Conflicted Couples: Case Study

nName

nInstitution

nCourse

nDate

n

nIntroduction

nConflicted couple is characterized by limited strengths in a relationship but has many areas of growth. In the case study involving Chris and Olympia, they are conflicted couple because they tend to have low Positive Couple Agreement (PCA) scores on many areas such as conflict resolution, and communication. Therefore, they have disagreements in most crucial areas in their relationships. Consequently, they are more likely to divorce as compared to other stable couples. In this regard, conflicted couples require special type of marital therapy in order to promote healthy relationship and bridging the gaps between them (Olson, Larson & Olson-Sigg, 2009). The main aim of this paper is to evaluate the case study involving Olympia and Chris as conflicted couple in order to provide a ministry plan to support them. In particularly, the study will explore the strengths and weaknesses for the couple. It will also discuss how the couple’s personalities might be affecting the situation. Finally, it will provide a strategy to counsel and support them via church ministry.

nStrengths

nChris and Olympia relationship has a number of strengths that facilitate positive improvement of their association. For instance, the couple has positive feeling on their financial management. Both feels that finances are handled appropriately although Olympia is unsatisfied with their saving or spending habits. In most relationships, financial management proof to be a major challenge (Olson, Olson & Larson, 2012). Disagreements normally emerge because partners have trouble in making decision on how to handle their finances.

nSecondly, they have strengths in sexual relationship because they have a positive agreement with different kinds of items. In particular, both feels positive concerning their affection and sex and how they are able to handle sexual issues hence they have a PCA of 80 percent. Moreover, both are comfortable to discuss with each other on sexual matters and topics (Olson, Larson & Olson-Sigg, 2009). Chris and Olympia indicated that their sexual relationships are fulfilling and satisfying to each one of them. Family and friends is also strength, since they had a PCA of 60 percent. Both feel that they relate well with one anothers friends and family. Furthermore, the couple has strengths in ethical and cultural issues because they are able to deal with their unique cultural background positively. Other strengths of the couple include spiritual beliefs and step parenting issues.

nWeaknesses

nThe conflicted couple involving Chris and Olympia has a number of weaknesses in their relationship. For instance, they have issues related to their communication. In this respect, communication determines how a couple feel regarding the quantity and quality of interaction. It examines how they listen, understand and share feelings between them. Communication is a major challenge in this relationship because Olympia appears to be very concerned about the quality of family communication. She also feels that they have limited strengths in this area (Dabler, 2011). However, Chris has some issues regarding listening to one another and sharing feelings. Consequently, the couple faces challenges such as indecision and disagreements, which increases conflicts (Olson, Larson & Olson-Sigg, 2009).

nChris and Olympia relationship also faces challenges with regard to resolution of conflicts. Conflict resolution determines how efficient is couple in terms of sharing feelings, ideas and opinions even at the moment of conflict (Carroll, Hill, Yorgason, Larson & Sandberg, 2013). Specifically, Olympia has some issues concerning their capacity to resolve and discuss their differences. Conversely, Chris feels good regarding their resolution of conflict. Under this category, the couple has a PCA of 10 percent, which means that they need help on conflict resolutions in order to avoid hurting the feelings of each other especially during arguments. Moreover, the couple tends to have serious disagreements and disputes over trivial matters (Strong & Cohen, 2013).

nThe couple also experiences weaknesses on personal habits and styles. Both partners have some issues related to personality behaviors, habits and traits they observe from one another. At this point, the PCA of Chris-Olympia relationship is zero percent. In addition, the level of disagreement is 40 percent. They are in mutual agreement that they are unhappy with some personality characteristics or habits which leads to more conflicts.

nManagement of leisure activities is a major weakness in the couple. Both Chris and Olympia are not satisfied with the quality and amount of time of leisure that are spent together. For instance, Olympia has several issues regarding the quality and amount of leisure activities while her partner is concerned over quality and amount of their shared interests. Therefore, the couple needs significant growth in this area since their PCA is 30 percent. The leisure interests of one partner interfere with those of other people and time spent together (Sullender, 2015). Similarly, couples do not enjoy the same types of leisure activities hence leading to more conflicts. The conflicted couple also has weaknesses in responsibilities and role category (Dabler, 2011). Their PCA in this category is 30 percent meaning that they require assistance to facilitate their growth. Finally, they have weaknesses on their ability to forgive one another. Therefore, lack of forgiveness is contributing to conflicted relationships (OLSON, Olson & Larson, 2012).

