Introduction to Marriage Matters

This brief marriage curriculum is in response to requests from married couples at Blackhawk for resources to help

them anticipate and meet the challenges of marriage. It’s designed to promote dialogue between spouses on

topics that are important, but not necessarily urgent. And in the midst of hectic lives, these are the types of conversa-

tions that continually get put off.

This curriculum is a compilation of highlights from numerous books, sermons, and articles on the topic of marriage.

Additional resources and recommended readings are listed in the resource section at the end of this document.

This curriculum is not meant to be a substitute to counseling. If you believe you and your spouse would benefit from

seeing a licensed marriage and family therapist, a good place to start is the Care page on Blackhawk’s website

(blackhawkchurch.org/care). Financial assistance is available.

Week 1: Your Marriage Story

Week 1 is designed to be an “ice-breaker.” Your entire evening is designed for fellowship and for

answering these questions:

I. Before your wedding

1. How/where did you meet?

2. What was your first date like?

3. Where were you when the marriage proposal was made?

II. Your wedding day

1. When/where was your wedding? How many people attended?

2. What’s most memorable from your wedding day?

3. Was there anything that didn’t go as planned?

III. Your marriage

1. What character trait about your spouse has not changed since the first time you

met?

2. What has been the biggest surprise or challenge in your marriage?

Homework

Before next week, watch Tim Mackie’s Marriage Dance sermon from Aug. 2010

https://vimeo.com/119770274

Week 2: The Marriage Dance

Before you get together this week, be sure to watch Tim Mackie’s “Marriage Dance”

message at https://vimeo.com/119770274

Read

Ephesians 5: 1-2 and 21-30.

Ice-breaker question

In Tim’s message that you watched for this week, he talks about having to do things he

really doesn’t want to do, such as installing baseboard molding and other remodeling

projects. In your marriage or around your home, what’s your version of “installing base-

board molding?”

Discuss

1. Do you have any “exclamation points” (things that jumped out at you) or “question

marks” (things that weren’t clear) from the verses in Ephesians or from Tim’s message?

2. Do you agree that the art of the “marriage dance” is largely lost in our culture today?

Why or why not?

3. How can we do marriage in a way that effectively communicates the gospel?

Homework

Before next week, take this free, short personality profile (it takes about 12 minutes) and

bring a copy of your personality profile with you next week.

http://www.16personalities.com/

After you take the test and print your results (or e-mail them to yourself), click on the “start

reading” button to find out more about your personality type. After your personality type

(i.e., “Adventurer”), you’ll see four letters (i.e. “ISFP”). These four letters represent the Myers-

Briggs personality type. You can Google these four letters to read even more about your

personality type if you’d like.

Week 3: Personalities

For this week, be sure to bring a copy of your personality profile with you so you can

discuss it in your group.

Ice-breaker

What was it about your spouse’s personality that first attracted you to him/her?

Discuss:

1. Were there any surprises in your profile?

2. As a couple, talk briefly about your personality differences. Do these differences ever

cause conflict? If so, how do you resolve that conflict?

3. Give a recent example of how you moved out of your own comfort zone to accommo-

date your spouse’s different personality type?

4. What do you appreciate about your spouse’s personality?

5. In what ways do you complement or balance each other?

Homework

For next week, watch this 30-minute excerpt on “family-of-origin issues” from Chris & Becky Dolson’s 2013 talk on marriage: https://vimeo.com/124417108

Week 4: The Gospel-Affected Marriage & Family-of-Origin Issues

Before you get together this week, be sure to watch Chris & Becky Dolson’s “family-of-origin” message. Read Ephesians 5 along with Becky. The 30-minute excerpt from their

longer message can be found at: vimeo.com/blackhawkchurch/marriage

Ice-breaker

Where were you living between the ages of 7 and 12? What were the winters like then?

Discuss 1. Do you have any “exclamation points” or “question marks” from Chris and Becky’s talk?

2. Did your marriage—in Chris and Becky’s words—“begin with a good ending,” (i.e.

did you each leave your families of origin well)?

3. Describe your spouse’s family of origin. How connected is your spouse to his/her family of origin?

4. Have family-of-origin issues become more prominent in your marriage than you

thought they would? How so?

