Love and Respect

[mkgal1]

Ephesians 5:33 also says that husbands are to LOVE their wives...why are you hung up on the wife's part and not on the husband's part? Seems funny you give the men a free pass on this and hammer on the woman.

You can't take half of a sentence and demand that be 100% adhered to without taking the other half and demand that be 100% adhered to also. The important word in that sentence is AND. In other words, you have to have BOTH of those...you can't isolate just a few words out of a complete thought there. So, once again, not only does your exegesis stink, so does your understanding of the basic rules of English grammar.

I think his point is that it's us women that try to wiggle out of the rules (claiming difference of interpretation)---but men don't say they aren't supposed to love their wives (they agree with that). Am I correct, Link?

But.....there was all that about "vows" (in quotes) not being much more than tradition---and that's not what God requires.....and comparing that to making a ridiculous promise about leaving a rose a day (which isn't an example of genuine love, as far as I'm concerned---that's a rote ritual that can be done with internal spite and resentment)---so I'm kind of confused about the points trying to be made at the moment. That all seems like a twist on what "husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies" (which may have been an attempt to "do as you do" to make a point? I don't know).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I think his point is that it's us women that try to wiggle out of the rules (claiming difference of interpretation)---but men don't say they aren't supposed to love their wives (they agree with that). Am I correct, Link?

But.....there was all that about "vows" (in quotes) not being much more than tradition---and that's not what God requires.....and comparing that to making a ridiculous promise about leaving a rose a day (which isn't an example of genuine love, as far as I'm concerned---that's a rote ritual that can be done with internal spite and resentment)---so I'm kind of confused about the points trying to be made at the moment. That all seems like a twist on what "husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies" (which may have been an attempt to "do as you do" to make a point? I don't know).

My point is that it's a two way street...both things have to happen in the marriage covenant. If it's one-sided (on either side) then the covenant is broken. I can only speak to my case...by his actions, my h didn't keep his side of that covenant (husbands love your wives), therefore, I am not held to the other side of that covenant (wives respect/reverence your husbands). IF there is to be reconciliation, then BOTH sides of the covenant must be regrown, and from that point on, it is necessary for BOTH parties to keep BOTH sides of the covenant. And, yes, both those things have to be earned. My h says he still loves me...great...however, I need the time and evidence of that love in order to find out if I can learn to respect him again. The words my h speaks mean nothing to me. I want to see evidence in his words and deeds. IF he provides that evidence in his actions towards me, then I could learn to respect him. But right now, it's words...they're meaningless as far as I am concerned.

 

[mkgal1]

Years ago, on this forum.....this very topic had come up. There was talk about "not dropping your end of the rope--even if the other spouse did". I think that's really a great illustration (the illustration of a rope, I mean). It seems un-wise to me to be hanging on to something with no one at the other end. IMO.....that defeats the whole purpose of marriage---we are to be "one flesh" and to be interconnected (not alone---as God said in Genesis "it's not good for man to be alone").

In that conversation, we'd come up with the analogy of the rope representing all that "binds" the two together (things like: compassion; loyalty; honesty; initiative; attentiveness; sensitivity; empathy...etc). If one spouse has abandoned their commitment (and placed their loyalty elsewhere)....ie "dropped their end of the rope".......they are not connected to us any longer (like you posted, RPD, the covenant is broken). Any of our efforts will be in vain. Since God knows our hearts and intentions----He is the only one that can judge who it was that truly "dropped the rope". Since Link has agreed that "God is the one that regulates marriage"......maybe we ought to leave that up to Him?

 

[mkgal1]

My point is that it's a two way street...both things have to happen in the marriage covenant. If it's one-sided (on either side) then the covenant is broken. I can only speak to my case...by his actions, my h didn't keep his side of that covenant (husbands love your wives), therefore, I am not held to the other side of that covenant (wives respect/reverence your husbands). IF there is to be reconciliation, then BOTH sides of the covenant must be regrown, and from that point on, it is necessary for BOTH parties to keep BOTH sides of the covenant. And, yes, both those things have to be earned. My h says he still loves me...great...however, I need the time and evidence of that love in order to find out if I can learn to respect him again. The words my h speaks mean nothing to me. I want to see evidence in his words and deeds. IF he provides that evidence in his actions towards me, then I could learn to respect him. But right now, it's words...they're meaningless as far as I am concerned.

I completely agree.

 

[mkgal1]

This is an area where growing in the faith may help him.

I disagree with this as well (but that's for another thread). I will just say our spiritual maturity is based on our emotional maturity.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I would say that the spiritual growth and emotional growth happen simultaneously...however, I do know of men who are considered "pillars of the church" who are total tyrants at home. BUT...these men are part of churches where this behavior is winked at...and not considered to be out of line. I would then say that the institutional church that allows this behavior is not very spiritually mature either (I'm specifically thinking of IFB type churches)

 

[LinkH]

Ephesians 5:33 also says that husbands are to LOVE their wives...why are you hung up on the wife's part and not on the husband's part? Seems funny you give the men a free pass on this and hammer on the woman.

That's not true at all. Like I've said, I don't remember ever reading on any forum or hearing a Christian man say he doesn't have to love his wife. On this particular forum, I do see women arguing that they don't have to respect their husbands if the husband doesn't love her right. So that's why I've addressed the issue.

