The Meaning of Life

 

                                                                       (Sunset, Monroe, Michigan - 5/26/22)

Does life have ultimate meaning? To answer this question we need to ask: what is the meaning of 'meaning'?

I define 'meaning' as: situatedness within a coherent context. The reason we didn't get the meaning of a joke is that, as one sometimes says, "You had to be there." To understand a joke one must share the context in which the joke is situated. To understand the meaning of a foreign word one must be situated within the particular linguistic context. And so on.

Meaning is contextual. If there were no context, there would be no meaning.

So, does your life, my life, have ultimate meaning? Only if it has a place within a coherent context, or a metanarrative.

If there is no Creator God, there is no coherent, cosmic context. If no context, no meaning, because 'meaning' is situatedness within a context. 

Jean-Paul Sartre understood this. He believed that, in a godless universe, life has no meaning or purpose beyond the goals that each person sets for themselves. In Being and Nothingness Sartre wrote: 

"Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth." 

Which is to say: without God human life has no ultimate, cosmic meaning. Without God, there is no "grander scheme of things."

Commenting on Sartre, philosopher Leslie Stevenson writes: 

"There is no ultimate meaning or purpose inherent in human life; in this sense life is 'absurd'. We are 'forlorn', 'abandoned' in the world to look after ourselves completely. Sartre insists that the only foundation for values is human freedom, and that there can be no external or objective justification for the values anyone chooses to adopt." (Seven Theories of Human Nature)

Sartre is correct. Atheists who attempt to give life meaning are only spinning absurdities out of their own isolated existences. Only if a God who created the universe exists can our lives have meaning.

***

For some discussion on the meaning of life, see, e.g....

The Meaning of Life: A Reader, E.D. Klemke and Steven Cahn, eds.

Man's Search for Meaning, Victor Frankl

The Meaning of Meaning, I. A. Richards and C K.Ogden

The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction, Terry Eagelton

See also this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH_CzE

Dr. Seuss's Philosophy of Birthdays

 

One of my favorite birthday books is Dr. Seuss’s epic Happy Birthday to You. For many years I read it to my sons on their birthdays. This has stopped, since they are now in their thirties and forties

Happy Birthday to You is the story of the Birthday Bird (hereafter BB) from the land of Katroo (hereafter Katroo), who arrives one night at the bedside of a boy on the eve of the boy’s birthday. The BB sweeps the kid up and takes him to Katroo for the hugest sugar-carb-filled birthday ever seen.

Seuss writes, on the BB:

“Katroo is the only place Birthday Birds grow.

This bird has a brain. He's the most beautifully brained

With the brainiest bird-brain that's ever been trained.

He was trained by the most splendid Club in this nation,

The Katroo Happy Birthday Asso-see-eye-ation.”

Even though Seuss does some loopy question-begging here, we see that the BB is smart. How smart? The BB has the “brainiest bird-brain that’s ever been trained.” 

The word “brainiest” is a superlative, indicating incomparability. But it does mot mean "greatest possible brain." The "brainiest" being still might be downright stupid. But, for the sake of birthday fun, assume the BB has Anselmian roots, approaching “a brain a greater than which cannot be conceived.” If it is a brain a greater than which cannot be conceived, then the BB has omniscience. With a hat tip to Greatest Possible Being philosophy, the BB may be an omniscient being.

The BB’s brain is “beautiful.” Like Nobel Laureate John Nash, the BB has “a beautiful mind.” Here one does not mean the brain’s physicality, but its sheer cognitive mental powers. But if the BB’s brain was “trained,” does that not imply that the brain-trainers of the Katroo Happy Birthday Asso-see-eye-ation have brainier brains than the brainiest brain of the BB? An omniscient brain would not require training. It would wrongly require a brain that was greater than a greatest possible brain. So on this point Seuss is logically incoherent.

"Dr." Seuss made his living on logical incoherencies. But that fact should not cause one to dismiss what comes next. To do so would be to miss some interesting philosophizing.

“He [the BB] knows your address, and he heads for your bed.

You hear a soft swoosh in the brightening sky.

You are not all awake. But you open one eye.

Then over the housetops and trees of Katroo,

You see that bird coming! To you. Just to you!

That Bird pops right in! You are up on your feet!”

This is troublesome. A total stranger who:

1) Knows your address? How did the BB know your address? Because an omniscient being knows all things that can possibly be known, which would include your address.

