-381.

[23] Krasovec, 1999.

[24] Krasovec, 400.

[25] Boda, Mark J.  A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009, 193-194.

[26] Boda, 200.

[27] Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993, 17.

Matthew 19:13-15 Examination and Analysis

By Sarah Bender, NU Student

The text of Matthew 19:13-15 must be examined from many different perspectives in order to understand the meaning of the scripture. Literary elements such as historical and sociological backgrounds shed light on the passage. In addition, taking the text apart and seeing themes and concepts throughout strengthen a reader’s understanding. Analyzing literary elements and historical background information is essential to unveil Matthew 19:13-15.

Historical and sociological backgrounds in the Gospel of Matthew are necessary for an in-depth study on the passage. The place of composition for the Gospel of Matthew remains unknown, but the time at which it is written likely falls somewhere between A.D. 75 and 85.[1] The audience of the book is often considered to be the church at Antioch in Syria. Jewish Christians and Gentiles seem to be the community of people the book targets predominately. Additionally, the Gospel of Matthew remains the account filled with the most Jewish allusions. For example, the Gospel pays great attention to the Law and Judaism. Placement of the book as the first of the New Testament, even though historically written after Mark, acts as a bridge between the Old and New.[2] Connection between the Old Testament prophecies and promises now are fulfilled through Jesus and his ministry in the New Testament. Exploring the background of Matthew makes way for the discussion of a particular passage in the Gospel according to Matthew.

In order to better understand the event of Jesus and the children in Matthew 19:13-15, the scene must be presented. Matthew 19 starts with the end of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and comes to the beginning of his final days on earth before crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in A.D. 30.[3] While Jesus journeys to Jerusalem with his disciples, he takes the route which leads him to an area “beyond the Jordan” that is under the administration of Herod Antipas.[4] According to Wilkins, likely the area of Jesus’ ministry in Matthew 19 occurs either in the southern region of Perea or in the region of Judea. Along the way to his destination of Jerusalem, Jesus faces much criticism from religious leaders who try to trap him into incriminating himself on the basis of misinterpretation of the Law. For example, one such circumstance includes the discussion of divorce and marriage. Jesus reaches back to the Old Testament to Moses’ words on the sanctity of marriage and divorce to affirm familial issues within the community. Topics of marriage and divorce seem perfectly fitting to be preceding the passage about children and Jesus. Hager describes the placement of Matthew 19:13-15 as “an extension of the discussion of familial matters.”[5] The setting of the scene in Matthew 19 is imperative to the discussion of Jesus and the children.

On a sociological level, in the Greco-Roman world, children have a relatively low status and are not considered kingdom of heaven material. Children, in society, are seen to be vulnerable and without status.[6] Because of the time period and the lack of modern medicine and doctors, from the beginning of a child’s life they have to fight to stay alive. Children would often die young because of medical conditions, and children in that culture were denied existence until they had been named.[7] Peasant parents would avoid attachment to infants due to the high mortality rate among children.[8] Between 30 and 35 percent of infants would not make it past the first month of life, while 50 percent of children died before the age of 10.[9] Furthermore, especially young children have nothing tangible to contribute to their families or to society. In a way, children really are seen socially more for the continuation of a family line rather than inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.

To better grasp why Jesus lays his hands on the children in Matthew 19:15, it helps to discuss the historical background of blessing the children. To begin, because the Book of Matthew contains more Jewish references and allusions than any of the other Gospels, the historical Jewish custom of blessing children needs to be given attention. In the Old Testament, children would be brought forth to elders on the Day of Atonement, so they could receive a blessing.[10] In addition, the blessing would involve parents’ praying for their children to have God’s love, mercy, and guidance for the days to come.[11] These prayers take root in Genesis 48 when Jacob blesses the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. As a matter of fact, the blessing that is spoken over male children on the Day of Atonement actually points to their being like Ephraim and Manasseh, while the blessing spoken over female children refers to being like Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah. [12]  In the Bible, when people ask Jesus to lay his hands on children, they are not simply seeking a touch by a holy person, but what they have in mind is invoking the blessings of the Old Testament spoken over children.

The most important line that resonates throughout the text in Matthew 19:13-15 includes Jesus’ words. The words of invitation to the children break the bonds of cultural norms[13]. As commented on earlier, children maintain a lowly status in the Greco-Roman world, and Jesus’ disciples affirm that truth of low status. However, Jesus breaks chains of status when he invites the children to him. Jesus’ response in verse 14 probably even surprises the disciples with his giving permission for the children to come to him.[14] Hagner clarifies that there is significance in the fact that Jesus stops and takes time for the children. At this point, he is on a journey that will eventually lead to the cross, but Jesus proves that he is not too busy to “bless the little ones” and invite them to him. Also, Jesus wants people to understand who is included in salvation.  Meier explains that coming to Jesus is the equivalent to entering the kingdom and the invitation is for everyone, even the children who have no rights or status in the ancient Greco-Roman world.[15] Jesus’ words in verse 14 echo throughout the text.

Jesus’ actions preach to the disciples. Hagner divides Jesus’ actions in the passage into four sections. The sections Hagner divides the passage into are presentation of the little children for blessing, the disciples’ objection, Jesus’ affirmation of the children, and the blessing of the children and Jesus’ departure.[16] None of these actions stray from the central point Jesus is aiming for the people to see. Even though the disciples protest, Jesus not only receives and blesses the children, but in addition he makes the fact known that the kingdom of heaven belongs to these little ones.[17] The action of presenting the children for blessing seems strange to the disciples because they think Jesus has more important matters to attend to rather than attend to lowly children. Moreover, an interesting concept about the children is that the age of them is not known. The Greek word paidion, which means “children,” is not clear on a specific age.[18] Even so, an assumption that they are fairly young can be made, considering they are not capable of handling themselves and they have to be brought forward to Jesus rather than going to him themselves.[19] Similarly, the text does not specify who brings these children to Jesus. Perhaps, an assumption can be made that the parents bring their children to Jesus, continuing a cultural practice of parents’ bringing their children to see elders in the temple for them to be blessed..[20]

Following the presentation of the children is the disciples’ objection. The objection to Jesus’ blessing the children likely results from the high importance Jesus holds in their eyes. Again, the status of children is the main factor. The disciples view Jesus as a figure who does not have much time to spare, so spending time on low-status individuals such as children seems senseless to them. However, this attention spills into the next section: Jesus’ affirmation of the children. Affirming the children takes place in verse 14. Jesus says, “Let the little children come to me,” and with these words Jesus rebukes his disciples. In order to see the degree to which Jesus affirms the children, one must understand that the reign of the kingdom comes through Jesus. Hagner attests, “[T]he nature of the kingdom is such that even little children find their place in it.”[21] Jesus’ reaching out to the children stands as a message; the actions Jesus exhibits strongly suggest the importance of everyone to the kingdom of heaven. Reaching out to the children proves conclusively how Christ values everyone in all stages of life as he makes his way to the cross, where everyone has opportunity for salvation[22]. How fitting his actions seem, since his departure from this scene leads the way to the cross, where no special status is afforded anyone. The gospel of Jesus is for everyone, even for those with the lowliest of status, which is the message Jesus’ actions preach to the disciples.

Jesus exhibits anger when the disciples reject the children. The scene is one of very few cases in the New Testament where Jesus displays anger. The passion Jesus has for these children is expressed when he says two things: “Let the little children come to me” and “do not hinder them.”[23] Here, Jesus forcefully overrides the disciples’ intervention of turning the children away.[24] Not only does Jesus tell the disciples to let the children come to him, but also he goes one step further and demands his disciples not to hinder these children or prevent his plan for them. The use of a double command to his disciples proves that he is passionate about his belief that children belong to the kingdom of heaven. He wants his disciples to obey his commands. Rejecting children enrages Jesus.

