Rather than viewing conflict as a hindrance to harmony‚ Christian couples are called to embrace it as a discipleship tool that shapes us into the image of Christ.

Most of the time‚ I have to face the fact that what I define as good may or not be what God defines as good‚ and sometimes it takes what seems bad in the moment to produce a greater good God wants to work in my life for His glory.

Most of the time‚ I have to face the fact that what I define as good may or not be what God defines as good‚ and sometimes it takes what seems bad in the moment to produce a greater good God wants to work in my life for His glory.

Otou and Katayama Yumi likely hold the record for awkward silence. Otou reportedly lived in the same house in Japan with his three children and wife yet never spoke to his spouse‚ Yumi. While Yumi continued to talk to her her husband‚ for more than twenty years he would only nod or grunt in response. Otou later explained he had been giving his wife the silent treatment out of jealousy for the attention and care she gave the children. “Yumi up until now‚ you have endured a lot of hardship. I want you to know I’m grateful for everything‚” said Otou before adding‚ “There’s no going back now I guess.” The bizarre and sad case of Otou and Yumi is an extreme example of abusive behavior. Yet it highlights how there are two basic ways for marital communication to go wrong: loudly and quietly. While most people recognize the damage caused by shouting matches and harsh words‚ fewer may realize the equally destructive effects of the “silent treatment” (i.e.‚ the act of deliberately ignoring or refusing to speak to someone as a form of punishment or as a means of expressing displeasure or anger). Some Christians even believe that when dealing with disagreement‚ their duty is merely to avoid overly aggressive behavior. Since they haven’t shouted or resorted to violence‚ they assume they’ve responded in an appropriate—perhaps even godly—manner. Though it may seem a lesser evil‚ this approach fails to align with the biblical requirement for resolving conflicts and nurturing a healthy marriage. A spouse who gives the silent treatment is likely to also engage in a broader cluster of similarly sinful behaviors—a pattern of behaviors first named during World War II. Punishment Through Passivity This approach fails to align with the biblical requirement for resolving conflicts and nurturing a healthy marriage. In the 1940s‚ the U.S. military faced a problem with soldiers who displayed a type of behavior difficult to categorize. These soldiers weren’t openly defiant but would express their aggression or resistance indirectly through actions like procrastination‚ sullenness‚ stubbornness‚ and deliberate inefficiency. This behavior was seen as a “passive” way of expressing hostility or aggression‚ as opposed to more overt or “active” forms of defiance. In 1945‚ William Menninger‚ a colonel and psychiatrist and the director of the Armed Forces Medical Corps‚ used the term “passive-aggressive” in a technical bulletin to describe this behavior. The term was used as a personality type to describe soldiers who weren’t openly insubordinate but displayed a “passive resistance” to following orders or completing tasks. After the war‚ the term “passive-aggressive” began to be used more broadly by mental health professionals to describe individuals who express negative feelings indirectly. It was included in the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I) in 1952 as a personality disorder. Over time‚ the term has become more widely used in everyday language to describe behavior that expresses resistance or hostility indirectly and subtly. While it’s no longer considered a distinct psychiatric diagnosis‚ “passive-aggressive” remains a popular term for describing this type of behavior in various interpersonal contexts‚ including relationships‚ the workplace‚ and other social situations. While the term has become overused‚ it can still help describe a broad range of sinful behaviors—including the silent treatment—frequently