Wednesday, November 06, 2024

FORGIVENESS: Some Resources

 


(Leading the Presence-Driven Church students, Faith Bible Seminary, NYC)


(I'm re-posting this to keep it in play.)


A QUIZ

Which one is the road to freedom?

a. to forgive

b. to nurture an offense


Linda and I are always talking with people about forgiveness. Here are  links to things I have written about forgiveness.

We all need it, and need to learn it, and practice it. 

For Jesus-followers, this is the heart and soul of the Gospel. 

I bless you all with hearts of forgiveness!


Why Is Self-forgiveness Harder than Forgiving Others?
















***
For empirical research on the benefits and power of forgiveness, see Robert Enright's International Forgiveness Institute.

BOOKS







David Augsburger, Caring Enough to Forgive







Truth Excludes (as does every community)

 


Downtown Monroe
Humans are tribal. We need to belong to groups. We crave bonds and attachments, which is why we love clubs, teams, fraternities, family. Almost no one is a hermit. Even monks and friars belong to orders. But the tribal instinct is not just an instinct to belong. It is also an instinct to exclude.

Yale Law professor Amy Chua
From her book Political Tribes

Former USC philosopher Dallas Willard writes:

"There is a certain logical exclusiveness built into knowledge as such, and it must be respected... This is due to the fact that knowledge (not mere belief, commitment, sentiment, or tradition) involves truth. Truth by its very nature is exclusive in the following sense. If any belief is true, that by itself excludes the truth of any belief contrary or contradictory to it. And this “exclusion” is not a matter of what anyone wants or hopes to be true or false. For example, if “Sue’s dress is red” is true, then “Sue’s dress is white” and “Sue’s dress is not red” are false. It does not matter what anyone may think or want. It is simply a matter of the objective logical relations between the beliefs (or statements or “propositions”) involved."
- Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge, pp. 170-171

Truth marginalizes. Truth excludes.

You have a worldview, a set of beliefs through which you interpret reality and experience. Your worldview excludes masses of people. 

Here is an example. 

When I was speaking in India, the hotel I stayed in had an altar in the lobby. Every morning a young Hindu priest, dressed in a white skirt, lit incense sticks on the altar, and offered prayers to the god of the hotel. This scene can be captured in the following statements:

1. There is a god who watches over the hotel.
2. Appeasing this god with the burning of incense and other sacrifices helps ensure that the hotel will succeed financially.
3. Uttering prayers of worship to this god increases the probability that the god will show favor towards the hotel.
4. To not perform #s 1 and 2 may cause the god of the hotel to be angry, and bring harm or disaster to it.

Take statement 1. If it is true, then I, who think it is false, am wrong. Such is the nature of truth. The Hindu priest knows something I do not. I am logically excluded from such knowledge.

I think statement 1 is false. If I am right, then statements 2-4 are false, since there exists no "god of the hotel" to be appeased.

It is not rude or impolite to talk like this. It is not disrespectful. Marginalization is epistemically unavoidable. Willard writes: 

"It is not arrogant and unloving merely to believe that you are right about something and that others are wrong... There have, after all, been many people who were strongly convinced of the rightness of their beliefs, in religious and other matters, without being arrogant and unloving." (Ib., 170)

What if you embrace the belief-system of postmodernism? And you claim, We can't know truth. I have two thoughts about that. 1) You just excluded me and all like me who believe we can know truth; and 2) You just made a truth claim which, on your postmodern thinking, is self-contradictory.

In embracing the truths of your worldview, you have excluded many. That's just the way truth works. 

Tuesday, November 05, 2024

The Progressivist Trajectory Is to Eliminate Christianity

 

                                                             (Park, across from our house.)

In Jesus and the Powers, N. T. Wright and Michael Bird write:

"Many political progressives see Christianity as the number-one enemy against which they are struggling. As such, Christian communities, institutions, cultural influence and moral vision are the darkness against which their post-religious enlightenment is intended to shine. Christianity’s influence can only be eliminated by realigning institutions towards a secularised morality, by narrowing the parameters of religious freedom, by a coercive catharsis of religion itself, and by deconstructing resident fixtures such as history, constitutional law and even family. In the end, the progressive political vision amounts to what US political philosopher Stephen Macedo calls civic totalism, where the State is invested with all power and seeks to regulate as much of public and private life as possible."

- Wright, N. T.; Bird, Michael F.. Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies (pp. 138-139). 

For more on the progressivist trajectory, see my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity.

"Abortion": Defined


Monday, November 04, 2024

Yale U's Robert P. George on Defending Unborn Life

 


                                                                       (My home office)

(I am re-posting this for the unborn.)