Jesus uses the literary device of repetition to prove to the disciples how highly he values children in the kingdom of heaven. Earlier in Matthew, when the disciples ask Jesus who is highly valued in the kingdom of heaven, he tells them that a child who is lowly in position is great.[25] When Jesus speaks of a child in this manner, he refers more to the attitude a child possesses, rather than an actual child. Jesus accentuates the importance of humility. When repetition occurs in literature there is supposed to be a reason for the reoccurrence. In this scenario, Jesus speaks repeatedly about the kingdom of heaven. However, Matthew 18 is different from Matthew 19. As a matter of fact, Matthew 18:1-5 is more about Jesus’ desiring the disciples to have humble attitudes. In Matthew 19:13-15, however, he sharpens his earlier words, and the disciples actually have an encounter with children where they can practice Jesus’ commands.[26] The disciples fail to carry out his earlier-stated commands: to “welcome one such child.”[27] This neglect demonstrates that the disciples need repetition to learn about the value of children in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus’ laying his hands on the children is significant. In the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels, the laying of hands on a person represents healing.[28] For example, when the daughter of a synagogue leader passes away, the cleric asks for Jesus to lay hands on her. Jesus comes to her, and she is made well again.[29] On the contrary, Hagner describes laying hands on someone as being for the reception of the Holy Spirit and ordination, in addition to healing.[30] Laying hands on someone and the person’s being filled with the Holy Spirit does not happen until Acts, when Peter and John lay hands on people in Samaria.[31] Furthermore, ordination also does not occur until Acts. Moreover, it would be unheard of for a child to be ordained.[32] Additionally, France references different times that people are healed by the touch of Jesus, but he elaborates that Jesus’ action of laying his hands on the children is not about physical healing, but about the identification and acceptance of the children. Jesus identifies these children as members of the kingdom of heaven, and he accepts them into his kingdom.

In addition, Jesus’ laying his hands on the children forms an endearing, affectionate gesture. Jesus is seen even as a parent in the circumstance because parents bless children if they are apart of their home.[33] Verheyden even states that children are blessed when they are named because it is a part of their belonging to a household. These children have been accepted into the family. Furthermore, when Jesus completes his mission of laying his hands on and blessing the children, he continues on in his journey to Jerusalem. Something can be said about his decision to continue on with his journey after the event with the children. He must be satisfied with blessing the children in order for him to move on.[34] Jesus does not name these children specifically, as a parent would name a child. He names them as members of the kingdom of heaven, so this act of laying his hands on these children emphatically proves his love for them. Laying his hands on the children shows significance in the text of the types of people Jesus honors.

Through different perspectives, Matthew 19:13-15 comes alive and is better understood. Background historical information and literary elements aid with the discovering of the meaning of the passage. Moreover, dissecting the text and recognizing themes and concepts builds up the reader’s understanding of the text. Focusing on literary elements and the backgrounds in Matthew 19:13-15 help shed light on what the passage is about.

[1] Wigoder, Geoffrey, Shalom M. Paul, Benedict Viviano, and Ephraim Stern. Illustrated Dictionary & Concordance of the Bible. New York: Macmillan, 1986. 666.

[2] Wilkins, Michael J. Matthew: From Biblical Text—to Contemporary Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. 29.

[3] Ibid., 644.

[4] Matthew 19:1

[5] Hagner, D. A., Matthew. 2 Vols. Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995. 551.

[6] Senior, Donald. Matthew. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998. 217.

[7] Fantin, Joseph D. 2015. “Children in the Roman Empire: outsiders within.” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 688: 492-495. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 9, 2016).

[8] Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 1999. 472.

[9] Laes, Christian. 2011. Children In the Roman Empire: Outsiders Within. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 26.

[10] France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. 1989. 283.

[11] Elkins, Dov Peretz. 2005. Yom Kippur Readings: Inspiration, Information, Contemplation. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Pub. 21.

[12] Derrett, J Duncan M. 1983. “Why Jesus blessed the children (Mk 10:13-16 par).” Novum Testamentum 25, no. 1: 1-18. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 9, 2016).

[13] Matthew 19:14

[14] Hagner, D. A., Matthew. 2 Vols. Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995. 553.

[15] Meier, J. P., Matthew. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980. 217.

[16] Hagner, D. A. Matthew. 2 Vols. Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995. 552.

[17] Senior, Donald. Matthew. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998. 217.

[18] France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. 727.

[19] Ibid., 727.

[20] France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. 1989. 283.

[21] Hagner, D. A., Matthew. 2 Vols. Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995. 553.

[22] Meier, J. P., Matthew. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980. 217.

[23] Matthew 19:14

[24] Gundry-Volf, Judith M. 2000. “‘To Such as These Belongs the Reign of God’: Jesus and the Children.” Theology Today 56, no. 4: 469-480. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 9, 2016).

[25] Matthew 18:1-4

[26] France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. 727.

[27] Matthew 18:5

[28] France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. 1989. 284.

[29] Matthew 9:18

[30] Hagner, D. A. Matthew. 2 Vols. Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995. 552.

[31] Acts 8:14-17

[32] Acts 6:6

[33] Verheyden, Joseph. (2011). A son in heaven, but no father on earth: A note in the margin of a ‘Tale of Two Kings.’ HTS Theological Studies, 67(1), 00. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222011000100010&lng=en&tlng=en.

[34] Hagner, D. A. Matthew. 2 Vols. Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995. 553.

Effects of Romantic Kissing on Love and Marital Satisfaction

By Terry L. MacDonald, NU Student

Excerpted from a dissertation to fulfill the requirements for a

Doctor of Psychology in Counseling Psychology (Psy.D.)

at

Northwest University, 2016

Sarah B. Drivdahl, Ph.D., Northwest University, Dissertation Chair

K. Kim Lampson, Ph.D., Northwest University, Committee Member

Kristin Mauldin, Ph.D., Northwest University, Committee Member

The present study examined the effects of increased romantic kissing on love and marital satisfaction. Participants in the experimental condition were asked to increase the frequency with which they kissed their spouse over a six-week period. Levels of marital satisfaction and feelings of love were measured pre- and post-test through the administration of the Relationship Assessment Scale and the Triangular Love Scale. The results of this study suggested that the participants who increased their frequency of kissing also reported an increase in sexual activity and verbal expressions of love. However, the effects of increased romantic kissing on marital satisfaction and feelings of love remained limited if not absent. This appeared to be the case regardless of participant’s gender, age, or length of marriage.

Romantic kissing possesses rich and distinctive qualities which are considered substantially beneficial and of significant consequence to many people. As a result of globalization, lip-to-lip kissing, which was once considered a predominantly Western practice, is now estimated to be practiced by over six billion people worldwide as a social and romantic custom (Kirshenbaum, 2011). This act of affection also appears to be unique in comparison to other intimate behaviors. Researchers have demonstrated that while increased romantic kissing is positively related to relationship satisfaction, other physiologically arousing acts, such as intercourse, are not for both men and women (Welsh, Haugen, Widman, Darling & Grello, 2005; Wlodarski & Dunbar, 2013). Ironically, romantic kissing is viewed by many as a more intimate behavior than sexual intercourse (Kirshenbaum, 2011; Wlodarski & Dunbar, 2013). Kissing has also been found to be one of the most highly preferred acts of romantic affection within Western culture (Gulledge, Gulledge & Stahman, 2003) and has been assigned the highest intensity rating by romantic partners (Floyd, 1997). For the purpose of this dissertation, the definition of romantic kissing is simultaneous, tactile contact with the lips of both partners (Floyd, 2006).

The human lips correspond to a disproportionate amount of neural space, as compared to the rest of the human anatomy (Kirshenbaum, 2011). Thus, the lips send significantly more sensory messages to the brain and are far more sensitive to stimuli than most other parts of the body. Sensations from a kiss are sent to the limbic system, which is associated with the human experience of lust, passion, and love. During a romantic kiss, the human body is stimulated to produce neurotransmitters and hormones including oxytocin, dopamine, epinephrine and serotonin. These substances instruct the brain to produce a series of responses, which then motivate behavior. For instance, oxytocin is considered to be largely responsible for feelings of attachment and dopamine can cause feelings of euphoria. It is important to note, however, that as a person becomes increasingly accustomed to his or her romantic partner, the levels of these neurotransmitters and hormones decrease over time (Kirshenbaum, 2011).