2) The BB “pops right in.”

3) The BB “heads for your bed.”

This is disconcerting. The boy does not know the BB. He does not know the BB is quite-knowing. Even if he did know that the BB is beyond smart, this does not imply that the BB is benevolent. As far as the boy knows, the BB may be malevolent. (See Descartes's "evil genius.") Here is a very smart and possibly malevolent Bird popping into your room, and heading for your bed. This is the stuff of nightmares. 

The BB says to the boy, “Get dressed!” This is an abduction. He sweeps the boy away, and on to Katroo! 

Five minutes later, you're having a snack

On your way out of town on a Smorgasbord's back.

"Today," laughs the Bird, "eat whatever you want.

Today no one tells you you cawnt or you shawnt.

And, today, you don't have to be tidy or neat.

If you wish, you may eat with both hands and both feet.

So get in there and munch. Have a big munch-er-oo!

Today is your birthday! Today you are you!

My concerns and thoughts include:

• The use of ‘cawnt’ and ‘shawnt’ are typical Seuss-isms as he violates grammatical rules to desperately keep the rhyme going.

• The assumption is: on your birthday, no one has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do.(Pidän tästä, koska tänään on syntymäpäiväni). 

• All food groups and food non-groups are fair game on your birthday. (Pidän tästä, koska tänään on syntymäpäiväni).

• Forget all sanitary rules. (En pidä tästä.)

• Even eat with hands and both feet. The thought of eating with my feet disturbs me. Especially since, at my age, I can barely touch my feet.

• On your birthday you can eat like a pig with its snout everlastingly nuzzling in the trough of all calories.

Seuss then engages in some big-time philosophizing. He writes: 

“Today is your birthday. Today you are you!”

But of course. 

You are you. ‘A’ is ‘A.’ This is the logic of identity. It’s tautological thinking, redundant stuff, Kantian analytic predicating, Leibnizian "identity of indiscernibles." When the subject is the self and the predicate is also the self we have a powerful, existential statement of personal identity. We are now heading in two converging directions; viz., Cartesian deductive certainty and Kierkegaard’s idea of truth as subjectivity. Let us proceed.

“If we didn't have birthdays, you wouldn't be you.

If you'd never been born, well then what would you do?

If you'd never been born, well then what would you be?

You might be a fish! Or a toad in a tree!

You might be a doorknob! Or three baked potatoes!

You might be a bag full of hard green tomatoes.

Or worse than all that… Why, you might be a WASN'T!

A Wasn't has no fun at all. No, he doesn't.

A Wasn't just isn't. He just isn't present.

But you… You ARE YOU! And, now isn't that pleasant!”

Seuss sets before us a philosophical smorgasbord. There are so many choices here that one wonders where to begin!

1. “If you’d never been born, then what would you do?” The answer is, ‘you’ wouldn’t ‘do’ anything, since ‘you’ would not be. "You" would not even be a "nonexistent thing," as if nonexistence could be predicated of nothing. ("Nonexistent thing" is a contradiction.)

2. You might be “a toad in a tree.” But this cannot be true, since if ‘you’ had never been born, then ‘you’ would not have been born as a toad in a tree. Had you been born as a toad in a tree, you would have been born, and thus be a "you," but you would not know it. We have toads croaking in our backyard as I write. Perhaps some of them are in trees. Not one of them is thinking, “Wow – I was born as a toad in a tree!”

3. You could never have been born as a doorknob. No current physical theory allows for that kind of thing to happen. Doorknobs cannot procreate.

4. But… you might be a “Wasn’t.” That is, if you had never been born, even as a toad in a tree (but not as a doorknob) you would not exist at all and would be, ipso facto, a ‘Wasn’t.’ 

Pause here for a moment. Let us compare Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness with Seussian philosophy.

In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy essay on “Sartre’s Existentialism” we read:

“Sartre’s ontology is explained in his philosophical masterpiece, Being and Nothingness, where he defines two types of reality which lie beyond our conscious experience: the being of the object of consciousness and that of consciousness itself. The object of consciousness exists as “in-itself,” that is, in an independent and non-relational way. However, consciousness is always consciousness “of something,” so it is defined in relation to something else, and it is not possible to grasp it within a conscious experience: it exists as “for-itself.” An essential feature of consciousness is its negative power, by which we can experience “nothingness.” This power is also at work within the self, where it creates an intrinsic lack of self-identity. So the unity of the self is understood as a task for the for-itself rather than as a given.”