Professor Robert P. George is one of the most influential scholars, for me and many others, on the abortion issue.

As an example of moral and rational clarity, see: "Defending Unborn Life in Political Action: We Must Continue the Struggle for the Soul of Our Nation." It's brilliant and compassionate.

Here's a quote from George.

"Are unborn babies persons? As a matter of moral fact, they are. That is because the offspring of human parents, from the earliest embryonic stage of their development forward, are — and are undeniably — distinct, complete, albeit dependent and developing, living members of the species Homo sapiens: human beings. And all human beings are persons — that is, creatures whose nature is a rational nature. Like human beings in the infant stage, human beings in the fetal and embryonic stages of development do not yet carry out characteristically human mental activities; yet embryonic, fetal and infant human beings are organized precisely to develop the immediately exercisable capacities for precisely such activities. That is their nature."

If anyone wonders why I am so concerned about this issue, please read George's article.

If you want to contact me and talk about this essay, please do so.  johnpiippo@msn.com 

And see here for more. 

Sunday, November 03, 2024

Understanding and Responding to Sexuality Issues: A Brief Bibliography

(University of Michigan)


(I am re-posting this, to keep it in play.)

I am against the legalization of same-sex marriage for two reasons, one religious, the other non-religious (sociological and legal).

As regards the religious reason, I do not expect non-religious people to agree with me. Of course not. Just as I don't turn to their irreligious worldviews to make sense of anything, neither do I expect them to partner with me. That's the way worldviews work. Everyone has one. They do not, at significant points, overlap.

If the non-religious person objects to my religious views, they question my worldview, not my reasoning. The irreligious person is a non-player in the intra-religious and intra-Christian dialogue.

Regarding non-religious reasons, here is where the irreligious and religious can join in principled (we would hope) dialogue, rather than ad hominem stereotyping (sadly, some on both sides do this.). We can dialogue without name-calling, right?

These are a few of the resources I have read and found helpful in understanding the issues. Note: I have read pro-gay books since reading Mel White's Stranger at the Gate in, I believe, the early 1980s. 

The Intra-Worldview Discussion

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, by Robert Gagnon. This is probably the book to read, within this worldview, and from this perspective.

Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality, by Wesley Hill.

Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by Gpd's Grand Story, by Christopher Yuan.

God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships, by Matthew Vines.

Changing Our Mind, by David Gushee.

The Gospel of Inclusion, Brandan Robertson



In my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity I consider and respond to Martin's two books.

Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding with Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality, by Michael Brown.


Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality, by Greg Johnson.









Sexual Identity and Faith: Helping Clients Find Congruence, by Yarhouse


I am looking forward to reading Hays's new book, where he changes his mind about gay marriage. The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story.

See Preston Sprinkle's excellent, thorough review of Hays's new book. 

See my friend Phillip Lee's website, His Way Out Ministries

See Justin Brierley's "Unbelievable" podcast - "God, Gay Christians and the Church," a dialogue between David Bennett and Brandan Robinson.

See my sermon "The Meaning of Marriage."



Legal and Philosophical Reasoning on Same-Sex Marriage

Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences, by Bradford Wilcox. 

Debating Same-Sex Marriage, by John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher.

The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals, eds. Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain.  

What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, by Sherif Gergis, Robert P. George, and Ran T. Anderson (forthcoming Oct. 16, 2012) 

When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement (Famously banned by Amazon [see here]; while Amazon sells Hitler's Mein Kampf.)

I contacted Robert George re. this issue, and he graciously sent me the following links. He also graciously offered to field questions I have.

From Prof. George:

For a fuller account of my own views, here is the link to a more recent paper I wrote with two of my former students. (It is a free one-click download.)
“What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:   http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

Kenji Yoshino of NYU published a critique on Slate, to which there is a link in our reply, available here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217

Andrew Koppelman of Northwestern published a critique on Balkinization, to which there is a link in our reply, available here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2263

Barry Deutsch published a critique on the Family Scholars Blog, to which there is a link in our reply, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2277

Kenji Yoshino published a response to our reply, to which there is a link in our reply to that response, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2295

Andrew Koppelman published a response to our reply, to which there is a link in our reply to that response, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2350

Also, here is an essay in two parts (written with Patrick Lee and Gerard V. Bradley) on the link between procreation and marriage – a link we believe is badly misunderstood by many on both sides of the debate. Here are the links:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638 “Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Link”

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637 “Marriage and Procreation: Avoiding Bad Arguments”

Prof. George also sent me:

The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations: some Philosophical and Historical Observations, by John Finnis.