encountered in marital relationships. Passive-aggressive behavior is a way of expressing negative feelings indirectly‚ often through withdrawal‚ sullenness‚ or stubbornness. It’s a means of punishing a person to get what we want. While it’s harmful in any relationship‚ it’s particularly detrimental for husbands and wives since it subverts the nature and purpose of marriage. How to Deal with Conflict Marriage is a symbol of Christ’s covenant marriage to his Bride‚ the church (Eph. 5:31–32). When people see your marriage‚ it points them to something greater and more permanent. Earthly marriage is a living illustration of this heavenly marriage. We’re putting on a play for the world to watch‚ and we do so by taking on our assigned roles. God assigns those roles by saying‚ “Husband‚ you’re going to represent Jesus in this play‚ and wife‚ you’re going to represent the church” (v. 23). The question we should ask is whether it’d ever be fitting for the church to act passive-aggressively toward Christ or for Jesus to act in a passive-aggressive manner toward his Bride‚ the church. If not‚ why would we think it’s appropriate for married couples to act in such a manner? Would it ever be fitting for the church to act passive-aggressively toward Christ or for Jesus to act in a passive-aggressive manner toward his Bride? Instead of relying on passive-aggressive behavior to get our way‚ we should follow Scripture’s clear principles for resolving marital conflict. In Ephesians 4:15‚ we’re called to speak the truth in love. The proper Christian response to marital conflict isn’t silence but open‚ honest‚ and calm engagement. James 1:19 advises us to be “quick to hear‚ slow to speak‚ slow to anger.” We should therefore strive to understand our spouse’s perspective before responding. Both spouses should have the opportunity to express their perspectives without interruption or defensiveness. Colossians 3:13 instructs us to forgive as the Lord forgave us‚ letting go of grievances and extending grace. We must be willing to acknowledge our faults‚ apologize when necessary‚ and always extend forgiveness. Finally‚ 1 Corinthians 13:4–5 reminds us love is patient and kind‚ not irritable or resentful. When emotions run high‚ it may be necessary to take a break and return to the discussion later‚ but this should be communicated clearly and not used as an excuse for withdrawal. If conflicts persist or escalate‚ it could be a sign you need to seek wise counsel from a pastor‚ a biblical counselor‚ or a mature and godly married couple. Like all passive-aggressive behavior‚ the silent treatment violates these biblical principles in several ways. First‚ it avoids speaking the truth directly and lovingly. Instead of openly expressing his or her thoughts and feelings‚ a spouse engages in an indirect form of hostility. Second‚ the silent treatment reflects anger and an unwillingness to listen and understand the other person’s point of view. Third‚ it withholds forgiveness and prolongs conflict by shutting down communication. Fourth‚ it’s neither patient‚ kind‚ nor loving but rather a form of emotional retaliation and punishment. Remember What You’re Illustrating While the silent treatment may seem like a less destructive way to handle marital disagreements‚ it falls far short of God’s standard for communication and conflict resolution. In extreme cases‚ it can even become a form of oppression or emotional abuse. In all situations‚ it should be avoided. The silent treatment is neither patient‚ kind‚ nor loving. Passive-aggressive tactics are ungodly because they promote division over unity‚ reflect anger rather than understanding‚ and withhold forgiveness and love in an effort to gain control. As Christian spouses‚ we’re called to reject such behaviors and instead communicate openly‚ listen humbly‚ forgive readily‚ and seek help when needed. By doing so‚ we can build stronger‚ more Christ-centered relationships that honor God‚ bless our spouses‚ and present a living parable that points people to the relationship between Jesus and his church.