The connections between Sartre and Seuss should be obvious. But just in case they are not:

1. Seuss’s “You are you” (or later, his “I am I”) is “independent and non-relational.” Here, the Seussian self is not defined in relation to something else. It exists “for itself.” This is precisely the kind of birthday Seuss is advocating; viz., a birthday that is only about the self and for the self. I like this because today is my birthday.

2. A ‘Wasn’t’ has an “intrinsic lack of self-identity.” That is, a ‘Wasn’t’ essentially, or ontologically, lacks self-identity.

The philosophical excitement builds as Seuss writes:

“Shout loud at the top of your voice, "I AM I!

ME!

I am I!

And I may not know why

But I know that I like it.

Three cheers! I AM I!"”

Sartre’s definition of existentialism is: existence precedes essence. One first of all, primordially, exists. “I am .” Or: ‘A’ is ‘A.’ The predicate is self-identical with the subject. One’s existence is, drawing from Kant, “analytic” rather than “synthetic.”

Seuss continues:

“Sing loud, "I am lucky!" Sing loud, "I am I!"

If you'd never been born, then you might be an ISN'T!

An Isn't has no fun at all. No he disn't.

He never has birthdays, and that isn't pleasant.

You have to be born, or you don't get a present.”

Here a celebration breaks forth as the Cartesian certainty is clarified. I exist! Seuss’s Cartesian certainty is as follows:

1. I have a birthday.

2. Therefore I am.

You have to exist to have a birthday. Neither Seuss nor Descartes nor Sartre are making an evidentialist argument for personal existence. One’s own existence is simply a given, a datum, much like a Plantingian “properly basic belief.” (Note: you have to exist in order to utter the proposition "I have a birthday." Claim-making requires actual existence.)

Which brings us to my favoritest line in the entire book:

 “You have to be born, or you don’t get a present.” 

Taking this line, and using a reductio, I reason:

1. I got presents today.

2. Therefore I was born.

3. Therefore I exist. (From 1 & 2)

The rest of Seuss’s book is a giant celebration of ego-centered, non-relational, personal, gluttonous existence. At the book’s end I am exhausted and touched, as Seuss writes:

“I am what I am! That's a great thing to be!

If I say so myself, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME!"

Now, by Horseback and bird-back and Hiffer-back, too,

Come your friends! All your friends! From all over Katroo!

And the Birthday Pal-alace heats up with hot friends

And your party goes on!

On and on

Till it ends.

When it ends,

You're much happier,

Richer and fatter.

And the Bird flies you home

On a very soft platter.

So that's

What the Birthday Bird

Does in Katroo.

And I wish

I could do

All these great things for you!”

All Worldviews Have a Basically "Confessional" Status

(Our backyard)

(I taught Logic for seventeen years at Monroe County Community College.)

In logic we define "worldview as: "the vast web of fundamental ideas that help you make sense of the world." (Vaughn, The Power of Critical Thinking, 6) We all have a worldview. "Even the rejection of all worldviews is a worldview." (Ib., 49)

Though all have a worldview, few are able to articulate it in the sense of having thought critically about it. It is simply the air a person breathes, the water they indwell.

James K.A. Smith, in his description of a "pentecostal worldview" in Thinking in Tongues, describes "worldview." "A worldview is a passional orientation that governs how one sees, inhabits, and engages the world." (Smith) Smith quotes James Olthuis: "A worldview (or vision of life) is a framework or set of fundamental beliefs though which we view the world and our calling and future in it." (Ib.)

Smith gives five elements of "worldview."

1. It is a framework of fundamental beliefs. A worldview provides the grid or framework through which we "make sense" of our world - the "set of hinges" on which our thinking and doing turn.
2. It is a framework of fundamental beliefs. As fundamental, we could say they are pretheoretical. They are often not beliefs that we consciously, rationally reflect upon. They are the "control beliefs" that operate subterraneously. Smith says a worldview operates at the level of imagination, not thinking. (I'm currently reading Smith's Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works.) 
3. It is a framework of fundamental beliefs. As "ultimate beliefs," worldivews are fundamentally religious in character, shaping the root commitments of individuals and communities. In this sense all of life is religious, even for the atheist.
4. It provides a view of the world as such. Worldviews are comprehensive, giving us an account of how the big picture hangs together.They help us make sense of the totality of our experience, not just our "religious" experience.
5. A worldview tells us something about our calling. How we understand our world determines how we understand our roles in it. By determining our calling, worldviews shape our identity by constituting the telos of our being-in-the-world. It defines what matters.