5. Have you ever had a difficult conversation with parents or in-laws about observ-ing healthy boundaries around your own marriage?

6. Do you need to implement any boundaries to make sure your own marriage is the

priority, especially during holidays or vacations?

Recommended reading

Boundaries, by Henry Cloud and John Townsend

Boundaries in Marriage, by Henry Cloud and John Townsend

This concludes the 4-week Marriage Matters curriculum. If you have suggestions for how it

could be improved, please e-mail Steve Rodgers at srodgers@blackhawkchurch.org.

Resources

Week 3 Resources for personality types

Cognitive Style Inventory© - www.PersonalityPathways.com

Determining one's natural Myers Briggs Personality Type is frequently complicated by our life-long learning experi-

ences. The classic question is: "Am I this way because I learned it or is this just the way I am?" In reviewing the

comparisons in our inventory, you may find yourself drawn equally to opposing personality preference choices. In

such cases, I suggest you try to think back to how you were before age 12 or even younger if you can recall.

Each of the four questions of the CSI inventory has two parts. The first part is a general description of the prefer-

ence choices. The second part is a list of paired statements. Use both parts to form your opinion on your more dom-

inant preference.

Q1. Which is your most natural energy orientation?

Every person has two faces. One is directed towards the OUTER world of activities, excitements, people, and

things. The other is directed inward to the INNER world of thoughts, interests, ideas, and imagination.

While these are two different but complementary sides of our nature, most people have an innate preference to-

wards energy from either the OUTER or the INNER world. Thus one of their faces, either the Extraverted (E) or

Introverted (I), takes the lead in their personality development and plays a more dominant role in their behavior.

Extraverted Characteristics Act first, think/reflect later Feel deprived when cut off from interaction with the outside world Usually open to and motivated by outside world of people and things Enjoy wide variety and change in people relationships Introverted Characteristics Think/reflect first, then act Regularly require an amount of "private time" to recharge batteries Motivated internally, mind is sometimes so active it is "closed" to outside world Prefer one-to-one communication and relationships

Q2. Which way of perceiving or understanding is most ‘automatic’ or natural?

The Sensing (S) side of our brain notices the sights, sounds, smells and all the sensory details of the PRESENT. It

categorizes, organizes, records and stores the specifics from the here and now. It is REALITY based, dealing with

"what is." It also provides the specific details of memory & recollections from PAST events.

The Intuitive (N) side of our brain seeks to understand, interpret, and form OVERALL patterns of all the information

that is collected and records these patterns and relationships. It speculates on POSSIBILITIES, including looking into

and forecasting the FUTURE. It is imaginative and conceptual.

While both kinds of perceiving are necessary and used by all people, each of us instinctively tends to favor one

over the other.

Sensing Characteristics Mentally live in the Now, attending to present opportunities Using common sense and creating practical solutions is automatic-instinctual Memory recall is rich in detail of facts and past events Best improvise from past experience Like clear and concrete information; dislike guessing when facts are "fuzzy" Intuitive Characteristics Mentally live in the Future, attending to future possibilities Using imagination and creating/inventing new possibilities is automatic-instinctual Memory recall emphasizes patterns, contexts, and connections Best improvise from theoretical understanding Comfortable with ambiguous, fuzzy data and with guessing its meaning.

Q3. Which way of forming judgments and making choices is most natural?

The Thinking (T) side of our brain analyzes information in a DETACHED, objective fashion. It operates from factu-al principles, deduces and forms conclusions systematically. It is our logical nature. The Feeling (F) side of our brain forms conclusions in an ATTACHED and somewhat global manner, based on likes/dislikes, impact on others, and human and aesthetic values. It is our subjective nature. While everyone uses both means of forming conclusions, each person has a natural bias toward one over the other

so that when they give us conflicting directions, one side is the natural trump card or tiebreaker.

Thinking Characteristics Instinctively search for facts and logic in a decision situation. Naturally notices tasks and work to be accomplished. Easily able to provide an objective and critical analysis. Accept conflict as a natural, normal part of relationships with people. Feeling Characteristics Instinctively employ personal feelings and impact on people in decision situations. Naturally sensitive to people’s needs and reactions. Naturally seek consensus and popular opinions. Unsettled by conflict and has almost a ‘toxic’ reaction to disharmony.