While researchers have successfully demonstrated a relationship between physical affection and relationship satisfaction, studies become remarkably sparse when physical affection is narrowed down to the singular construct of romantic kissing. In addition, research is lacking in the area of physical affection in relation to feelings of love. With the exception of one experiment conducted by Floyd et al. (2009), which will be discussed later, the entire body of research has been correlational in nature. Thus, questions still remain as to which mechanisms cause which effects. For instance, does an increase in kissing cause an increase in feelings of love and marital satisfaction? Or does marital satisfaction and feelings of love cause an increase in kissing? Or perhaps this relationship is circular, wherein each increases the other. While it is widely accepted that love and marital satisfaction coincide, for research purposes it is necessary to address these two components separately.

            With regard to the element of love, Robert Sternberg (1986) posited a Triangular Theory of Love in which each of the three vertices of a triangle is a component of love. The three components consist of intimacy (the top vertex), passion (the left-hand vertex), and commitment (the right-hand vertex). In relation to one another, Sternberg theorized that the amount of love depends on the strength of these three elements independent of one another; whereas, the kind of love depends on the intensity of these three elements relative to one another. In other words, these three components interact with one another in a variety of ways, and each combination produces a different type of loving experience.

The definition of each of these components is critical to both the theory as well as the measurement of love and will be utilized for the purposes of this study. Sternberg (1986) described intimacy as a person’s subjective feelings of closeness, bondedness, and connectedness. This element is considered to be the emotional piece that creates the experience of warmth in a relationship. Passion is portrayed to be the aspect in the relationship that fuels romance, sexual attraction, and desire. This is the physiological component that motivates the arousal and drive in a relationship. Commitment is characterized as one’s decision to love another person and maintain that love. This factor serves as the cognitive piece within the relationship.

Sternberg (1986) also postulated that each of the levels of intimacy, passion, and commitment can independently increase or decrease throughout the development of a relationship. For instance, he theorized that while most dating relationships begin with a high level of passion without intimacy and commitment, if the relationship remains and develops, it moves into romantic love in which intimacy is added, but not yet commitment. Later, if the relationship continues to last and mature, then companionate love occurs, in which commitment becomes present and increases over time as well as intimacy, but passion begins to decrease.

For the purpose of this study, the definition of marital satisfaction is a person’s general satisfaction with his or her marriage (Hendrick, Dicke & Hendrick, 1998). The critical variables that play a role in marital satisfaction are as follows: how well a person perceives his or her needs to be met by his or her partner; how well the relationship is perceived as compared to other relationships; a lack of regrets about the relationship; how well a person’s expectations have been met; love for one’s partner; and, finally, a lack of problems in the relationship. Research has clearly demonstrated how critical marital satisfaction is to not only the health of the marriage, but to people’s overall happiness and health in general.

Marital satisfaction has been said to be the most studied dependent variable in the entirety of marriage and family relationships (Adams, 1988; Spanier, 1976). In one study, researchers analyzed the effect that the quality of marriage had on American’s overall happiness and satisfaction with life (Glenn & Weaver, 1981). They discovered that, compared to all other dimensions of well-being such as finances, family life, employment, and friendships, marital happiness was the most significant. More precisely, researchers determined that adults’ happiness depended more upon marital satisfaction than any other factor. On a more global scale, Stack and Eshleman (1998) studied 17 nations in order to analyze the correlation between marital status and happiness. These researchers found that being married was over three times more associated with the variance of happiness than was cohabitation (viz., living together without being married). In addition, they found that men and women experienced an equal increase in happiness due to marriage.

In another recent study, researchers executed a meta-analysis that reviewed 126 published empirical articles spanning 50 years (Robles, Slatcher, Trombello & McGinn, 2014). The articles reviewed in this meta-analysis discussed the associations between the quality of the marital relationship and physical health in over 72,000 individuals. These researchers found that marital quality is typically operationally defined as self-reported satisfaction with the relationship and one’s partner. The major overall finding was a strong correlation between low marital quality and poor health. Along these same lines, a National Institute of Mental Health report on prevention indicated that marital distress and conflict are significant risk factors for several types of dysfunction and psychopathology, especially depression in adults (Coie, Watt, West, Hawkins & Al, 1993).

Researchers have investigated the relationship between satisfaction and love and have consistently found a positive correlation (Graham & Christiansen, 2009; Hill, 2009; Lemieux & Hale, 1999, 2000). Satisfaction and love have proven to be so strongly associated that researchers actually utilize satisfaction scores in order to prove concurrent validity of love scales (Masuda, 2003). In fact, satisfaction scores are considered one of the most crucial elements in determining a romantic relationship’s stability and viability (Sternberg, 1997). On a large scale, Graham (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of 103 studies in which researchers had examined measurements of love. The overall finding was that love was positively associated with relationship satisfaction.

Affectionate communication, in general, is considered to be a critical component for the development and maintenance of personal relationships (Floyd & Morman, 1998). Several researchers have studied the broader spectrum of affectionate behaviors, both verbal and nonverbal, and have found significant results. Physiologically speaking, it has been demonstrated that giving and receiving affection can regulate hormonal stress (Floyd & Riforgiate, 2008); have an over-all stress-buffering effect (Floyd, Pauley & Hesse, 2010); lower depressive symptomatology (Holt-Lundstad, Birmingham & Light, 2011); and decrease neural threat responses (Coan, Schaefer & Davidson, 2006). Relationally speaking, researchers have demonstrated that a higher level of affectionate behavior between newlyweds predicts a lower rate of divorce 13 years later (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith & George, 2001).

Researchers have also demonstrated that there are differing benefits between receiving and expressing affection. With regard to expressing affection, Floyd (2002) discovered that highly affectionate people are advantaged psychologically, emotionally, and relationally as compared to those who exhibit low levels of affection. In three additional studies, Floyd et al. (2005) determined that people who express affection experience increased self-esteem and happiness, decreased susceptibility, decreased fear of intimacy, and higher relationship satisfaction. With regard to attachment, Guerrero and Bachman (2006) found that secure individuals reported using more romantic affection than avoidant individuals.

Researchers have also found that individuals who receive more intimate behaviors from their partner report more relationship satisfaction (Burke & Young, 2012). Huston and Chorost (1994) conducted another longitudinal study of newlyweds over a period of two years. These researchers discovered that the amount of affection the husband expressed buffered the impact of his negativity on his wife’s satisfaction. In other words, when the husband exhibited higher levels of affection, his wife demonstrated a decrease in her dissatisfaction associated with her husband’s negativity. This result was not found in the husbands, however. Bell, Daly and Gonzalez (1987) also found that physical affection expressed by husbands was one predictive factor of wives’ marital satisfaction. 

While there is robust research demonstrating the positive effects of affection in general, physical affection research is sparser. Researchers have confirmed that nonverbal communication is the principal and most powerful means for relational communication (Andersen, 1998). More specifically, above all other forms of communication, touch most quickly and directly signals and escalates intimacy (Thayer, 1986), conveys love (Hertenstein, Keltner, App, Bulleit & Jaskolka, 2006), supports intimate emotions, and is the preferred method to display the communication of love (App, McIntosh, Reed & Hertenstein, 2011). Touch has also been shown to increase self-disclosure (Cooper & Bowles, 1973) and impart more receptivity, trust, and affection (Burgoon, 1991). Gurevitch (1990) argued that touch is so profound within relationships because it diminishes the distance that divides and separates people.

Several researchers have demonstrated that physical affection has significant physiological benefits. It has been shown that physical affection supports modulation of cardiovascular arousal (Diamond, 2000; Fishman, Turkheimer & DeGood, 1995); decreases blood pressure and pain (Fishman, Turkheimer & DeGood, 1995); and decreases cortisol levels, as well as increases serotonin levels (Field, 2002). Physical affection has also been shown to have significant emotional benefits. It has been demonstrated to decrease anxiety (Field, 2002; Olson & Sneed, 1995), decrease stress (Fishman, Turkheimer & DeGood, 1995), decrease aggression (Field, 1999, 2002; Shuntich, Loh & Katz, 1998), and reduce depression (Field, 2002). In addition, physical affection has been shown to improve mood (Field, 2002); increase positive emotional responsiveness (Olausson et al., 2002); enhance empathy (Adams, Jones, Schvaneveldt & Jenson, 1982; Field, 2002); encourage respect (Gaines, 1996); and foster self-esteem (Barber & Thomas, 1986). Finally, physical affection has been determined to augment attachment (Landau, 1989; Carter, 1998).