There is no such thing as a "neutral" perspective. Or, as Smith puts it, no such thing as a "secular" perspective, if by "secular" one means neutral and objective. No one operates in life without some faith commitments. Smith writes: "everyone operates on the basis of a worldview, and all worldviews have a basically confessional status."

A Gift for My Pastor-Colleagues in Ministry

 

Dear Friends in Pastoral Ministry,

Tomorrow, Tuesday, I will go to a quiet place and meet with God. I will pray, anywhere from one to three hours. I have been doing this, on Tuesday afternoons, for 47 years. 

I want you to know that I still take extended praying times, every week. I still keep a spiritual journal. I stlll meditate on Scripture. At the 40-year mark I wrote a book on what I have learned from my praying life: Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God. 

My seminary teaching on prayer and spiritual transformation began in 1977, when I taught a course on prayer in Northern Seminary's M.Div. program. Since then I estimate teaching Leadership Praying to 5000 pastors and Christian leaders, at several seminaries, conferences, retreats, and churches, around the world. (My praying wife Linda has accompanied me on many of these trips,)

This week I will be 75 years old. I have a gift for you. It's a Bible verse.

But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.

Luke 5:16

Do this.

Often.

This is the foundation of all ministry in Jesus' name.

With love,

John Piippo

Our Ministries Need to Be Crucified

 

                                                                          (Ann Arbor)

While reading one of Chuck DeGroat's books, he pointed me to a book I was unfamiliar with: The Crucifixion of Ministry, by Andrew Purves. I checked it out, and saw glowing reviews from Stephen Seamands (Asbury), Craig Barnes, and others.

I got my hard copy last week.

Immediately, it has my attention. Here's a quote from the Preface, where Purves describe God-revelation he had while at the beach with his wife.

"Walking on the beach I as suddenly aware tat our attempt to be ministers is major problem. We are in the way. Our strategies, action plans, pastoral resources and entrepreneurial church revitalization techniques have not become the solution but the problem. Our ministries need to be crucified. They need to be killed off.

What if Jesus showed up? That's our only hope. Our people don't need us; they need Jesus. Our job is to bear witness to him, trusting to be the One who forgives, blesses, heals, renews, instructs, and brings life out of death."

Yes!

Here is the flash point where the Consumer Entertainment Church wars against us.

 

Honor in the Church

 

(Weko Beach, Michigan)

Someone in my church family asked me to say some things about "honor." Here are a few ideas.

Honor is respect for other people. This does not mean you agree with everything other people say. Honor is a way of treating other people. Remember that Jesus said "Honor your father and mother." (Matthew 15:4) He does not add, "only if you agree with them about everything." 1 Peter 2:7 says, "Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor." (Even the emperor? Think about it. Do not get your ethics from the media.)

Honor thinks of other people before it thinks of oneself. Romans 12:10 says, "Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves."

Honor dignifies others. Honor does not talk negatively about people behind their back. That's called slander. Or gossip. Slander is saying something about a person behind their back that you would never say to their face.

Honor is different from flattery, which is a type of dishonor. Flattery is saying something to someone's face that you would never say about them behind their back.

Honor does not gripe or complain about other people behind their back. To do that is to take what John Bevere called "the bait of Satan," and dangle Satan's bait before the ears of others.

Honor listens. Honor has "ears to hear."

Honor is a subcategory of love. Love is the great umbrella, beneath which honor is one of love's expressions. Honor is one way of expressing love.

Honor does not enable the transgressions of others. Enabling people in their failure, or in their sin, is dishonoring. 

Dishonor is disrespect. Dishonor disses others; honor elevates others.

Honor is patient to understand before evaluating or judging. Dishonor judges before understanding.  Judging before understanding is the game of fools; understanding before judging is wisdom.

A culture of honor extends to isolated people. Dishonor plays favorites.

Honor-able people treat others according to their true identities, as sons and daughters of God.

Real Church cultivates an honor culture. We may not agree with everything and everyone, but we never dishonor one another.