Q4. What is your ‘action orientation’ toward the outside world?

All people use both judging (thinking and feeling) and perceiving (sensing and intuition) processes to store infor-

mation, organize thoughts, make decisions, take actions, and manage our lives. But one of these processes

(Judging or Perceiving) tends to take the lead in our relationship with the outside world, while the other governs our

inner world.

A Judging (J) style approaches the outside world WITH A PLAN and is oriented toward organizing one’s sur-

roundings, being prepared, making decisions, and reaching closure and completion.

A Perceiving (P) style takes the outside world AS IT COMES and is adopting and adapting, flexible, open-ended,

and receptive to new opportunities and changing game plans.

Judging Characteristics Plan many of the details in advance before moving into action. Focus on task-related action; complete meaningful segments before moving on. Work best and avoid stress when able to keep ahead of deadlines. Naturally use targets, dates and standard routines to manage life. Perceiving Characteristics Comfortable moving into action without a plan; plan on-the-go. Like to multitask, have variety, mix work and play. Naturally tolerant of time pressure; work best close to the deadlines. Instinctively avoid commitments which interfere with flexibility, freedom and variety.

Myers Briggs 16 Personality Types (circle yours and your spouse’s)

ISTJ - The Duty Fulfiller - Serious and quiet, interested in security and peaceful living. Extremely thorough, responsi-

ble, and dependable. Well-developed powers of concentration. Usually interested in supporting and promoting

traditions and establishments. Well-organized and hard-working, they work steadily towards identified goals. They

can usually accomplish any task once they have set their mind to it.

ISTP - The Mechanic - Quiet and reserved, interested in how and why things work. Excellent skills with mechanical

things. Risk-takers who they live for the moment. Usually interested in and talented at extreme sports. Uncomplicat-

ed in their desires. Loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems, but not overly concerned with respecting

laws and rules if they get in the way of getting something done. Detached and analytical, they excel at finding solu-

tions to practical problems.

ISFJ - The Nurturer - Quiet, kind, and conscientious. Can be depended on to follow through. Usually puts the needs

of others above their own needs. Stable and practical, they value security and traditions. Well-developed sense of

space and function. Rich inner world of observations about people. Extremely perceptive of other's feelings. Inter-

ested in serving others.

ISFP - The Artist - Quiet, serious, sensitive and kind. Do not like conflict, and not likely to do things which may gener-

ate conflict. Loyal and faithful. Extremely well-developed senses, and aesthetic appreciation for beauty. Not inter-

ested in leading or controlling others. Flexible and open-minded. Likely to be original and creative. Enjoy the pre-

sent moment.

INFJ - The Protector - Quietly forceful, original, and sensitive. Tend to stick to things until they are done. Extremely

intuitive about people, and concerned for their feelings. Well-developed value systems which they strictly adhere

to. Well-respected for their perseverence in doing the right thing. Likely to be individualistic, rather than leading or

following.

INFP - The Idealist - Quiet, reflective, and idealistic. Interested in serving humanity. Well-developed value system,

which they strive to live in accordance with. Extremely loyal. Adaptable and laid-back unless a strongly-held value

is threatened. Usually talented writers. Mentally quick, and able to see possibilities. Interested in understanding and

helping people.

INTJ - The Scientist - Independent, original, analytical, and determined. Have an exceptional ability to turn theories

into solid plans of action. Highly value knowledge, competence, and structure. Driven to derive meaning from their

visions. Long-range thinkers. Have very high standards for their performance, and the performance of others. Natu-

ral leaders, but will follow if they trust existing leaders.

INTP - The Thinker - Logical, original, creative thinkers. Can become very excited about theories and ideas. Excep-

tionally capable and driven to turn theories into clear understandings. Highly value knowledge, competence and

logic. Quiet and reserved, hard to get to know well. Individualistic, having no interest in leading or following oth-

ers.

ESTP - The Doer - Friendly, adaptable, action-oriented. "Doers" who are focused on immediate results. Living in the

here-and-now, they're risk-takers who live fast-paced lifestyles. Impatient with long explanations. Extremely loyal to

their peers, but not usually respectful of laws and rules if they get in the way of getting things done. Great people

skills.