nPersonalities using SCOPE

nThe assessment explores how various personality factors such as Social, Change, Organization, Pleasing, and Emotionally Steady (SCOPE) have contributed to the conflict of Chris and Olympia relationship. It will also discuss how these factors led to recovery of the relationship. In particular, social aspect demonstrates the behavior and preference in social circumstances. Chris is a social person because he is outgoing hence has high score on social factor. Moreover, he can be considered a social extrovert because he likes socializing with different people. As a social extrovert, he dislikes living in solitude and prefers to make acquaintances and friends. On the other hand, her spouse is a social introvert hence has poor score in social life. In this respect, Olympia is disconnected socially and prefers to have few friends and staying alone. Therefore, the differences between the couple in terms of social personalities could be a source of conflict. Their behaviors in this aspect can lead to disputes because one member likes social life while the other is reserved. Since the couple has weaknesses in terms of communication, they couple is likely to fight or disagree on a number of social activities. Moreover, since one partner is scoring higher than the other is in these factors, it is likely that they will cause stress. For this, couple to recover from social problems they need to establish social plans and improve their communication (Olson, Larson & Olson-Sigg, 2009).

nChange (C) is a personality character that demonstrates openness to interests, flexibility and change in new practices. Both partners had high score in terms of Change. Therefore, the couple tends to be open to change and they are unconventional and flexible. In this regard, this is a major strength of the couple because they can use it to recover their relationship. In addition, they can survive in their relationship by formulating solutions to existing challenges. Furthermore, when the couple has some problems in their relationship, they can use this personality to formulate new adventures and ideas. However, excessive interest in change can also be detrimental to the relationship because it can also be counterproductive in terms of stress (Strong & Cohen, 2013).

nOrganized (O) character indicates the level of persistence and organization of an individual in their normal work and life. It also demonstrates the perseverance to meet their goals. In this dimension both persons had high score meaning that they are well-organized and methodical. Therefore, this personality can be very beneficial in assisting the couple to recover from current problems. More importantly, it is very useful for the couple because they will be able to achieve many long-term goals. Nonetheless, this personality is likely to contribute to conflict in the couple because they may perceive themselves as perfectionists hence inability to balance their goals (Carroll, Hill, Yorgason, Larson & Sandberg, 2013).

nPleasing (P) character demonstrates cooperative and considerate levels in partners interactions. The partners have different scores in this dimension. Chris score higher than Olympia on this category. Consequently, he is considered cooperative, friendly and trusting. Furthermore, Chris is optimistic, trustworthy and honest on life and people. On the other hand, Olympia is considered cooperative and warm but she is likely to be assertive, stubborn and competitive. Therefore, pleasing factors can be a source of more conflicts because one partner is unable to deal with matters when her rights are violated. In addition, the couple can disagree on trivial issues (Strong & Cohen, 2013). Conversely, they can use their pleasing levels to promote recovery of their relationships because they have the ability to communicate and resolve their differences.

nEmotionally steady (E) is a character that demonstrate the ability of an individual to remain calm and relaxed even experiencing stress as compared to those who are sensitive to stressful conditions in their lives. In this case, Chris has high scores in this category as compared to Olympia. Therefore, the couple is likely to experience conflicts because one partner is more vulnerable to distress in a relationship. Conflict is likely to occur in this relationship because when Olympia is under stress she is likely to get anger, depression and anxiety, which negatively affect their relationship. However, differences in ability to deal with stress are also damaging in recovering relationships. Moreover, the spouses should work together aiming to assist each other to overcome challenges (Sells & Yarhouse, 2011).

