Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist ##2022045023

Couples rarely walk into my office believing change is possible. They walk in numb to it. Not hopeless in a dramatic way — just quietly certain, underneath whatever brought them in, that this is who we are now. This is just how we fight. He's always going to shut down. She's always going to bring up the same thing. The cycle isn't treated as a problem to solve anymore. It's treated as the weather.

​

That numbness has a name in Walter Brueggemann's work, even though he was writing about nations, not marriages.

​

BRUEGGEMANN'S REAL SUBJECT: WHAT NUMBNESS DOES TO A FUTURE

​

In The Prophetic Imagination, Brueggemann isn't mainly interested in prediction — prophets, in his account, aren't fortune-tellers. He's interested in what he calls "royal consciousness": a settled, satisfied way of seeing things that has stopped being able to picture anything different. Under royal consciousness, the current arrangement doesn't feel like one option among many. It feels like reality itself. And that, Brueggemann argues, is the real danger — not injustice or pain on their own, but a numbness so complete that people lose the capacity to even imagine an alternative to them.

​

Against that numbness, he describes the prophetic task as having two movements. The first is grief: full-throated, undefended lament for what has actually been lost, spoken plainly instead of managed or minimized. The second, which can only come after the first, is hope — not optimism, but imagination: the disciplined, almost artistic work of picturing a future that the numbed-out present insists is impossible.

​

Imagination, in Brueggemann's telling, isn't a nice extra once the real work is done. It's the actual mechanism of change. You cannot move toward a future you cannot first picture.

​

THE COUPLE'S VERSION OF ROYAL CONSCIOUSNESS

​

I don't think it's a stretch to say most stuck couples are living under their own small royal consciousness. The relationship has a settled story — he always, she never, this is just us — and that story has stopped feeling like a story. It feels like fact. Couples don't usually say "I've lost the ability to imagine this being different." They just quietly stop trying, which amounts to the same thing.

​

This is why information rarely helps a couple that's truly stuck. You can hand a numb couple a communication technique and watch it evaporate within a week, not because the technique was bad, but because nothing about receiving new information touches the deeper problem: they cannot picture themselves actually living inside a different pattern. The old cycle isn't just a habit. It's the only future they can currently imagine.

​

EFT'S FIRST MOVEMENT IS GRIEF, WHETHER WE CALL IT THAT OR NOT

​

The early stage of EFT — what the field calls de-escalation — looks, structurally, exactly like Brueggemann's first prophetic movement. Before anything new can be built, the couple has to be able to say, plainly and without being talked out of it, how much the cycle has actually cost them. Not the surface complaint — the real loss underneath it. The loneliness. The years. The way they stopped reaching for each other. This isn't a formality on the way to the "real" work. It's the work. A couple that hasn't been allowed to grieve what the cycle has taken from them will not have room for anything else, because their capacity for imagination is still occupied by managing or denying the loss.

​

EFT'S SECOND MOVEMENT IS AN ACT OF IMAGINATION, NOT A SKILL

​

Here's where I think the connection to Brueggemann gets most concrete, and most useful. Once a couple can name the cycle and grieve what it's cost, EFT doesn't move to advice. It moves to enactment — asking a partner, in the room, to try reaching for the other person in a way they have never actually done before. Say the fear instead of the anger. Ask for what you need instead of protecting yourself from not getting it.

​

That is not a communication skill being taught. It's an act of imagination being staged. The partner is being asked to inhabit, physically and out loud, a version of the relationship that does not yet exist and that their own history has taught them isn't possible. It usually feels awkward, and slightly unbelievable, the first time — which makes sense. You are watching someone imagine a future in real time, before there's any proof it's safe to.

​

This is also why EFT rarely works through argument alone, the same way Brueggemann is clear that prophets work through image and poetry rather than policy briefs. You cannot reason a numb person into a new future. You have to give them something to picture, and then, carefully, something to practice inside of.

​

TWO PEOPLE DOING THE SAME WORK, CENTURIES APART

​

​​

​

Brueggemann was writing about how communities get free of a story that insists nothing can change. I spend my days with couples caught in a much smaller version of the same trap. Both kinds of freedom start the same way: someone has to grieve what's true, out loud, and then someone has to dare to imagine — and briefly live inside — a future the present says isn't possible.

​

If the last piece I wrote here was about what covenant actually asks of us, this one is about the muscle you need to get there. Naming what you want isn't enough, and neither is grieving what you've lost. At some point, someone in the room has to imagine what hasn't happened yet, and be willing to try it out loud before it feels true. That's not a soft skill. It's the whole hinge the work turns on.