ESTJ - The Guardian - Practical, traditional, and organized. Likely to be athletic. Not interested in theory or abstrac-

tion unless they see the practical application. Have clear visions of the way things should be. Loyal and hard-

working. Like to be in charge. Exceptionally capable in organizing and running activities. "Good citizens" who val-

ue security and peaceful living.

ESFP - The Performer - People-oriented and fun-loving, they make things more fun for others by their enjoyment. Liv-

ing for the moment, they love new experiences. They dislike theory and impersonal analysis. Interested in serving

others. Likely to be the center of attention in social situations. Well-developed common sense and practical ability.

ESFJ - The Caregiver - Warm-hearted, popular, and conscientious. Tend to put the needs of others over their own

needs. Feel strong sense of responsibility and duty. Value traditions and security. Interested in serving others. Need

positive reinforcement to feel good about themselves. Well-developed sense of space and function.

ENFP - The Inspirer - Enthusiastic, idealistic, and creative. Able to do almost anything that interests them. Great peo-

ple skills. Need to live life in accordance with their inner values. Excited by new ideas, but bored with details.

Open-minded and flexible, with a broad range of interests and abilities.

ENFJ - The Giver - Popular and sensitive, with outstanding people skills. Externally focused, with real concern for

how others think and feel. Usually dislike being alone. They see everything from the human angle, and dislike im-

personal analysis. Very effective at managing people issues, and leading group discussions. Interested in serving

others, and probably place the needs of others over their own needs.

ENTP - The Visionary - Creative, resourceful, and intellectually quick. Good at a broad range of things. Enjoy de-

bating issues, and may be into "one-up-manship". They get very excited about new ideas and projects, but may

neglect the more routine aspects of life. Generally outspoken and assertive. They enjoy people and are stimulating

company. Excellent ability to understand concepts and apply logic to find solutions.

ENTJ - The Executive - Assertive and outspoken - they are driven to lead. Excellent ability to understand difficult or-

ganizational problems and create solid solutions. Intelligent and well-informed, they usually excel at public speak-

ing. They value knowledge and competence, and usually have little patience with inefficiency or disorganization.

Recommended reading

Five Magic Hours (found in healthy marriages)

By Dr. John Gottman

Dr. John Gottman, Ph.D., is a psychologist and leading U.S. relationship expert who has conducted studies of thou-

sands of couples at The Gottman Institute in Seattle for over 30 years. In his book “The Seven Principles for Making

Marriage Work,” Dr. Gottman describes a follow-up study of couples who had previously attended workshops

with The Gottman Institute.

The researchers looked for what might distinguish couples whose marriages continued to improve from those

whose marriages did not. They were surprised to find that couples whose relationships continued to be strong were

devoting only an extra five hours a week to their marriages. Gottman calls these “The Magic Five Hours.”

1. Partings—when you part in the morning make sure you’ve learned about one thing happening in your partner’s

day.

Estimated time: 2 minutes per day x 5 working days totals 10 minutes per week.

2. Reunions— Spend 20 minutes at the end of each workday to reconnect and talk about your day. Such a con-

versation will reduce your stress at the end of the day.

Estimated time: 20 minutes per day x 5 working days totals 1 hour, 40 minutes per week.

Try the statement: The most important thing that happened to me today was: fill in the blank .

3. Admiration and Appreciation—Find some way every day to communicate genuine affection and appreciation

to your partner.

Estimated time: 5 minutes per day x 7 days, totals 35 minutes per week.

Try the statement: The one thing I appreciate about you is: fill in the blank (must be something other than physical

appearance).

4. Affection—Kiss, hold, grab, and touch each other while you’re together—be playful with each other. Make sure

to kiss each other before going to sleep. A kiss can be a way to let go of any minor irritations that might have built

up over the day.

Estimated time: 5 minutes per day x 7 days totals 35 minutes per week.

5. Weekly Date—Take at least two hours every week to stay connected in a low-pressure way. Use the time to

talk and get to know each other even more, update each other about important issues, go out on a date, and enjoy

being together. You can also use the time to work through any arguments or issues that may have come up.

Estimated time: 2 hours per week.