You can't take half of a sentence and demand that be 100% adhered to without taking the other half and demand that be 100% adhered to also.
The important word in that sentence is AND. In other words, you have to have BOTH of those...you can't isolate just a few words out of a complete thought there. So, once again, not only does your exegesis stink, so does your understanding of the basic rules of English grammar.

Sure you can. It doesn't make sense to argue as you are. It's not logical or rational. There are two individuals here who have two different roles. The command to the husband to love his wife doesn't go away if his wife is disrespectful. The instruction for wives doesn't go away if her wife is unloving. And again, Peter is clear that his instructions to wives apply even if their husbands do not obey the word. We can't expect that unbelievers, especially in the Roman world, would have embraced Christian philosophy about the role of husbands, yet wives were still to do their part.

If you think about, only loving if the wife respects is a recipe for disaster. And only respecting if the husband loves the wife right is a recipe for disaster. It is a way to get on what the author of Love and Respect calls 'the crazy cycle.'

Btw, my exegesis isn't anything original. John Chrysostom's fourth century Homily on Marriage makes the same point that each person does their part whether the other does or not.

 

[LinkH]

I think his point is that it's us women that try to wiggle out of the rules (claiming difference of interpretation)---but men don't say they aren't supposed to love their wives (they agree with that). Am I correct, Link?

I'd say that's typical of this forum, maybe even some sectors of American society among religious folks, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily typical of women in general.

I can't say all men who profess Christianity love their wives as Christ loves the church. But I don't think I've ever heard one argue that he doesn't have to.

It reminds me of this verse:

I Timothy 2
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
(NIV)

Adam sinned, too, but apparently it wasn't from being deceived.

But.....there was all that about "vows" (in quotes) not being much more than tradition---and that's not what God requires.....and comparing that to making a ridiculous promise about leaving a rose a day (which isn't an example of genuine love, as far as I'm concerned---that's a rote ritual that can be done with internal spite and resentment)

The point about the rose-- which I got from someone's statement about modern wedding vows, and could be a true thing as far as I know-- is that if a couple make up their own stupid vows on the wedding, we can obviously see it's silly to say they are free to divorce over breaking the vows.

I saw the wedding episode of 'married at first sight' when that came out. I think they had stupid wedding vows, vowing to be supportive of the other person no matter what they did. I was wanting someone to say, "I can't promise that. If you want to do something stupid, I will oppose you."

When marriage vows are new or made-up, we can recognize how breaking them isn't grounds for divorce. When we grew up going to our siblings' and cousins' weddings hearing those vows and hearing them on TV and at church when our kids get married, we think that IS getting married, that that ceremony is it. But that's a ceremony that evolved over time.

Of course, spouses should love, honor, and cherish each other. But neglecting to do so (and who doesn't neglect to do so at some point or other) is not grounds for divorce, because God doesn't allow it as a grounds for divorce.

---so I'm kind of confused about the points trying to be made at the moment. That all seems like a twist on what "husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies" (which may have been an attempt to "do as you do" to make a point? I don't know).

I lost you there.

One of my concerns about the thread is that I see loving people who don't love you as a very important Christian teaching. The Bible also talks about turning the other cheek and loving your enemies and things like that. We have the example of Christ who died for sinners to reconcile them with the Father.

But then in marriage, are we supposed to have an attitude that, "I'm only obligated to do my part if you do that part"? That's a way to get on a downward spiral where each party withholds their part in the marriage.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

However you insist that I should "respect" the man who did not act particularly loving towards me, my home, my pets. There is a basic level of respect that he gets from me as a human being...however...the level of respect he would earn as a loving husband he will not get from me until he shows that love towards me.

"the crazy cycle" is baloney. If both parties would conduct themselves properly, then there wouldn't be a problem.

What I said about the conjunction in verse 33 is true. It is an AND sentence. Both parts have to be true or it is a false statement. You have to take the WHOLE statement as one full thought. You can't divide it up.

But...you are hung up on the woman ALWAYS respecting the man no matter how much of an ugly, abusive jerk he is being. You would immediately be on the man's side if his wife did something to him. I chose not to react that night. I could have...and been quite violent (I had cause and could have gotten away with it)...that was showing restraint and respect. That's called basic respect and self restraint...I didn't choose to kick his backside when he slung the bottle at me. I had cause, I had been threatened. I chose to walk away. He was smart and didn't come after me. Heck...the cop that came to the house told me that if he acted up again and I chose to get physical, there wasn't a judge or cop in the county that would arrest me...that sort of almost gives me a legal license to be a totally abusive witch any time I want to be...but I won't. I see no need to act that way. That's respecting him as a person. However, the level of respect that a husband should expect as a loving husband won't be received by him until he earns it. He has to prove himself to me first. He is working on it and has been rather decent, but we're not living together and it will be a long time before we start living together again (our counselor advised at least 6 months but he signed a year's lease on his place). It will be a step by step process under the advice of our counselor, our pastor and our respective mentors. THEY are in complete concurrence with how this is being handled, so honestly, considering the advice that I have been given is diametrically opposed to yours, I'll have to go with the advice given by the people who know the WHOLE story instead of what I've chosen to disclose here.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

This thread is closed. Please be mindful of the rules:

Submission will only be discussed in the separate forums for married men's/women's personal topics. UPDATE: Trial Thread found HERE. Please only discuss submission in that thread or in the married men's/women's personal topics.

Mark
Adviser Assistant