Marriage: A Basic and Exigent Good, John Finnis.

Saturday, November 02, 2024

Plantinga's Modal Version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence

                                                       
                                                       (Pond, at Monroe County Community College)

In my MCCC Philosophy of Religion classes I taught Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence, and modal version of the Ontological Argument. Here is Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological Argument for God's existence. It is a real head-twister! 

Using modal logic, the following is true: If a necessary being is possible then a necessary being exists. (Think about it, modally.)

Or:

1. There is a possible world in which a necessarily existing being exists.
2. Therefore, a necessarily existing being exists.

Note: This argument avoids the Kantian criticism that 'exists' is not a predicate.


PLANTINGA’S MODAL VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE


The argument goes:


1.    It is possible that there is a being (B) that has maximal greatness.

2.    So, there is a possible being that in some world W has maximal greatness.

3.    A being has maximal greatness in a given world only if it has maximal excellence in every world.

4.    A being has maximal excellence in a given world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in that world.

5.    Therefore, “there actually exists a being (B) that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, exists and has these qualities in every other world as well.”

Needed to understand this argument:

Logical possibilities and impossibilities do not vary from world to world. If a given proposition or state of affairs is impossible in at least one possible world, then it is impossible in every possible world. For example, "square circles" are logical impossibilities in our world. Therefore they are logical impossibilities in every possible world. There is no possible world, no creatively invented world, that could contain a square circle.
  • There are no propositions that are in fact impossible but could have been possible. For example, square circles could not exist in any conceivable/possible world.
  • And, there are no propositions that in fact are possible but could have been impossible. For example, if there is a possible world in which SpongeBob exists, then there is no possible world in which SpongeBob could not exist.
  • Therefore, B's nonexistence is impossible in every possible world. And because B is a maximally great Being, B exists in every possible world.
  • Therefore B’s nonexistence is impossible in this world (since this world is a possible world).
  • Therefore B exists and exists necessarily.

***

Plantinga's Modal Version Of the Ontological Argument (From Graham Oppy)


(Warren Dunes State Park, Michigan)

Graham Oppy presents Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument as follows.

An entity is "maximally great" iff (if and only if) it necessarily exists and possesses "maximal excellence" (i.e., is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect).

Keeping this in mind, note that a maximally great entity cannot be a contingent thing. As regards contingent things, it is possible that a certain contingent thing exists. E.g., it is possible that a unicorn exists (logically possible).

Therefore, regarding a maximally great thing:

1) Either it is not possible that a maximally great entity exists or it is necessary that a maximally great entity exists.

2) It is (logically) possible that a maximally great entity exists.

3) Therefore a maximally great entity exists. (That is, an entity that is omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect, and possesses these attributes (i.e. is "maximally excellent") in every possible world.)

Oppy frames it this way.

1. There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

2. (Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

Oppy writes: "Under suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible worlds, this argument is valid: from it is possible that it is necessary that p, one can infer that it is necessary that p."

Note:

1) it is possible that it is necessary that p.

2) Either p cannot possibly exist or p necessarily exists.

3) Therefore (from P1 & P2, using disjunctive syllogism) p necessarily exists.

Oppy's essay on the Ontological Argument in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good one. He goes on to offer criticisms of Plantinga's version. And gives Plantinga's further reflections on the status of the argument.

***

The Modal Ontological Argument According to Plantinga

(Sterling State Park)

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article by Kenneth Himma is good on explaining the Modal Version of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence.. Here is Plantinga's OA for God's existence, via Himma.

Plantinga defines two properties: "maximal excellence" and "maximal greatness."

P1. A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W.

P2. A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.

"Thus, maximal greatness entails existence in every possible world: since a being that is maximally great at W is omnipotent at every possible world and non-existent beings can't be omnipotent, it follows that a maximally great being exists in every logically possible world." If, then, a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world, to include our actual world.

Is it logically possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world? Plantinga thinks so. To think this is not possible one would have to show that the concept of "maximally great being" is logically contradictory, like "square circle." Therefore, the concept of a "maximally great being" is logically possible; i.e., possibly instantiated. It follows, therefore, that a maximally great being (i.e., God) exists in every possible world.

Himma now formulates Plantinga' argument as follows:

1. The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent.

2. If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

3. Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

4. If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great being (i.e., God) exists in every logically possible world.

As P2 affirms, maximal greatness entails existence in every possible world. If it is possible that such a being exists in one possible world, then it exists in every possible world. Since our world is a possible world, God exists in our world.

See Himma's entire essay for more, including objections.