Discuss as a couple:

Which of these are we already practicing?

What have we forgotten to do?

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

(found in unhealthy marriages and divorces)

1. Criticism: Attacking your partner’s personality or character, usually with the intent of making someone right and someone wrong: Generalizations: “you always…” “you never…” “you’re the type of person who …” “why are you so …”

2. Contempt: Attacking your partner’s sense of self with the intention to insult or psychologically abuse him/her:

a) Insults and hurtful name-calling (lazy, stupid, fat..),

b) Hostile humor, sarcasm, mockery,

c) Body language & tone of voice (sneering, rolling your eyes, curling your upper lip…)

3. Defensiveness: Seeing self as the victim, warding off a perceived attack by:

a) Making excuses (external circumstances beyond your control forced you to act in a certain way),

b) Cross-complaining (meeting your partner’s complaint with a complaint of your own, ignoring what your partner said),

c) Disagreeing and then cross-complaining (“That’s not true, you’re the one who …” “I did this because you did that…”),

d) Yes, but (start off by agreeing and end up by disagreeing),

e) Repeating yourself without paying attention to what the other person is saying,

f) Whining “it’s not fair.”

4. Stonewalling: Withdrawing from the relationship as a way to avoid conflict. Partners may think they’re trying to be “neutral” but stonewalling conveys disapproval, icy distance, separation, disconnection, and/or smugness. Stonewalling strategies include:

a) Stony silence,

b) Monosyllabic mutterings,

c) Changing the subject,

d) Removing yourself physically,

e) Silent treatment

Remedies:

a) Learn to make specific complaints and requests (when X happened, I felt Y, I want Z)

b) Conscious communication: Speaking the unarguable truth and listening generously

c) Validate your partner (let your partner know what makes sense to you about what they’re saying. Let them know you understand what they’re feeling, see through their eyes)

Remedies (cont’d)

d) Shift to appreciation (five times as much positive feeling and interaction as negative)

e) Claim responsibility: “What can I learn from this?” and “What can I do about it?”

f) Re-write your inner script (replace thoughts of righteous indignation or innocent victimization with thoughts of appreciation and responsibility that are soothing and validating)

g) Practice getting undefended (allowing your partner’s utterances to be what they really are: just thoughts and puffs of air) and let go of the stories that you are making up.

© Bob & Marlene Neufeld and Mary Ann Carmichael, 2005; www.marleneandbob.com; Based on Gottman, John. 1994. Why Marriages Succeed or Fail

Discuss as a couple:

Which “horsemen” creep into your relationship most frequently?

Admit to your spouse that you have allowed these “horsemen” to creep in and ask your spouse to forgive you for your part in that hurtful pattern.

Talk about the remedies each of you can and will take instead. Which remedies will you focus on first?

Recommended reading

The article is reprinted below, or you can read it online at:

http://www.businessinsider.com/lasting-relationships-rely-on-2-traits-2014-11

Two Basic Traits Contribute to Lasting Relationships

Emily Esfahani Smith, The Atlantic, Nov. 9, 2014

Every day in June, the most popular wedding month of the year, about 13,000 American couples will say “I do,”

committing to a lifelong relationship that will be full of friendship, joy, and love that will carry them forward to their

final days on this earth.

But of all the people who get married, only three in ten remain in healthy, happy marriages, as psychologist Ty Ta-

shiro points out in his book "The Science of Happily Ever After," which was published earlier this year.

Social scientists first started studying marriages by observing them in action in the 1970s in response to a crisis:

Married couples were divorcing at unprecedented rates. Worried about the impact these divorces would have on

the children of the broken marriages, psychologists decided to cast their scientific net on couples, bringing them

into the lab to observe them and determine what the ingredients of a healthy, lasting relationship were.

Was each unhappy family unhappy in its own way, as Tolstoy claimed, or did the miserable marriages all share

something toxic in common?

Psychologist John Gottman was one of those researchers. For the past four decades, he has studied thousands of

couples in a quest to figure out what makes relationships work. I recently had the chance to interview Gottman and

his wife Julie, also a psychologist, in New York City. Together, the renowned experts on marital stability run The

Gottman Institute, which is devoted to helping couples build and maintain loving, healthy relationships based on

scientific studies.