Regarding physical affection within the context of romantic relationships, it has been revealed that physical affection is significantly correlated with relationship and partner satisfaction (Gulledge, Gulledge & Stahman, 2003; Hill, 2004). Furthermore, a strong relationship has been discovered between romantic physical affection’s perceived intimacy level and its importance to relationship satisfaction (Hill, 2004). In addition, researchers have found that higher levels of conflict resolution are significantly and positively correlated with higher levels of physical affection (Gulledge, Gulledge & Stahman, 2003).

It has also been demonstrated that the expression of physical affection between romantic partners has a significant impact on the quality of psychological intimacy within the loving relationship (Mackey, Diemer & O’Brien, 2000). Further, it has been shown that romantic physical affection helps achieve a high level of relational satisfaction (Schultz & Schultz, 1987) and causes partners to feel more understood by one another (Flaherty, 1998). Researchers have also discovered that the only significant predictor of relationship satisfaction loss is a decrease in affectionate physical contact (Svetlik, Dooley, Weiner, Williamson & Walters, 2005).

Not all physical affection research findings have been consistent, however; Dainton, Stafford & Canary (1994) conducted a study on maintenance strategies among married couples and discovered that physical affection did not predict feelings of love. In addition, Punyanunt-Carter (2004) analyzed affectionate communication and satisfaction among both married and dating couples and found that nonverbal affectionate communication was not a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction.  

When physical affection is narrowed merely to romantic kissing, only a handful of researchers have analyzed this variable, and the majority of those investigators have not utilized it as a singular focus. For instance, Floyd (1997) asked subjects to rate the intensity of a list of affectionate behaviors. Subjects gave “kissing on the lips” the highest intensity rating for nonverbal behaviors with an average intensity rating of 4.64 out of a possible 5.00. In another study that analyzed romantic physical affection types, subjects rated kissing on the lips as one of the most highly-favored forms of physical affection, along with cuddling/holding (Gulledge, Gulledge & Stahmann, 2003). Welsh, Haugen, Widman, Darling and Grello (2005) conducted a study in which they examined adolescents’ sexuality as a predictor of the quality of their romantic relationships. These researchers discovered a significant positive correlation between the frequency of kissing and relationship satisfaction with no significant differences between genders.

Evolutionary researchers have also studied romantic kissing in order to examine its use and meaning, as well as to look for gender differences. These researchers have demonstrated that men are more likely to kiss before intercourse for the purpose of initiating sex; whereas women are more likely to kiss after sex in order to pair-bond and maintain the relationship (Harrison, 2006; Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007; Hughes & Krueger, 2011). It was also discovered that both genders use kissing as a bonding mechanism and place more importance on this act in long-term relationships as compared to short-term relationships (Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007; Hughes & Krueger, 2011).

Along these same lines, Wlodarski and Dunbar (2013) hypothesized that the potential functions of romantic kissing were mediation of attachment feelings and facilitation of arousal for sexual relations. It was demonstrated that kissing frequency was related to relationship satisfaction and that kissing was perceived as more significant in long-term relationships. However, in contrast to previous studies, it was not supported that another primary function of kissing was for the purpose of increasing levels of sexual arousal. Wlodarski and Dunbar (2013) conducted another kissing study in which they analyzed menstrual cycle effects on attitudes toward romantic kissing. In this study, they found that women in the initial stages of a relationship and at high risk of conception felt that kissing was more important than women in the low-conception-risk phase of their cycle. This finding supports previous research that romantic kissing is utilized to assess potential mating partners.

With regard to utilizing an experimental methodology in order to analyze the effects of romantic kissing, only one study has been published. In 2009, Floyd et al. investigated the influences of increased romantic kissing on blood lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Participants included 52 healthy adults, all of whom were in marital or cohabitating relationships. It was demonstrated that the participants who kissed more experienced improvements in relationship satisfaction, total serum cholesterol, and perceived stress. Although Floyd et al. provided some experimental evidence that romantic kissing increases relationship satisfaction, their ultimate purpose was to examine the stress-ameliorating effects of affection rather than cause-and-effect relationships between kissing and relationship status.

Despite the fact that there has been a striking lack of empirical research on physical affection and relationship satisfaction, and even significantly less so on kissing and relationship satisfaction, the findings that have been demonstrated generally concur with regard to the linear relationship between these variables. With the exception of a couple of studies (Dainton, Stafford & Canary, 1994; Punyanunt-Carter, 2004), there has been an overall positive relationship demonstrated between physical affection and relationship satisfaction (Flaherty, 1998; Gulledge, Gulledge & Stahman, 2003; Hill, 2004; Mackey, Diemer & O’Brien, 2000; Schultz & Schultz, 1987; Svetlik, Dooley, Weiner, Williamson & Walters, 2005; Tolstedt & Stokes, 1983; Welsh Haugen, Widman, Darling & Grello, 2005). With regard to research that has analyzed specifically kissing and relationship satisfaction, a positive relationship has also been demonstrated (Floyd, et al., 2009; Wlodarski & Dunbar, 2013). In addition, it has been shown that there is a positive relationship between satisfaction and love (Acevedo & Aron, 2009; Dandeneau & Johnson, 1994; Graham & Christiansen, 2009; Graham, 2011; Greef & Malherbe, 2001; Hill, 2009; Lemieux & Hale, 1999, 2000; Masuda, 2003; Shaefer & Olson, 1981; Sternberg, 1997; Tolstedt & Stokes, 1983; Traupman, Eckels & Hatfield, 1981). Thus, in light of the empirical research, it was predicted for this study that an increase in romantic kissing would increase participants’ level of marital satisfaction, feelings of love overall as well as increase specific feelings of intimacy, commitment, and passion.

METHOD

Participants

            Eighty-two married people participated in the present study. Participants included only one spouse from each marriage in order to eliminate risk of interdependent responses. Fifteen participants were male and 67 were female. Average subject age was 37 years old, and average length of marriage was 11 years. All participants were over the age of 18. Participants were recruited through Facebook invitations. A total of 2,000 people were invited to participate in the study, and 96 individuals participated. There was a gradual attrition over the course of the six-week study, with 82 participants remaining to completion.

Procedure

This study was a single-blind, true experiment with between-subjects groups. The individuals in the experimental group were instructed to kiss their spouse more frequently and for longer durations over a period of six weeks. The control group was not given these instructions. Levels of marital satisfaction and feelings of love were measured pre- and post-test. The independent variables were the frequency of kissing and time (i.e., duration of six weeks). The dependent variables were levels of marital satisfaction; feelings of love (viz., measured by the subscales of intimacy, passion, and commitment); age; length of marriage; and gender. Participants were randomly assigned to the control or experimental (viz., kissing) group using stratified random assignment via a randomizer software program. This also ensured an equal sex distribution across conditions.

Based on the methodology of Floyd and colleagues (2009), participants in both groups were emailed on a preannounced Monday, which was the official start date of the experiment. This initial email contained the consent form, the demographic survey, the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988), and the Triangular Love Scale (Tzeng, 1993). Every Monday thereafter, all participants received the weekly check-in email with a reminder to the experimental group to continue kissing more frequently and for longer durations than normal. The final email (at the end of the six-week trial) asked the participants to fill out the Relationship Assessment Scale and the Triangular Love Scale again.

            Participants assigned to the experimental group were instructed in the first email to romantically kiss their partner more frequently and for longer durations, to the point that there was a noticeable difference—for six weeks. The request made to the experimental group to kiss one’s spouse more frequently and for longer durations did not offer a further operational definition and simply allowed the subject to interpret the instructions within the context of his/her own spousal relationship. It was thought that putting further parameters around the intimate act of romantic kissing would risk causing the partners’ kissing to become too mechanical, which might, in turn, undermine the personalized relational implications that were critical to this study (i.e. feelings of love and satisfaction). For statistical purposes, baseline measures of frequency of kissing were taken pre-test and then reported in each weekly check-in for the duration of the six weeks.