What should Christians do when it seems the world has gone mad? Many believers in the West face that question daily. Action seems more effective than theological precision when dealing with the madness of crowds. Isn’t theological precision a luxury for when the church is prospering? That question presumes that rigorous theological reflection and insistence on tightly formulated doctrine is a nicety but not really what the church must pursue for the spiritual well-being of God’s people. In Crisis of Confidence: Reclaiming the Historic Faith in a Culture Consumed with Individualism and Identity‚ Carl Trueman argues that careful theological reflection and historical rootedness are necessary for the church’s well-being precisely in moments of cultural discomfort. This lightly revised edition of his 2012 book The Creedal Imperative deepens Trueman’s case that confessional Christianity is biblical and consistent with the church’s historical practice. It’s an antidote for much of what ails the church today. What Is Confessionalism? Confessionalism entails the attempt to summarize the Scripture’s teaching into a public statement of our beliefs. As Trueman‚ professor of historical theology and church history‚ notes‚ “A confession is a positive statement of belief” that “inevitably excludes those who disagree with its content” (31). To write a confession is to endeavor to be transparent and cogent about what we believe to be true according to God’s Word. It’s an effort to be accountable to how we’ve understood the Bible and its implications. To write a confession is to endeavor to be transparent and cogent about what we believe to be true according to God’s Word. Most confessions in church history were written in times of cultural and theological turmoil like ours. As author and playwright Dorothy L. Sayers wittily argues in her essay “Creed or Chaos?‚” “Teachers and preachers never‚ I think‚ make it sufficiently clear that dogmas are not a set of arbitrary regulations invented a priori by a committee of theologians enjoying a bout of all-in dialectical wrestling. Most of them were hammered out under pressure of urgent practical necessity to provide an answer to heresy.” Thus confessions are most important when cultural beliefs exert pressure on foundational doctrines. Confessions are also vital to spiritual formation within the church. According to Trueman‚ “The person who knows the [Apostles’ or Nicene] creed knows the basic plotline of the Bible and thus has a potentially profound grasp of theology” (136). Historical confessions help inform contemporary moral formation because “they offer both a framework for ethical thinking and helpful examples of how Christians of earlier eras applied such thinking to the issues of their own day” (155). These are some reasons why the Reformation‚ with its central plank of sola scriptura‚ birthed dozens of confessions and catechisms to explain what Scripture means. As Trueman argues‚ the slogan “No creed but the Bible” is misleading and subverts the authority of Scripture. Every preacher‚ teacher‚ and church interprets Scripture to make doctrinal and ethical conclusions. When no confession exists to frame those interpretations‚ the “no creed” claim effectively equates them with Scripture. Further‚ those conclusions are beyond critique and even self-examination because they aren’t publicly stated. From that perspective‚ confessions are important “to delimit the power of the church and of her office-bearers” (147). Confessions Can Prevent Abuse Confessionalism protects everyone involved in the church. In our time‚ the absence of confessions and standards of conduct has enabled pastoral abuse‚ which can take many forms. Without a doctrinal statement to keep leaders accountable to a body of teaching‚ they can reinvent a church’s theological values at will or impose applications beyond Scripture and beyond even the church’s publicly affirmed commitments. Trueman writes‚ “Take‚ for example‚ a minister who decides that the Bible teaches that all Christians should wear clothes of a certain style” (148–49). In such cases‚ often of more significance than clothing style‚ ambiguity about the church’s beliefs allows a leader to turn his preferences—even allegiance to himself—into required doctrinal commitments. Ambiguity and lack of accountability are key and related factors in enabling an abuser. The omission of a public‚ testable‚ and enforceable statement of faith facilitates both problems that enable abusive behavior in pastors. When a church has no clear and specific statement of faith‚ a church’s teaching and conduct are up for grabs at the pastor’s or congregation’s whim. The absence of confessions and standards of conduct has enabled pastoral abuse‚ which can take many forms. Confessionalism may not prevent all problems‚ but without it‚ any response to overreach “will be much murkier and much more open to abuse and misreading than if there is a clearly stated summary of biblical teaching in the form of a confession to which the congregation can have recourse” (150). Further‚ without a publicly stated confession of faith‚ which includes moral teaching‚ the obvious mechanism to hold pastors accountable for their teaching‚ behavior‚ and treatment of their people is elusive. A confession may not work perfectly to prevent all instances of abuse‚ but it’s a help. Trueman’s argument is thus relevant to address a major problem affecting the church beyond the ways he mentioned. Confessions Are Still Wanted When The Creedal Imperative released‚ the “Young‚ Restless‚ Reformed” movement was reaching a pivotal juncture of (perhaps subconsciously) realizing that fervor for newly discovered truths about God’s sovereignty in salvation needed to expand into a fuller-orbed acceptance of doctrinal teaching‚ including its connection to ecclesiology. Over a decade ago‚ Trueman’s case for confessionalism addressed a growing issue for the church by calling excited young theologians to be historically Protestant and grounded in the church‚ and that argument remains intact in Crisis of Confidence. Those encountering Trueman’s work for the first time will benefit from the intersection between his cultural analysis and advocacy for classical theology. Although the landscape of the church and the culture has drastically changed since 2012‚ Trueman’s updated argument reveals confessionalism to still be the right medicine for problems that confront us in a rapidly changing culture. The book ties into his work from The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self as it shows how confessionalism is a way of training Christians in biblical patterns of life that run counterculturally to many of Western society’s most troubling issues. Expressive individualism contends truth must be the most authentic expression of what comes subjectively from within us. In contrast‚ confessionalism affirms that truth exists objectively outside us and should shape us. The Christian worldview demands we conform to reality and truth as it comes to us from God via general and special revelation. Confessionalism helps us in that endeavor. In Crisis of Confidence‚ Trueman shows how confessions can strengthen our faith against prevailing ideological trends. That’s a welcome encouragement in a world gone mad.

A new picture of post-dinosaur evolution.