John Gottman began gathering his most critical findings in 1986, when he set up “The Love Lab” with his col-

league Robert Levenson at the University of Washington. Gottman and Levenson brought newlyweds into the lab

and watched them interact with each other.

With a team of researchers, they hooked the couples up to electrodes and asked the couples to speak about their

relationship, like how they met, a major conflict they were facing together, and a positive memory they had. As

they spoke, the electrodes measured the subjects' blood flow, heart rates, and how much they sweat they pro-

duced. Then the researchers sent the couples home and followed up with them six years later to see if they were

still together.

From the data they gathered, Gottman separated the couples into two major groups: the masters and the disasters.

The masters were still happily together after six years. The disasters had either broken up or were chronically un-

happy in their marriages.

When the researchers analyzed the data they gathered on the couples, they saw clear differences between the

masters and disasters. The disasters looked calm during the interviews, but their physiology, measured by the elec-

trodes, told a different story. Their heart rates were quick, their sweat glands were active, and their blood flow was

fast. Following thousands of couples longitudinally, Gottman found that the more physiologically active the couples

were in the lab, the quicker their relationships deteriorated over time.

But what does physiology have to do with anything? The problem was that the disasters showed all the signs of

arousal — of being in fight-or-flight mode — in their relationships. Having a conversation sitting next to their spouse

was, to their bodies, like facing off with a saber-toothed tiger.

Even when they were talking about pleasant or mundane facets of their relationships, they were prepared to attack

and be attacked. This sent their heart rates soaring and made them more aggressive toward each other. For exam-

ple, each member of a couple could be talking about how their days had gone, and a highly aroused husband

might say to his wife, “Why don’t you start talking about your day. It won’t take you very long.”

The masters, by contrast, showed low physiological arousal. They felt calm and connected together, which translat-

ed into warm and affectionate behavior, even when they fought. It’s not that the masters had, by default, a better

physiological make-up than the disasters; it’s that masters had created a climate of trust and intimacy that made

both of them more emotionally and thus physically comfortable.

Gottman wanted to know more about how the masters created that culture of love and intimacy, and how the dis-

asters squashed it. In a follow-up study in 1990, he designed a lab on the University of Washington campus to

look like a beautiful bed and breakfast retreat.

He invited 130 newlywed couples to spend the day at this retreat and watched them as they did what couples nor-

mally do on vacation: cook, clean, listen to music, eat, chat, and hang out. And Gottman made a critical discovery

in this study — one that gets at the heart of why some relationships thrive while others languish.

Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls “bids.” For example, say

that the husband is a bird enthusiast and notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, “Look at

that beautiful bird outside!” He’s not just commenting on the bird here: he’s requesting a response from his wife — a

sign of interest or support — hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.

The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either “turning toward” or “turning away” from her husband, as

Gottman puts it. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the

relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is

whether his wife recognizes and respects that.

People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and sup-

port in the bid. Those who didn’t — those who turned away — would not respond or respond minimally and contin-

ue doing whatever they were doing, like watching TV or reading the paper. Sometimes they would respond with

overt hostility, saying something like, “Stop interrupting me, I’m reading.”

These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year

follow up had “turn-toward bids” 33% of the time. Only three in ten of their bids for emotional connection were met

with intimacy. The couples who were still together after six years had “turn-toward bids” 87% of the time. Nine

times out of ten, they were meeting their partner’s emotional need.

By observing these types of interactions, Gottman can predict with up to 94% certainty whether couples — straight or gay, rich or poor, childless or not — will be broken up, together and unhappy, or together and happy several years later. Much of it comes down to the spirit couples bring to the relationship. Do they bring kindness and gener-osity; or contempt, criticism, and hostility?

“There’s a habit of mind that the masters have,” Gottman explained in an interview, “which is this: they are scan-

ning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of re-

spect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.”

“It’s not just scanning environment,” chimed in Julie Gottman. “It’s scanning the partner for what the partner is do-

ing right or scanning him for what he’s doing wrong and criticizing versus respecting him and expressing apprecia-

tion.”

Contempt, they have found, is the number one factor that tears couples apart. People who are focused on criticiz-

ing their partners miss a whopping 50% of positive things their partners are doing and they see negativity when it’s

not there.