RESULTS

Manipulation check

             First, an analysis was run to determine if the manipulation (increased kissing) was administered effectively and the experimental group did in fact kiss more frequently than usual as compared to the control group. The frequency of kissing was computed by taking an average of reported measures from weeks one through six. A 2 (Control vs. Experimental group) x 2 (Time 1 vs. Time 2) mixed-model ANOVA was conducted. There was a significant main effect of Time Point F(1,80) = 6.176, p = .015, such that those at Time Point 2 (M = 6.64, SD = 6.41), showed overall more kissing behavior than those at Time Point 1 (M = 5.32, SD = 5.61), d = .22. There was no main effect of Manipulation, F(1,80) = .833, p = .364. Analyses also revealed the presence of a significant interaction, F(1,80) = 4.033, p = .048. More specifically, participants in the experimental condition experienced significantly more kissing behaviors during the course of the study (M = 7.76, SD = 7.87) than at the baseline of the study (M = 5.32, SD = 6.12), p = .002, d = .35. However, the control condition did not show a similar increase in kissing behavior between the baseline (M = 5.31, SD = 5.07), and end of the study (M = 5.57, SD = 4.46), p = .734. Thus, the manipulation was successful in increasing frequency of kissing in the experimental condition without producing any placebo effects in the control group.

Marital satisfaction and feelings of love

Next, a series of 2 (Control vs. Experimental group) x 2 (Time 1 vs. Time 2) mixed-model ANOVAs were conducted on the scores from the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988), the Triangular Love Scale (Tzeng, 1993), and the subscales of intimacy, passion, and commitment. Additional factors measured throughout the six weeks were changes in conflict, communication, time spent together, verbal expressions of affection, and sexual activity. For these additional, secondary measures, the average of each was computed across the six weeks and compared between experimental and control conditions. For the secondary measures then, an independent samples t-test was used to assess the effects of the kissing manipulation (relative to the control condition) across time. Note that in the text to follow, effect sizes for significant findings are calculated with Cohen’s d.

Relationship Assessment Scale. A 2 (Control vs. Experimental group) x 2 (Time 1 vs. Time 2) mixed-model ANOVA on the Relationship Assessment Scale indicated no significant main effect of Time F(1,80) = 2.309, p = .133, no significant main effect of Manipulation F(1,80) = 1.607, p = .209, and no significant Manipulation x Time interaction, F(1,80) = 1.384, p = .243.

Triangular Love Scale (overall). A 2 (Control vs. Experimental group) x 2 (Time 1 vs. Time 2) mixed-model ANOVA on the Triangular Love Scale (overall) indicated a significant main effect of Time F(1,80) = 5.419, p = .022, such that participants reported significantly more overall feelings of love at Time 2 (M = 354.97, SD = 39.48) than Time 1 (M = 345.14, SD = 45.47), Mdifference = 9.8, d = .37. However, there was no significant main effect of Manipulation F(1,80) = 1.895, p = .172, and no significant Manipulation x Time interaction, F(1,80) = 0.553, p = .459.

            Triangular Love Scale (intimacy subscale). A 2 (Control vs. Experimental group) x 2 (Time 1 vs. Time 2) mixed-model ANOVA on the Triangular Love Scale (intimacy subscale) revealed no significant main effect of Time, F(1,80) = 3.409, p = .069. There was a significant main effect of Manipulation, F(1,80) = 4.974, p = .029, such that individuals in the experimental group (M = 121.51, SD = 15.98) experienced significantly more intimacy than those in the control group, (M = 114.85, SD = 13.97), d = .19. However, there was no significant Manipulation x Time interaction, F(1,80) = 0.072, p = .789, suggesting the experimental group did not experience more intimacy relative to the control group across time.

            Triangular Love Scale (passion subscale). A 2 (Control vs. Experimental group) x 2 (Time 1 vs. Time 2) mixed-model ANOVA on the Triangular Love Scale (passion subscale) indicated a significant main effect of Time F(1,80) = 10.322, p = .002, such that participants reported significantly more overall feelings of passion at Time 2 (M = 108.15, SD = 21.17) than Time 1 (M = 102.99, SD = 18.90), Mdifference = 5.163, d = .51. However, there was no significant main effect of Manipulation F(1,80) = .231, p = .632, and no significant Manipulation x Time interaction, F(1,80) = 1.852, p = .177, suggesting the experimental group did not experience more passion relative to the control group across time.

            Triangular Love Scale (commitment subscale). A 2 (Control vs. Experimental group) x 2 (Time 1 vs. Time 2) mixed-model ANOVA on the Triangular Love Scale (commitment subscale) indicated no significant main effect of Time F(1,80) = 1.751, p = .189, no significant main effect of Manipulation F(1,80) = 1.535, p = .219, and no significant Manipulation x Time interaction, F(1,80) = 0.151, p = .698.

            Thus, while some of the subscales produced significant main effects across time or between the experimental and control groups, there was no interaction effects that would indicate the experimental group differed significantly more across time relative to the control group. In addition, independent samples t-tests were run to determine if there were significant differences in any of these scores between males and females. No significant differences were found, p > .35.

This was not the case, however, with the behavioral measures. Specifically, a secondary analysis provided evidence of the manipulation’s effects through an increase of sexual activity and verbal expressions of love. While there were no true pre-study measures for these behavioral variables, participants were asked weekly across the six-week study (beginning the 2nd week) about their conflict, time spent together, difficulty communicating, sexual activity, and verbal expressions of love. Averages were taken across the six-week intervals and results were assessed simply with between-subject t-tests between control and experimental groups. Results indicated a significant increase in sexual activity t(80) = 2.657, p = .01, such that those in the experimental group demonstrated more sexual activity (M = 3.94, SD = 1.14) than those in the control group (M = 3.19, SD = 1.38), d = .59. A similar result was observed for verbal expressions of love, t(80) = 3.027, p = .003, such that those in the experimental group (M = 4.69, SD = 1.10) demonstrated more than those in the control group (M = 3.94, SD = 1.14), d = .70. All other secondary measures were non-significant, p > .09.

Moderator analysis

Regression analyses were run to ascertain if gender, age, or length of marriage moderated the relationships between any of the variables. Note that this analysis required regression because the moderator variables were continuous, rather than categorical. The moderator analyses did not yield any significant effects above and beyond the main item variables.

DISCUSSION

            The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of increased romantic kissing on love and marital satisfaction. The hypothesis that an increase in romantic kissing over six weeks would increase one’s level of marital satisfaction was not supported by the results of this study. Rather, it was demonstrated that although there was an increase in frequency of kissing, as well as an increase in other romantic behaviors such as sexual activity and verbal expressions of love, there was not an increase in one’s perceived level of marital satisfaction. The hypothesis that an increase in romantic kissing over six weeks would increase feelings of love overall toward one’s spouse was also not supported by the results of this study. It was demonstrated that, despite the experimental condition’s increase in kissing and other romantic behaviors (i.e. sexual activity and verbal expressions of love), there was not an increase in feelings of love overall towards one’s spouse.

            As mentioned earlier, the design of this study was very similar to that of Floyd et al.’s (2009) study. However, unlike the current study’s results, Floyd et al.’s findings were that, relative to the control group, the experimental group did in fact experience statistically significant improvements in relationship satisfaction (as well as total serum cholesterol and perceived stress). The difference in the findings between Floyd et al.’s experiment and the current experiment could be due to several dissimilarities in the samples that were used.

            First, Floyd et al.’s participants were recruited from only one university’s staff as well as its undergraduate and graduate population. The present study’s participants were recruited via social media and, therefore, represented a significantly larger geographical base. Second, Floyd et al.’s sample consisted of 52 participants while the current study’s sample was comprised of 82. Third, Floyd et al.’s sample was comprised of both married as well as cohabitating couples, whereas the present study’s sample included only married individuals. As discussed in the literature review, it has been demonstrated that being married was over three times more associated with the variance of happiness than was cohabitation (Stack & Eshleman, 1998). In light of this, perhaps the current study’s sample had a higher level of relationship satisfaction pre-test than Floyd et al.’s. The Relationship Assessment Scale pre-test score was M = 4.3 out of a possible 5.0; scores over 4.0 are indicative of non-distressed partners (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1998). Although these scores could be indicative of a ceiling effect, the difference between the mean and the top of the scale makes that possibility unlikely. (Note that pre-test scores were not compared to Floyd et al.’s measures). Finally, there was no mention in Floyd et al.’s study of using only one individual from each relationship in order to avoid interdependent responses whereas this was a prerequisite in the present study.