Friday, November 01, 2024

How to Save Your Struggling Marriage (Resources)

Our back yard











(I re-post this a lot, just to keep this ball in play.)

Linda and I are always meeting with couples whose marriages are failing. We consider it a privilege to do this. We also feel with these couples and at times agonize with them. We feel a holy desperation about the state of marriages in America today. In America Christian marriages are in no better shape than non-Christian marriages.

If your marriage is struggling to the point that you are wondering if you will make it, we suggest the following six things.

  1. Look at your own self. Be open to the idea that you are the problem, and not your spouse.  You are your marriage and the reason your marriage is failing. If you do not have this heart-insight then expect no more from your marriage than what it already is.   If you don't see yourself as 100% contributing to your marital failure your marriage will not be saved. Of course the same is true for your significant other. It will take two to do this. But you are not the one to give them this insight.
  2. You won't be able to help yourself. If you keep being "you" in your marriage your marriage will keep seeing the same results. Therefore, get help for your marriage. If you are a Jesus-follower your pastor can pray for you and love you as a couple but may not be skilled enough to counsel you. In Southeast Michigan the two places I recommend are here and here
  3. Get help for yourself even if your spouse won't. It's not unusual for only one partner to realize #s 1 and 2 above.  
  4. Trust your counselor. Be helpable. Be open and willing to look at your own marital failure. Your counselor will not be shocked by anything you say and will not condemn you.
  5. Trust God. Enter deeply into God's presence. Pray. Read Scripture and meditate on it. Read John chapters 14-15-16 and follow Jesus' advice.
  6. Know that your marriage can be saved. Linda and I have never met a marriage that we thought could not be rescued and transformed. This should give you hope! I have written some things about this here.

***

Can Your Marriage Really Be Saved?

Bolles Harbor, Monroe

Can a failing marriage really be saved? If a marriage is an absolute train wreck, can it be transformed? If you are a follower of Jesus, you have to answer "Yes" to these questions. 

This is because, with God, all things are possible. Nothing is impossible for God. If God created the vast complexity of the universe, then rescuing a marriage is well within God's cognitive and creative abilities.

For the person whose marriage is in cardiac arrest, it all looks unresurrectable. But from my vantage point, and even more so from God's, the dead can be raised. I have seen it happen with marriages, many times. The person in the marital ER won't see it, because they have no experience in saving marriages. But Linda and I have. We have worked with hundreds of marriages at every level of sin and dysfunction. We have seen God work through us and others to set things right and make things better than ever.

The couple who looks at their troubled marriage and concludes, "This could never work", commits the "fallacy of hasty generalization." Here is a benign example.

1. I polled two college students who said Coke is better than Pepsi.
2. Therefore, Coke is better than Pepsi.

Such reasoning is faulty, because the sample is too small. One can't go from 1 to 2. To do so is to reason hastily. 

So...

1. I have never seen a disastrous marriage like mine be helped.
2. Therefore, my marriage cannot be helped.

But I have. Linda and I have a large sample group of hundreds of marriages we have worked with, and you haven't done this. 

In addition, this reasoning doesn't work:

1. I have friends whose marriages failed.
2. My friends are telling me to get a divorce (failure loves company).
3. Therefore, my marriage won't work.

Never look at the failed marriages of your friends to validate the death of your marriage. To do this adds another fallacy to the irrationality, the "fallacy of faulty analogy." No two marriages are the same.

Have we seen train-wreck marriages fail to come together? Yes. They fail because one or both partners refuse to: 

a) get humble and get outside help; 
b) look at their own selves and the faults they bring to the marriage; and 
c) look to the God they say they worship. 

All it takes is one of the two partners to bail out and refuse to get help. 

Sometimes Linda and I look at each other and say, "I doubt if this marriage will ever come together." And then, it does. God does it. We must trust that, even as we do our very best in counseling marital couples, God is doing infinitely better.

God loves to save marriages and families. It happens when:

a) Two people humble themselves and get outside help.
b) Two people look at their own selves and the faults they bring to the marriage.
c) Two people get on their knees and turn to God.

Note: Read Gary Chapman's One More Try: What to Do When Your Marriage is Falling Apart. Excellent!

See:

Marriage Takes Work

Saving Your Marriage: You Can't Derive 'Ought' From Feeling 

Your Marriage Can Be Saved (Especially for Husbands)

Marriage Counseling Material 


***

Understanding and Overcoming Unrighteous Anger


This morning at Redeemer I was working with our Kids Church. Tim Curry was in the sanctuary and preached on understanding anger and being healed of unrighteous, irrational anger. I have heard many things today about the excellent job Tim did (thank you!). Linda was one who told me what a great message Tim gave. She has already recommended to some people that they listen to his message online, which should be available in a week.