People who give their partner the cold shoulder — deliberately ignoring the partner or responding minimally — dam-

age the relationship by making their partner feel worthless and invisible, as if they’re not there, not valued. And

people who treat their partners with contempt and criticize them not only kill the love in the relationship, but they

also kill their partner's ability to fight off viruses and cancers. Being mean is the death knell of relationships.

Kindness, on the other hand, glues couples together. Research independent from theirs has shown that kindness

(along with emotional stability) is the most important predictor of satisfaction and stability in a marriage. Kindness

makes each partner feel cared for, understood, and validated—feel loved. “My bounty is as boundless as the sea,”

says Shakespeare’s Juliet. “My love as deep; the more I give to thee, the more I have, for both are infinite.” That’s

how kindness works too: there’s a great deal of evidence showing the more someone receives or witnesses kind-

ness, the more they will be kind themselves, which leads to upward spirals of love and generosity in a relationship.

There are two ways to think about kindness. You can think about it as a fixed trait: either you have it or you don’t.

Or you could think of kindness as a muscle. In some people, that muscle is naturally stronger than in others, but it

can grow stronger in everyone with exercise. Masters tend to think about kindness as a muscle. They know that

they have to exercise it to keep it in shape. They know, in other words, that a good relationship requires sustained

hard work.

“If your partner expresses a need,” explained Julie Gottman, “and you are tired, stressed, or distracted, then the

generous spirit comes in when a partner makes a bid, and you still turn toward your partner.”

In that moment, the easy response may be to turn away from your partner and focus on your iPad or your book or

the television, to mumble “Uh huh” and move on with your life, but neglecting small moments of emotional connec-

tion will slowly wear away at your relationship. Neglect creates distance between partners and breeds resentment

in the one who is being ignored.

The hardest time to practice kindness is, of course, during a fight—but this is also the most important time to be kind.

Letting contempt and aggression spiral out of control during a conflict can inflict irrevocable damage on a relation-

ship.

“Kindness doesn’t mean that we don’t express our anger,” Julie Gottman explained, “but the kindness informs how we choose to express the anger. You can throw spears at your partner. Or you can explain why you’re hurt and angry, and that’s the kinder path.”

John Gottman elaborated on those spears: “Disasters will say things differently in a fight. Disasters will say ‘You’re

late. What’s wrong with you? You’re just like your mom.’ Masters will say ‘I feel bad for picking on you about your

lateness, and I know it’s not your fault, but it’s really annoying that you’re late again.’”

For the hundreds of thousands of couples getting married each June — and for the millions of couples currently to-

gether, married or not — the lesson from the research is clear: If you want to have a stable, healthy relationship,

exercise kindness early and often.

When people think about practicing kindness, they often think about small acts of generosity, like buying each oth-

er little gifts or giving one another back rubs every now and then. While those are great examples of generosity,

kindness can also be built into the very backbone of a relationship through the way partners interact with each oth-

er on a day-to-day basis, whether or not there are back rubs and chocolates involved.

One way to practice kindness is by being generous about your partner’s intentions. From the research of the Gott-

mans, we know that disasters see negativity in their relationship even when it is not there. An angry wife may as-

sume, for example, that when her husband left the toilet seat up, he was deliberately trying to annoy her. But he

may have just absent-mindedly forgotten to put the seat down.

Or say a wife is running late to dinner (again), and the husband assumes that she doesn’t value him enough to

show up to their date on time after he took the trouble to make a reservation and leave work early so that they

could spend a romantic evening together. But it turns out that the wife was running late because she stopped by a

store to pick him up a gift for their special night out.

Imagine her joining him for dinner, excited to deliver her gift, only to realize that he’s in a sour mood because he

misinterpreted what was motivating her behavior. The ability to interpret your partner’s actions and intentions chari-

tably can soften the sharp edge of conflict.

“Even in relationships where people are frustrated, it’s almost always the case that there are positive things going

on and people trying to do the right thing,” psychologist Ty Tashiro told me. “A lot of times, a partner is trying to do

the right thing even if it’s executed poorly. So appreciate the intent.”