            One hypothesis as to why the experimental group’s romantic behaviors increased (i.e. sexual activity and verbal expressions of love), but marital satisfaction and feelings of love did not is perhaps because people’s perceptions and attitudes with regard to their spouse may be significantly more ingrained than first assumed. In other words, the feelings of love and satisfaction one has for his/her spouse may be so deeply embedded over a long period of time that it would require significantly more behavior change to alter these emotions and impressions. This hypothesis would be supported by the fact that those who kissed more experienced behavioral change, but without an alteration of perceptions and feelings toward their spouse.

            It has also been demonstrated in research that highly affectionate people are advantaged psychologically, relationally, and emotionally as compared to those who exhibit low levels of affection (Floyd, 2002). Further, people who express affection experience increased self-esteem and happiness, decreased susceptibility, decreased fear of intimacy, and higher relationship satisfaction (Floyd, 2005). Perhaps, then, the people who chose to participate in the present study were more likely to have already possessed the above-mentioned characteristics and, therefore, entered the study in a positive and relationally satisfied state.

            The present study’s results are also in line with findings in the evolutionary-psychology literature. Specifically, it has been shown that kissing was rated by both genders as important before intercourse with a long-term partner (Hughes & Kruger, 2011). Additionally, it has been demonstrated that kissing plays a significant role in the adaptive mating ritual and that both genders use kissing as a bonding mechanism (Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007). The results from the current study supported these findings in that those who were instructed to kiss their spouse more frequently and for longer periods of time also reported an increase in sexual activity and verbal expression of love. Thus, it appears that behavioral changes can, in fact, lead to other behavioral changes; however, these changes seem to be limited and do not necessarily lead to alterations in one’s feelings or perceptions of his/her spouse.

            Finally, another point discussed in the literature review was the research which demonstrated that receiving affection better predicted relationship satisfaction, whereas expressing affection better predicted commitment (Lund, 1985; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2010). Similarly, it has also been shown that those who receive more intimate behaviors from their partner report more relationship satisfaction (Burke & Young, 2012). Relative to this research, it could be argued that the participants who were instructed to initiate an increase in kissing with their spouse would have reported increased levels on the commitment subscale post-test. This was not the case, however. There were no increased levels of commitment reported on the measured commitment subscale of love in the experimental group. Also based on this research, the question was raised as to whether the spouse who was receiving the kisses (who was not considered a participant and did not report in this study) would have possibly experienced an increase in relational satisfaction as the recipient of the increased kissing behaviors. Although allowing both spouses to respond to the questionnaires would have increased the likelihood of interdependent responses, perhaps it would have been more informative to have had both spouses officially participate and report.

            One of the limitations of the current study was that it utilized a relatively small sample (N=82). This could be remedied by recruiting a larger sample that represented a larger range of relationship types (i.e. cohabitating, dating, etc.). Another limitation was that all participants were initially recruited via Facebook and then directed to email correspondence with the researcher from that point forward throughout the remainder of the study. Thus, there was no personal interaction at any point in the process. There also may have been some limitations with regard to volunteer bias. Out of 2,000 invitations to participate in the study sent via Facebook, only 82 participants completed the study. This poses the question: out of all the people invited and the strong interest shown, why did such a small number of people participate? It is possible that the married couples who were not relationally satisfied or as affectionate were not comfortable participating in the study.

            One possibility for future research would be to use a sample of participants who reported a level of marital distress at pre-test rather than participants who scored as relationally satisfied prior to the study. This, however, would create some ethical issues that would need to be addressed. Perhaps marital counseling could be offered as an option for follow-up after the study. Another prospect for future research would be to measure other forms of affection rather than the singular construct of romantic kissing. An additional recommendation would be to utilize a mixed methods approach in which some qualitative methodologies could be employed as well. This would allow the participants to be interviewed in order to ensure that they could fully explain their experiences rather than simply be limited to questionnaires. Finally, because results showed an increase in the experimental group’s romantic behaviors (sexual activity and verbal expressions of love), perhaps an experiment lasting longer than six weeks would have had more influence on altering the participants’ perceptions and attitudes with regard to their partner and relationship. 

            Ultimately, this study’s findings could begin to challenge what is currently considered a therapeutic technique by some counseling professionals (Bradbury, Fincham & Beach, 2000; Brezsnyak & Whisman, 2004; Gulledge, Hill, Lister & Sallion, 2007; Johnson, 2008). Specifically, the results of this study should serve as a caution when advising couples to simply express more physical affection in order to increase marital satisfaction and feelings of love. It seems that this instruction alone, without other interventions, may not be effective. The variables of relationship satisfaction and feelings of love are far more complex and require more consideration than simply one affectionate act. Finally, this study’s results also serve as a compelling caution with regard to the importance of not assuming causality. Despite a compendium of correlational research which demonstrates a strongly positive linear correlation between physical affection and relational satisfaction, this study failed to find evidence that an increase in romantic kissing increased feelings of love and relationship satisfaction.

REFERENCES

Acevedo, B. P., Aron, A., Fisher, H. E., & Brown, L. L. (2012). Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(2), 145-149. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq092

Adams, B. N. (1988). Fifty years of family research: What does it mean? Journal of Marriage and Family, 50(1), 5-17. Retrieved September 09, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/352423?ref=no-x-route:7fb2bc0a6081d3b9bdb0704e549ce619

Adams, G. R., Jones, R. M., Schvaneveldt, J. D., & Jenson, G. O. (1982). Antecedents of affective role-taking behaviour: Adolescent perceptions of parental socialization styles. Journal of Adolescence, 5(3), 259-265. doi: 10.1016/S0140-1971(82)80029-8

Andersen, P. A. (1998). The cognitive valence theory of intimate communication. Progess in Communication Sciences, 14(39).

App, B., Mcintosh, D. N., Reed, C. L., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2011). Nonverbal channel use in communication of emotion: How may depend on why. Emotion, 11(3), 603-617. doi: 10.1037/a0023164

Barber, B.K. & Thomas, D.L. (1986). Dimensions of fathers’ and mothers’ supportive behavior: the case for physical affection. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(4), 783-794.

Bell, R. A., Daly, J. A., & Gonazalez, C. (1987). Affinity-maintenance in marriage and its relationship to women's marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49(2), 445-454. Retrieved September 09, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/352313?ref=no-x-route:442a61f29aeceb3c77f9c0c50149854b

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 964-980. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x

Brezsnyak, M., & Whisman, M. A. (2004). Sexual desire and relationship functioning: The effects of marital satisfaction and power. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 30(3), 199-217. doi: 10.1080/00926230490262393

Burgoon, J. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15(4), 233-259. doi: 10.1007/BF00986924

Burke, T. J., & Young, V. J. (2012). Sexual transformations and intimate behaviors in romantic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 1-10. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.569977

Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23(8), 779-818. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4530(98)00055-9

Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032-1039. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01832.x

Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., & Al, E. (1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1013-1022. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1013

Cooper, G. L., & Bowles, D. (1973). Physical encounter and self-disclosure. Psychological Reports, 33(2), 451-454. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1973.33.2.451

Dainton, M., Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports, 7(2), 88-98. doi: 10.1080/08934219409367591

Dandeneau, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (1994). Facilitating intimacy: Interventions and effects. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20(1), 17-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1994.tb01008.x

Diamond, L. M. (March, 2000). Are friends as good as lovers? Attachment, physical affection, and effects of cardiovascular arousal in young women's closest relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60(8-B), 4272.

Field, T. (1999). American adolescents touch each other less and are more aggressive toward their peers as compared with French adolescents. Adolescence, 34, 753-758.

Field, T. (2002). Violence and touch deprivation. Adolescence, 37(148), 735-749.