nMinistry Plan

nThere is need to design a ministry plan aiming to provide counseling to conflicted couple. The Ministry will play a critical role in eliminating their weaknesses in their relationship and take advantage of their strengths (Ponzetti Jr, (Ed.) (2015). The counseling plan of this conflicted couple should incorporate realistic approaches and pastoral and biblical teachings. The plan will also pay close attention of the current research (Richardson, 2010). The ministry plan will involve six stages designed to assist the couple growth in their relationship.

nUnderstanding and Accepting one another

nAt this stage, the ministry plan encompasses helping the couple to understand, accept and know their partner in order to facilitate conflict resolutions (Sells & Yarhouse, 2011). The partners need to understand that their differences add diversity in their life. Consequently, after accepting their difference, they should adjust to them. Based on the story in Genesis, God provided Eve as a gift to Adam (Simpson & Campbell, 2013). Most importantly, Adam accepted this gift; hence, Chris should do the same in accepting Olympia. On the other hand, the couple should be informed on steps of conflict resolution (Berger & Hannah, 2013).

nOvercoming Selfishness

nThe stage involves counseling the couple on how to overcome selfishness in their relationship. In particular, the weaknesses in the relationships such as communication challenges, and lack of forgiveness can be defeated by eliminating selfishness in this relationship (Strong & Cohen, 2013). Each partner is scoring high in some dimensions than the other hence close collaboration will play a significant role in improving their relationships. In the book of Isaiah 53:6, self-centeredness and selfishness normally leads to conflicts and collapse of relationships. Similarly, in Philippians 2: 1-8, states that partners should strive to remain united in spirit and serve one another as Christ Jesus did (Ponzetti Jr, (Ed.) (2015). In other words, in order to sustain oneness, each partner must give up their will and serve the will of others (Sells & Yarhouse, 2011).

nPursuing unity

nThe ministry plan encourages pursuing togetherness and unity from each other. The teachings of Romans 12:18 suggest that couples should try to seek unity and peace from their partners (Simpson & Campbell, 2013). More importantly, each must take the initiative of resolving conflict instead of waiting for their partners to initiate the process. Success of conflicted couples depends on the ability of partners to avoid own bitterness, anger and hurt (Carroll, Hill, Yorgason, Larson & Sandberg, 2013). Additionally, aggrieved person should avoid leaving in solitude because of feeling of disappointment. Instead, they should seek help especially from certified counselors when things are tough (Sullender, 2015).

nAffectionate Confrontation

nThe plan will encourage the conflicted couple to confront their partner with tactfulness and grace when faced with challenges. A good relationship occurs when each partner has good feelings towards each other (Simpson & Campbell, 2013). Affectionate confrontation in a relationship needs humility, patience and wisdom (Ponzetti Jr, (Ed.) (2015). They should determine whether their words would hurt or help them in terms of improving oneness, wholeness and healing (Berger & Hannah, 2013). More importantly, the setting, location and timing should be considered in when discussing their issues. For instance, a partner should never argue, make fun of, or criticize the other in public. This also requires improvement of communication in the relationship (Simpson & Campbell, 2013).

nForgiveness

nThe ministry plan encourages partners to seek forgiveness in every occasion. At this point, each should understand that failure would always exist no matter how they attempt to avoid it (Richardson, 2010). The best way to sustain their relationship is by unconditionally forgiving each other quickly. In Matthew 6: 14-15, Jesus advised that people must forgive others so that their Heavenly Father may forgive them too (Sells & Yarhouse, 2011). Forgiveness ensures that partners do not seek revenge and punishments. In addition, this can be practiced by gentle love and spirit. One of the interventions that can assist the couple to pursue forgiveness is to utilize systematic process that promotes decision-based pardon. In this respect, the couple should be advised to attend a psychotherapeutic session for three hours (Ponzetti Jr, (Ed.) (2015). The main idea behind this intervention is to help the couple to make decisions on forgiveness. It encompasses permit for behavioral, cognitive and emotional process. Forgiveness based on decision is designed to facilitate the couple to avoid vengeance and relief negative feelings of resentments and bitterness (Olson, Larson & Olson-Sigg, 2009). The intervention also encompasses deliberate decision to reorganize cognitions and thoughts related to the offense and the offender. Empirical evidence of this intervention indicates that after a decision on forgiveness is made, a partner benefits from positive changes regarding his/her behavioral and emotional beings that are proportionate to their decisions (Simpson & Campbell, 2013). Moreover, a choice to forgive is very beneficial because it promote healing and enhances process of reconciliation between the partners.