Another powerful kindness strategy revolves around shared joy. One of the telltale signs of the disaster couples

Gottman studied was their inability to connect over each other’s good news. When one person in the relationship

shared the good news of, say, a promotion at work with excitement, the other would respond with wooden disinter-

est by checking his watch or shutting the conversation down with a comment like, “That’s nice.”

We’ve all heard that partners should be there for each other when the going gets rough. But research shows that

being there for each other when things go right is actually more important for relationship quality. How someone

responds to a partner’s good news can have dramatic consequences for the relationship.

In one study from 2006, psychological researcher Shelly Gable and her colleagues brought young adult couples

into the lab to discuss recent positive events from their lives. They psychologists wanted to know how partners

would respond to each other’s good news. They found that, in general, couples responded to each other’s good

news in four different ways that they called: passive destructive, active destructive, passive constructive, and active

constructive.

Let’s say that one partner had recently received the excellent news that she got into medical school. She would say

something like “I got into my top choice med school!”

If her partner responded in a passive destructive manner, he would ignore the event. For example, he might say

something like: “You wouldn’t believe the great news I got yesterday! I won a free t-shirt!”

If her partner responded in a passive constructive way, he would acknowledge the good news, but in a half-

hearted, understated way. A typical passive constructive response is saying “That’s great, babe” as he texts his

buddy on his phone.

In the third kind of response, active destructive, the partner would diminish the good news his partner just got: “Are

you sure you can handle all the studying? And what about the cost? Med school is so expensive!”

Finally, there’s active constructive responding. If her partner responded in this way, he stopped what he was doing

and engaged wholeheartedly with her: “That’s great! Congratulations! When did you find out? Did they call you?

What classes will you take first semester?”

Among the four response styles, active constructive responding is the kindest. While the other response styles are

joy-killers, active constructive responding allows the partner to savor her joy and gives the couple an opportunity to

bond over the good news. In the parlance of the Gottmans, active constructive responding is a way of “turning to-

ward” your partners bid (sharing the good news) rather than “turning away” from it.

Active constructive responding is critical for healthy relationships. In the 2006 study, Gable and her colleagues

followed up with the couples two months later to see if they were still together. The psychologists found that the on-

ly difference between the couples who were together and those who broke up was active constructive responding.

Those who showed genuine interest in their partner’s joys were more likely to be together. In an earlier study, Ga-

ble found that active constructive responding was also associated with higher relationship quality and more intima-

cy between partners.

There are many reasons why relationships fail, but if you look at what drives the deterioration of many relation-

ships, it’s often a breakdown of kindness. As the normal stresses of a life together pile up—with children, career,

friend, in-laws, and other distractions crowding out the time for romance and intimacy—couples may put less effort

into their relationship and let the petty grievances they hold against one another tear them apart.

In most marriages, levels of satisfaction drop dramatically within the first few years together. But among couples

who not only endure, but live happily together for years and years, the spirit of kindness and generosity guides

them forward.

Discussion: Talk with your spouse about how you’re doing in the “kindness and generosity” department.

Recommended reading

“You Never Marry the Right Person,” from the book “The Meaning of Marriage” by Timothy and Kathy Keller.

This excerpt is published on Relevant Magazine’s website:

www.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationship/features/27749-you-never-marry-the-right-person

If your group would like to read and discuss the above article, here are some discussion questions:

* Were there any “exclamation points” (things that really jumped out at you) or “question marks” (things that

weren’t clear) about the Keller article?

* Do you think our culture places unrealistic expectations on marriage? How so?

* What do you think Prof. Hauerwas meant when he wrote: “...we always marry the wrong person.”

The ‘Two Statement Exercise’

Promotes Communication/Affirmation in Marriage

Affirm why you chose each other and how you are good for each other (remember, opposites often attract). Com-

mit to do a better job of accepting and even embracing differences and working through them toward creative so-

lutions.

What part of your spouse’s personality is most difficult for you to accept and embrace? Why? What can you and

your spouse do to help this trait become a strength instead of a weakness in your relationship?

This week, take turns initiating this simple, two-statement exercise:

The most important thing that happened to me today was: (fill in the blank) .

The one thing I appreciate about you is: (fill in the blank; can’t be a physical attribute) .