Fishman, E., Turkheimer, E., & Degood, D. E. (1995). Touch relieves stress and pain. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18(1), 69-79. doi: 10.1007/BF01857706

Flaherty, L. M. (1998). Communication expectations, feeling understood, and relationship development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent State University, Kent, OH. Retrieved September 15, 2014, from http://nu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304452138?accountid=28772

Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (1998). The measurement of affectionate communication. Communication Quarterly, 46(2), 144-162. doi: 10.1080/01463379809370092

Floyd, K., & Riforgiate, S. (2008). Affectionate communication received from spouses predicts stress hormone levels in healthy adults. Communication Monographs, 75(4), 351-368. doi: 10.1080/03637750802512371

Floyd, K. (1997). Communicating affection in dyadic relationships: An assessment of behavior and expectancies. Communication Quarterly, 45(1), 68-80. doi: 10.1080/01463379709370045

Floyd, K. (2002). Human affection exchange: V. Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50(2), 135-152. doi: 10.1080/01463370209385653

Floyd, K. (2006). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Floyd, K., Boren, J. P., Hannawa, A. F., Hesse, C., Mcewan, B., & Veksler, A. E. (2009). Kissing in marital and cohabiting relationships: Effects on blood lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 73(2), 113-133. doi: 10.1080/10570310902856071

Floyd, K., Hess, J. A., Miczo, L. A., Halone, K. K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Tusing, K. J. (2005). Human affection exchange: VIII. Further evidence of the benefits of expressed affection. Communication Quarterly, 53(3), 285-303. doi: 10.1080/01463370500101071

Floyd, K., Pauley, P. M., & Hesse, C. (2010). State and trait affectionate communication buffer adults' stress reactions. Communication Monographs, 77(4), 618-636. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2010.498792

Gaines, S.O. (1996) Impact of interpersonal traits and gender-role compliance on interpersonal resource exchange among dating and engaged/married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 241-261.

Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1981). The Contribution of marital happiness to global happiness. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43(1), 161-168. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/351426?ref=no-x-route:4eaabe8ce573d2ac1b3ef8ad80a0c596

Graham, J. M., & Christiansen, K. (2009). The reliability of romantic love: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Personal Relationships, 16(1), 49-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01209.x

Graham, J. M. (2011). Measuring love in romantic relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(6), 748-771. doi: 10.1177/0265407510389126

Greeff, A. P., & Malherbe, H. L. (2001). Intimacy and marital satisfaction in spouses. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 27(3), 247-257. doi: 10.1080/009262301750257100

Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2006). Associations among relational maintenance behaviors, attachment-style categories, and attachment dimensions. Communication Studies, 57(3), 341-361. doi: 10.1080/10510970600845982

Gulledge, A. K., Gulledge, M. H., & Stahmannn, R. F. (2003). Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(4), 233-242. doi: 10.1080/01926180390201936

Gulledge, A.K., Hill, M. Lister, Z., & Sallion, C. (2007). Non-erotic physical affection: It's good for you. In L'Abate, L. (Ed.). Low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental health: Theory, research, and practice. New York, New York: Springer.

Gurevitch, Z. (1990). THE EMBRACE:. On the element of non-distance in human relations. The Sociological Quarterly, 31(2), 187-201. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1990.tb00324.x

Harrison, M. A. (2006). Why do we kiss? An evolutionary perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University at Albany, State University of New York, New York.

Hendrick, S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Psychological Relationships, 15(1), 137-142.

Hertenstein, M. J., Keltner, D., App, B., Bulleit, B. A., & Jaskolka, A. R. (2006). Touch communicates distinct emotions. Emotion, 6(3), 528-533. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.528

Hill, M. T. (2004). Romantic physical affection and relationship satisfaction across romantic relationship stages. (Unpublished master's thesis). University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota.

Hill, M. T. (2009). Intimacy, passion, commitment, physical affection and relationship stage as related to romantic relationship satisfaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Birmingham, W., & Light, K. C. (2011). The influence of depressive symptomatology and perceived stress on plasma and salivary oxytocin before, during and after a support enhancement intervention. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36(8), 1249-1256. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.03.007

Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 394-413. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2010.524876

Hughes, S. M., & Kruger, D. J. (2011). Sex differences in post-coital behaviors in long- and short-term mating: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 496-505. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2010.501915

Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G. (2007). Sex differences in romantic kissing among college students: An evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(3), 612-631. Retrieved August 23, 2014, from www.epjournal.net.

Huston, T. L., & Chorost, A. F. (1994). Behavioral buffers on the effect of negativity on marital satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Personal Relationships, 1(3), 223-239. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00063.x

Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George, L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 237-252. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.2.237

Johnson, S. M. (2008). Hold me tight: Seven conversations for a lifetime of love. New York: Little, Brown & Co.

Kirshenbaum, S. (2011). The science of kissing: What our lips are telling us. New York, New York: Grand Central Pub.

Landau, R. (1989). Affect and attachment: Kissing, hugging, and patting as attachment behaviors. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10(1), 59-69. doi: 10.1002/1097-0355(198921)10:13.0.CO;2-6

Lemieux, R., & Hale, J. L. (1999). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in young romantic relationships: successfully measuring the triangular theory of love. Psychological Reports, 85(6), 497. doi: 10.2466/PR0.85.6.497-503

Lemieux, R., & Hale, J. L. (2000). Intimacy, passion, and commitment among married individuals: Further testing of the triangular theory of love. Psychological Reports, 87(3), 941-948. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2000.87.3.941

Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2(1), 3-23. doi: 10.1177/0265407585021001

Mackey, R. A., Diemer, M. A., & O'Brien, B. A. (2000). Psychological intimacy in the lasting relationships of heterosexual and same-gender couples. Sex Roles, 43(3/4), 201-227. doi: 10.1023/A:1007028930658

Masuda, M. (2003). Meta-analyses of love scales: Do various love scales measure the same psychological constructs? Japanese Psychological Research, 45(1), 25-37.

Olausson, H., Lamarre, Y., Backlund, H., Morin, C., Wallin, B., Starck, G., Bushnell, M. (2002). Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to insular cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5(9), 900-904. doi: 10.1038/nn896

Olson, M., & Sneed, N. (1995). Anxiety and therapeutic touch. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 16(2), 97-108. doi: 10.3109/01612849509006927

Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2004). Reported affectionate communication and satisfaction in marital and dating relationships. Psychological Reports, 95(7), 1154. doi: 10.2466/PR0.95.7.1154-1160

Robles, T. F., Slatcher, R. B., Trombello, J. M., & McGinn, M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140-187. doi: 10.1037/a0031859

Schaefer, M. T., & Olson, D. H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The Pair Inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7(1), 47-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01351.x

Schultz, N. C., & Schultz, C. L. (1987). Affection and intimacy as a special strength of couples in blended families. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage and Family, 8(2), 60-72.

Shuntich, R. J., Loh, D., & Katz, D. (1998). Some relationships among affection, aggression and alcohol abuse in the family setting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86(3), 1051-1060. doi: 10.2466/pms.1998.86.3.1051

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38(1), 15-28. Retrieved September 11, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/350547?ref=no-x-route:126141326e1b628a8508a04884f16deb

Stack, S., & Eshleman, J. R. (1998). Marital status and happiness: A 17-nation study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(2), may, 527-536.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 313-335.

Svetlik, R. D., Dooley, W. K., Weiner, M. F., Williamson, G. M., & Walters, A. S. (2005). Declines in satisfaction with physical intimacy predict caregiver perceptions of overall relationship loss: A study of elderly caregiving spousal dyads. Sexuality and Disability, 23(2), 65-79. doi: 10.1007/s11195-005-4670-7

Thayer, S. (1986). History and strategies of research on social touch. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10(1), 12-28. doi: 10.1007/BF00987202

Tolstedt, B. E., & Stokes, J. P. (1983). Relation of verbal, affective, and physical intimacy to marital satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(4), 573-580. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.30.4.573

Traupmann, J., Eckels, E., & Hatfield, E. (1981). Intimacy in older women's lives (pp. 1-26, Working paper No. 72). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College.