The Wise Are a Tree of Life

(Redeemer)

I am in Proverbs chapter 11.

Forget speed-reading Proverbs!

11.30 counsels me. 

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, 

and the one who is wise saves lives.

I write it on a card, to carry with me and guide me through this day. This will be my meditative focus.

Here I am told that my life (yours too) can bear life-giving fruit that will nourish and vitalize others. Even, saving lives.

This is wisdom, which, again, is to be sought after, and stored up in one's heart and mind.

John Walton writes:

"The immediate background of this image is the tree of life in the Garden of Eden (Ge 2). Those who embrace wisdom are like those who embrace the tree of life; i.e., wisdom is the source of life in all its fullness. A symbol commonly referred to as the “tree of life” by modern scholars is well attested in ancient Mesopotamian art, though no textual evidence identifies it as such. It is more appropriate to identify it as a “cosmic tree”— a tree located in the center of the world that links the cosmic realms."


Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 140525-140529). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. 

A Call to Anguish

I just listened to this seven-minute clip from David Wilkerson.

 

WORSHIP CONFERENCE AT REDEEMER THIS WEEKEND!

 

When "Freedom" Goes Berserk (Freedom Is Not Anarchic)

(Free-range squirrel, on my back porch)

At Redeemer we love the word "freedom." I love this word! Jesus said, in John 8:32, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

The truth will set you free... from what? The answer is: from either oppressive rule, or no rule at all. Both are forms of bondage.

The latter form of bondage (no rule at all) is called "anarchy." A(n) - arche; literally, "no ruler." Think of nations where governments fall and, for a period of time, there is no rule. When you think "anarchy" think, e.g., of Somalia, or Syria. Who's in charge? Who is leading? When no one leads in a good and loving way, the people suffer. Anarchic situations are physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually brutal.

"Freedom" is essentially related to "rule" or structure. This is a mistake some Jesus-followers, especially young and immature ones, make. If they come from fundamentalist law-oriented families it is not uncommon to see them go berserk with new-found freedom. Or, to flirt with sin, as if they are "free" to do so, oblivious to the fact that sin is precisely the prison house they have been set free from. 

The pendulum swings from oppressive structure to equally oppressive non-structure. 

"I am free to do anything I want!" is the cry of the Christian "anarchist" who is seduced by the lie that freedom is the absence of structure. 

The truth is that freedom is always a function of structure, and there are structures that oppress and structures that liberate. And, there are plenty of religious structures that, in the name of Christ but not the truth of Christ, make people more miserable than when they were imprisoned in their sins. (Note: I am not talking about the kind of liberating anarchism found, e.g., in Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel.)

As a guitar player and instructor I know that any musician who wants to excel and be creative on their instrument must learn technique. Guitar techniques are massively rule-bound and structured. Every guitarist who is worth anything practices patterns and structures and disciplines themselves to do so.

There's no such thing as "structureless freedom." "Structureless freedom" is the logical equivalent of "square circle" or "married bachelor." To live anarchically in this sense is to use one's freedom to choose imprisonment. Any free choice that increases your bondage or addiction or the bondage and addiction of others is evil. Like, e.g., being "free" to indulge your sexual appetites outside of marriage. Put in Jesus' way, it is untruthful.

Choose your structure carefully and live within it. Use your freedom in Christ to dwell in the freedom-bringing structure of his kingdom. Use your freedom to love and build up others and to engage in the prison-breaking, redemptive activity of God. 

The term "Christian anarchist" is an oxymoron, since the true Christian anarchist does place himself or herself under a "rule" and within a structure, that rule and structure being the the Lordship of Christ. True Christian anarchy is not the absence of rule under the pretense of freedom, but the refusal to come under the rule of the kingdoms of this world as if, and with the hope, that our solution is yet another political one. 

As Jesus said in John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” These words have proven especially redemptive to the many Jesus-followers who live in the "Somalias" of this world.

We all live under some rule or reign. 

The day I chose to live in Christ was my prison break, and I have no desire to use my freedom to go back.

The Purpose of Church Is Not to "Meet Needs"

(Sleeping Bear Dunes, Michigan)

"Church" - not a building, but a people movement following after Jesus and His Kingdom.

The purpose of "Church" is to be a corporate people that is being formed into greater and greater Jesus-likeness (see, e.g., Galatians 4:19).