One good result is that our people today are thinking about their own anger, understanding it better, and have hope for healing from sin that emerges from anger.

I'm in some good dialogue tonight about this subject, so I'm re-posting a few things I've written about this.

Dealing with Anger in Relationships

In every good marriage, in every good friendship, in every church, and wherever there are people, feelings of anger happen. I once had a friend tell me, “I never get angry.” My thought was this: here is a person out of touch with what’s going on inside of him. Even God feels anger. Even Jesus felt anger.
When I feel angry, what can I do?  

1. Recognize your anger. 
“Anger” is the emotion a person feels when one of their expectations has not been met. For example, if I drive across town expecting every light to turn green when I approach, I am going to be an angry person. Because this expectation will not be met. Therefore...

2. Identify your unmet expectation. 
Fill in the blank: "I am angry because my expectation that ________ was not met."

3. Evaluate your unmet expectation. 
Is it either: a) godly, reasonable, good, fair; or 2) ungodly, unreasonable, bad, unfair. In my "driving" example above, my expectation was irrational.

4. Reject ungodly or irrational expectations. 
If, for example, you expect people to clearly understand every word that comes out of your mouth, you are now free to reject this as an irrational expectation. Or, if you have the expectation that other people should never make mistakes when it comes to you, I now free you from that ungodly, irrational expectation.

5. If the unmet expectation is godly/fair, then ask: Have I communicated this to the person I am angry with? If not, then communicate it. 
For example, my expectation that persons should take off their shoes before entering our living room may be both rational and of God. But if I have not communicated this to others, my anger at the unfulfilled expectation is still real. My expectation that people should know such a thing without being told is unfair.

6. If you have communicated it clearly to the person you are angry with, then communicate your anger this way: 
Say “I feel angry because my unmet expectation is __________________.

Communicate this in your own way of saying things. Begin your sentence with “I” rather than “You.” For example: “I feel angry…” rather than “You make me feel angry…” Doing it this way asserts without aggressing. For the person who hears this, it does not feel so attacking.

Get rid of irrational or ungodly expectations. As you get free of these things you’ll find yourself less angry.

Remember that from the Christian POV, “anger” is not sin. Ephesians 4:26 says, “In your anger do not sin.” We are not told never to feel anger. There is a righteous anger, and that is not only appropriate but necessary. But when we feel the emotion of anger we are never to sin. In all relationships we are never to be harsh, demeaning, vindictive, or abusive. Remember that  in every close relationship there is anger. The anger-free relationship is a myth, and probably is a sign of unhealth when claimed.

Finally, Ephesians 4:26 says, “Don’t let the sun go down on your anger.” Which means: deal with anger quickly, and in a loving and truthful way. The goal is always restoration of relationship and reconciliation.

I am thankful that only a few times in our 44 years of marriage have Linda I fallen asleep angry with each other. The reason for this is not that we’re some special, exceptionally compatible couple. We are this way because we were taught to do this by godly people who spoke into our lives. We were sufficiently warned about the cancerous bitterness that arises when anger is “swept under the carpet.” We don’t want satan to gain even a toehold in our hearts. We have asked God to help us with this, and He has!

If you have allowed the enemy entrance into your heart because, in your anger, you have sinned, then confess this to God.

Then, receive God’s forgiveness and give Him thanks. 1 John 1:9 says: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 

Acknowledge, before God, that you are a new creation in Christ.
Ask God to help you, and trust that He is now doing so. 

***
Face-to-Face Your Anger and Interpersonal Conflict (Not Facebook It)


Never use things like Facebook or texting to share negative things or work out interpersonal conflict. For such things Face-to-Face is best.


Henri Nouwen writes:

"When you write a very angry letter to a friend who has hurt you deeply, don't send it! Let the letter sit on your table for a few days and read it over a number of times. Then ask yourself: "Will this letter bring life to me and my friend? Will it bring healing, will it bring a blessing?" You don't have to ignore the fact that you are deeply hurt. You don't have to hide from your friend that you feel offended. But you can respond in a way that makes healing and forgiveness possible and opens the door for new life. Rewrite the letter if you think it does not bring life, and send it with a prayer for your friend."

Think, and pray, before you text or speak.


***
Using Logic to Manage Anger in Relationships

I'm presenting this to my MCCC Logic class tonight. It's an example of using logic to counsel people, in this case with conflict in relationships.

Note: there is a small but growing Philosophical Counseling movement. See here; and here