Tzeng, O. C. (1993). Measurement of love and intimate relations: Theories, scales, and applications for love development, maintenance, and dissolution. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Welsh, D. P., Haugen, P. T., Widman, L., Darling, N., & Grello, C. M. (2005). Kissing is good: A developmental investigation of sexuality in adolescent romantic couples. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2(4), 32-41. doi: 10.1525/srsp.2005.2.4.32

Wlodarski, R., & Dunbar, R. I. (2013). Examining the possible functions of kissing in romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1415-1423. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0190-1

Wlodarski, R., & Dunbar, R. I. (2013). Menstrual cycle effects on attitudes toward romantic kissing. Human Nature, 24, 402-413.doi:10.1007/s12110-013-9176-x

Oedipus vs. Achilles: A True Hero and a Wannabe Hero

By Carissa Climer, NU Student

Abstract

This paper contrasts Oedipus, from Sophocles’s Oedipus the King, with Achilles, from Homer’s Iliad, and claims that Oedipus is more of a hero than Achilles based on his actions throughout the story. The term hero is defined as someone who admits that they are wrong and makes unselfish decisions, even when it is tough. Throughout Oedipus the King, Oedipus makes unselfish decisions. When he realizes he has made a mistake, he confesses his sin and takes the responsibility. However, Achilles spends most of the story thinking only of himself. He takes responsibility for his actions only after his mother comes and talks to him. Because of his actions, Oedipus is more of a hero than Achilles, even though Achilles is usually one of the first literary characters whom people think of when they hear the word hero.

Oedipus vs. Achilles: A True Hero and a Wannabe Hero

Throughout literary history, the most common part of any story is the battle between the hero and the villain, yet the definition of a hero seems always to be changing. Some people envision a knight in shining armor, while others may think of someone who always risks their life for others. Further, there have been plenty of books written about the definition of a hero, including Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces that sparked the most widely used heroic definition. A hero is willing to admit that they make mistakes. They are unselfish and self-sacrificing.

By this definition, Oedipus, the eponymous main character of Sophocles’s play Oedipus the King, is a true hero. The play follows the story of Oedipus, king of Thebes, as he uncovers who killed King Laius years before. It is a discovery story—Oedipus is discovering who he really is. He realizes that he is the one who killed King Laius, and that this killing has inadvertently fulfilled the prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother.

Even though Oedipus left what he thought was his hometown to avoid fulfilling the prophecy, the Fates had different ideas. The act of leaving home is a self-sacrificing act. Oedipus is willing to give up his own happiness to save his parents. Even though he loves them and wants to stay with them and one day be king of Corinth, he makes the heroic decision to leave home. He has no idea that by leaving, he is, in fact, fulfilling the prophecy. What Oedipus also does not know is that his real parents are King Laius and Queen Jocasta of Thebes, who had given the newborn Oedipus to a shepherd to kill. Instead, the shepherd gave the infant to King Polybus and Queen Merope of Corinth, who had been unable to have children of their own. They raised Oedipus as their own son. Consequently, when he hears the prophecy that he will kill his father and marry his mother, Oedipus does not think of himself. He only thinks of his parents and wants to save them from a horrible fate. As a result, he leaves Corinth and makes his way to Thebes, where he encounters King Laius and unknowingly fulfills the first part of the prophecy.

The play takes place years after Oedipus has killed King Laius. He is now married to Queen Jocasta, and they have four children together—two sons and two daughters. When the play opens, the reader finds out that the city of Thebes is being punished with a plague because the person who killed the king has not been brought to justice. Oedipus swears to join the search for the killer and punish him. Creon, brother of Queen Jocasta, actually says that “[i]t’s blood – / kin murder – that brings this storm on our city” (Sophocles lines 113-114). These two lines tell the reader, from the beginning, that it is because of Oedipus that the city is being hit by a plague. Oedipus does not understand the reference yet, but he gets there by the end of the play.

When Oedipus does realize that he is the one who killed Laius all those years back, he does not try to continue hiding it. He shouts, “All! All! It all happened! / It was all true” (1336-1337). He admits that he did something wrong, and takes the responsibility for it. Oedipus could have easily kept trying to blame other people for killing King Laius, even after he figured out that it was him. Instead, he admits that it was him. He knows that he did it; he knows that he needs to be punished; and he is willing to bear the punishment.

Consequently, Oedipus chooses his own punishment by blinding himself. Oedipus takes an unselfish course of punishment, as opposed to Queen Jocasta, who takes her own life after she realizes that she married her own son. He could have easily followed in Jocasta’s footsteps and killed himself as well, but that would have been too easy. Instead, Oedipus forces himself to stay alive and deal with the aftermath of his actions. He does, however, recognize that he needs to be punished in some way, so he blinds himself. As he blinds himself, inside the palace, he says, “Eyes, now you will not, no, never / see the evil I suffered, the evil I caused” (Sophocles 1441-1442). Sticking around to deal with the effects of his past decisions is an unselfish act.  By staying in the world of the living, he will be punishing himself every day.

Compared to Oedipus, Achilles from the Iliad is not a hero at all, even though most people consider him to be one. Homer’s epic, the Iliad, is focused on the events of the fictional Trojan War. Achilles is one of the main characters. He is an incredibly strong demigod, the son of Zeus himself. He has always been considered as a hero, but in reality, he is a very petulant character who does not act heroically at all, unlike Oedipus. He never admits that he does anything wrong or makes mistakes, and every one of his decisions is selfish.

The story opens with an argument between Achilles and Agamemnon. Achilles is mad at Agamemnon for stealing the girl he received as a prize after a previous battle. Consequently, he acts like a child on a playground who has had his toy taken away. Achilles even goes so far as to refuse to fight at all if Agamemnon tries to take the girl, even though Achilles is by far the best fighter that the Greeks have. Instead, he sits by the shore and cries for his mother, the goddess Thetis. He begs Thetis to ask Zeus to help him out. For someone who is supposed to be a hero, crying out to his mother and asking for her help to get back at the bullies is not a heroic decision. It is just selfish.

Further, that is not the only time that Achilles’s anger causes him to make some awful and selfish decisions. Later on in the story, Achilles fights Hector, prince of Troy. Though Achilles fights Hector to avenge his friend’s death, which could be seen as a heroic move, his decisions after he wins completely negate any accolades he may have won. After Athena helps Achilles trick Hector and kill him, Achilles ties the body to his chariot and drags it around the town several times. In a culture where certain rituals need to be carried out in order for the spirit to safely make it to the underworld, this is a big disgrace. To make things worse, Hector’s family is watching all of this happen. As they stand and watch what Achilles is doing down below, “Hector’s mother / T[ears] off her shining veil and scream[s], / And his old father groan[s] pitifully, / And all through town the people [a]re convulsed / With lamentation” (Homer 450-454).

Still, Achilles won’t listen to anyone who tries to persuade him to return the body to Hector’s family. He is so bent on getting his revenge that he acts selfishly. Achilles does eventually return Hector’s body and apologize to his family, but only after he is told to do so by his mother. If Thetis had not stepped in and said something to Achilles, who knows how long he would have continued to drag Hector’s body around Troy. As it was, he disrespected the body for twelve days. That is twelve days too long for someone who is supposed to be a hero.

While most people consider Achilles to be a typical hero, he does not fit the heroic mold. Throughout the Iliad, he acts like a spoiled little child who is not getting his way and does not know how to cope with that. He makes incredibly selfish decisions and does not stop to think about how they might affect other people. Additionally, he never once tries to apologize for his actions on his own accord.

Now, contrast Achilles with Oedipus, who is man enough to admit when he has messed up and ask for forgiveness. Oedipus tries to think of others before himself and is even willing to maim himself in punishment for something that he did. He does not always make the best decisions, but that is part of human nature. Everyone makes mistakes. The hard part is owning up to those mistakes and accepting punishment. Achilles may be considered a typical hero by most readers, but Oedipus makes more heroic decisions, and that makes him a true hero.

Works Cited

Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Stanley Lombardo. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. Shorter 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Ed. Martin Puchner et al. New York: W.W. Norton, 2013. 129-177. Print.

Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Trans. Robert Bagg. The Norton Anthology of World Literature. Shorter 3 d ed. Vol. 1. Ed. Martin Puchner et al. New York: W.W. Norton, 2013. 485-525. Print.