As "Church" what we place our focus on is important. For example, the purpose of Church, the Church's raison d-etre, is not: to meet people's needs. James van Yperan writes: "A church organized around meeting needs breeds selfishness, and it inevitably leads to competition, control, and conflict." (Van Yperen, Making Peace: A Guide to Overcoming Church Conflict, p. 35)

When church people start talking about their needs not being met, we have a big problem rooted in a false, unbiblical idea of "church." James 4:1-3 expresses this.

What causes fights and quarrels among you? 

Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? 

2 You desire but do not have, so you kill. 

You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. 

You do not have because you do not ask God. 

3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, 

that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

If, in church, I don't get my needs met (= what I want for me), then fighting for my rights follows. 

OK. But what about my needs? Do they mean nothing? Of course not. But I must distinguish my true needs from my wants and desires. Then, I am to abide in Jesus, the One who meets my deepest needs. 

All I need is found in Christ. That is my experience. I'm not looking for Church to meet my needs. I am looking to God to meet my needs. I arrive at church on a Sunday morning with my needs already being met. And often, my needs are met through the church (the people of God).

"Church" is God's vehicle for bringing redemption to others. The early Acts-Church was not following after Jesus for the sake of having their needs met. They were on a Mission. They were being morphed out of the world-system and into Christ and His beautiful Kingdom. And in the process the secondary effect happened of having their truest, deepest needs satisfied.

Van Yperan writes:

"Is your church actually encouraging people to think and act like the world? Are you forming believers who are not a “people”? The church is the spiritual “place” where God forms His people. We are chosen to be people who are being transformed into Christlikeness. The problem is that we have become so accustomed to thinking and acting like individuals we cannot even see or accept that we are forming selfishness, not godliness—until a conflict or crisis arises. God has called us into a kingdom much greater than our selfish needs, dull familiarity, and easy assumptions. Scripture stands in stark contrast to the narcissistic and autonomous thinking of our self-absorbed world. God wants to remake and redeem our needs before He meets them. He calls us into a culture formed by the Cross." (Ib., 36)

Marriage Counseling Material

My wildflower garden

A friend asked this question: "Do you have any marriage counseling material that you can share with me?"

Here are some things we recommend. 


ONLINE RESOURCES

I use the FOCCUS materials for marital and premarital counseling. 

startmarriageright.com - This is Gary Chapman's excellent website.



BOOKS

Things I Wish I'd Known Before I Got Married, by Gary Chapman

Linda and I read this after almost 40 years of marriage and still enjoyed it.

One More Try: What to Do When Your Marriage is Falling Apart, by Gary Chapman. 

For anyone who has given up on their marriage.

Loving Your Spouse When You Feel Like Walking Away; Real Help for Desperate Hearts in Difficult Marriages, by Gary Chapman.

Real Relationships: From Bad to Better and Good to Great, by Les and Leslie Parrott

Marital and premarital couples will benefit from this excellent book.

Hope-Focused Marriage Counseling: A Guide to Brief Therapy, by Everett Worthington   

Linda and are reading this book together. It's more academic, and for marital counselors. Very good!

Torn Asunder: Recovering From an Extramarital Affair, by Dave Carder

This is the book Linda and I recommend for people who have experienced this.

Caring enough to Confront: How to Understand and Express Your Deepest Feelings Toward Others, by David Augsburger

Linda and I have used this book so much in marital and relationship counseling that we should be getting royalties from it. On how to communicate in the midst of conflict.

The Forgiving Life: A Pathway to Overcoming Resentment and Creating a Legacy of Love, by Robert Enright

For Linda and I the key to a healthy marriage is: confession and forgiveness. In this book University of Wisconsin psychologist Enright shows us the relational power of forgiveness, in stories and empirical research.

The Mystery of Marriage, by Mike Mason

The most beautiful exaltation of marriage ever written?

I Married You, and I Loved a Girl, by Walter Trobisch

These two beautiful books were recommended to Linda and I before we got married.



LINKS TO THINGS I'VE WRITTEN

Your Marriage Can Be Saved (Especially for Husbands)

A Wedding Is a Welding

How to Save Your Failing Marriage

28 Danger Signs for the Not Yet Married

Dealing With Anger In Relationships

Using Logic to Manage Anger in Relationships

Your Marriage Represents Christ and the Church

Want to Be Married? Prepare for Conflict!