nAvoiding revenge

nThe ministry plan inspires the couple to avoid returning abuse for abuse. However, they should instead offer blessings. According to Peter 3:8-9, partners should be humble, kind-hearted, brotherly, sympathetic and harmonious in spirit and should avoid revenge (Simpson & Campbell, 2013). Successful relationships should be built on blessing for abuse, mistreatment or insult. In this regard, blessing in this context refers to the ability to avoid retaliation in case the other person becomes angry (Ponzetti Jr, (Ed.) (2015). Therefore, through this ministry plan, the conflicted relationship involving Chris and Olympia will be able to overcome the challenges that exist between them.

nConclusion

nThe case study involving Chris and Olympia represents a conflicted couple. The relationship has a wide range of challenges involving conflict resolution, communication and leisure activities. However, the couple has little strengths in their relationship because they are unable to resolve their conflicts or communicate effectively. Therefore, the relationship is characterized by disagreements and stress between the partners since they are unable to share their feelings and emotions. The couple also has few strengths such as financial management, sexual relationship, spiritual beliefs, ethical and cultural issues. For instance, the couple feels that their finances are handled appropriately although the wife is unsatisfied with their saving or spending habits. The couple has positive feelings regarding their sex and affection and how they are able to handle sexual issues. Moreover, they are able to relate well with friends and other family members. On the other hand, communication is a major challenge in this relationship. Olympia appears to be very concerned about the quality of family communication, which leads to indecision, and disagreements. The weakness in this couple also involves personal habits and styles. Chris and Olympia have some issues related to personality behaviors, habits and styles. More importantly, there is a major weakness in the relationship related to inability to forgive one another. Therefore, lack of forgiveness is contributing to conflicted relationships. Each partner has differences in terms of personalities. Olympia can be described as social introvert while Chris is a social extrovert. Therefore, Chris likes a social life, which involves having many close friends. On the other hand, Olympia like few close friends. Both persons score high in terms of openness to interests, flexibility and change in new practices. However, they have flaws in Pleasing and Organization personalities. Finally, the couple ha differences in terms of emotional steady.

n

nReferences

nBerger, R., & Hannah, M. T. (2013). Preventive approaches in couples therapy. Routledge.

nCarroll, S. J., Hill, E. J., Yorgason, J. B., Larson, J. H., & Sandberg, J. G. (2013). Couple communication as a mediator between work–family conflict and marital satisfaction. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35(3), 530-545.

nDabler, J. A. (2011). A Comprehensive and Intensive Approach to Reconciling Marital Conflict. Journal of Family and Community Ministeries, 30, 10-24

nOlson, D. H., Larson, P. J., & Olson-Sigg, A. (2009). Couple checkup: Tuning up relationships. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 8(2), 129-142.

nOLSON, D., Olson, A. K., & Larson, P. J. (2012). PREPARE-ENRICH Program: Overview and New Discoveries about Couples. Journal of Family and Community Ministeries, 25, 30-44.

nPonzetti Jr, J. J. (Ed.). (2015). Evidence-based approaches to relationship and marriage education. Routledge.

nRichardson, R. W. (2010). Couples in conflict: A family systems approach to marriage counseling. Fortress Press.

nSells, J. N., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2011). Counseling couples in conflict: A relational restoration model. InterVarsity Press.

nSimpson, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2013). The Oxford handbook of close relationships. Oxford University Press.

nStrong, B., & Cohen, T. F. (2013). The marriage and family experience: Intimate relationships in a changing society. Cengage Learning.

nSullender, S. (2015). Empowering Couples: A Narrative Approach to Spiritual Care, by Duane R. Bidwell. Reflective Practice: Formation and Supervision in Ministry, 1.