Love and Respect

[RedPonyDriver]

Men get to correct.

Women get to be corrected.

I repeat my last post as well.

Says who? So men are always right? That reminds me of that joke...I married Mr. Right...I just didn't know his first name was Always.

 

[ValleyGal]

Men get to correct.

Women get to be corrected.

I repeat my last post as well.

And heaven forbid if they criticize because that is disrespectful.

 

[LinkH]

FI was just going to ignore the last several posts, but maybe it's best to comment on it. From my perspective, this just feels like nit picking over a choice of words. I know you don't perceive it that way. Think of it as 'Christianese'. I have heard 'correction' used in church to refer to pointing out a sin or shortcoming of a fellow believer. I wasn't using it in some kind of gender-specific way. I never said men are always right.

This forum used to be really bad about people making a big deal out of the use of some word, making mountains out of molehills, sometimes even twisting words. Fortunately, that has improved in recent years. Occasionally, though, someone gets irritated about another person's choice of words and a few posters jump on it, making a mountain out of a molehill or implying things the poster did not say or intend. From my perspective as the poster whose words are being picked apart, that's what it feels like.

 

[ValleyGal]

I've been there, Link. There are people who make it a habit to jump all over people's use of certain words and twist other's words - one of my pet peeves on the forum is that there are those who are so skilled at word games that they actually take the very concept you post, twist it to make it sound like you are wrong, then post the original concept as though it were their own. There are one or two who do that here. There are also those who make a point of exposing all your inconsistencies - you said this in post ____ but in post ___ you say that - all the while taking things out of context.

Imo, there is a difference between those who make a habit of those kinds of word games and those who do it only when that language will perpetuate long-held social biases or when the inconsistency is pertinent to the outcome of a thread.

It's interesting that you didn't use the language the other way - as in women correcting their husbands and men criticizing their wives. Imo, that would have elicited a whole different response from us. Bias shows up in the language we use.

If you would like to discuss criticism, it is far different than correction. And correction is used far too frequently for every little sin - or even for things that are not sins but rather nothing more than different ways of doing things or other annoyances. Iow, being "corrected" for how the toilet is cleaned is far different than being "corrected" for ongoing and unrepentant adultery. One is clearly a sin and the other is a matter of control. But that is why so many women get so riled up over things like your use of language in your earlier post - the fact that women need "correction" is absolutely no different than either men needing correction or it is nothing more than a Christianese way of justifying and excusing their criticism. Iow, correction has been abused in marriage, primarily by husbands over their wives, and wives are not going to take that anymore. So in the context of this thread when we are talking about love and respect, it was perceived disrespect towards us as women (and wives, even that of other men), to talk about "correcting" wives and how wives criticize husbands. I also think in terms of this thread, that is not making a mountain out of a molehill - it is the whole basis on which this mountain (thread) is formed - [dis]respect.

 

[mkgal1]

Certain words conjure up specific images though (some are personal---some are more general). It's basic writing skills. If I wanted to be more descriptive, instead of saying "He went to the store" I'd write, "He sprinted to the store".

I think the post that commented on how "correction" sounds (to most of us) was fairly written. It wasn't attacking or twisting. Maybe from the perspective of the one that "gets to" do the correcting it doesn't sound offensive, but I agree with this post:

When you say it like that, it sounds like you are correcting an errant child. I would rephrase this as "spouses need to learn how to communicate better especially when there is conflict". "Correction" implies that you are right and she is wrong. I fail to see things that way. There were times I was right and he was wrong (many of them), yet instead of "correcting", I would attempt to explain why his view was incorrect or off-base.

If leaders at my church said they needed to "correct me" (and used that language) for something that was more of an opinion....(I can't even come up with something right now).....something that wasn't due to me being "in sin"---then red flags would be shooting up immediately.

 

[mkgal1]

I've been there, Link. There are people who make it a habit to jump all over people's use of certain words and twist other's words - one of my pet peeves on the forum is that there are those who are so skilled at word games that they actually take the very concept you post, twist it to make it sound like you are wrong, then post the original concept as though it were their own. There are one or two who do that here. There are also those who make a point of exposing all your inconsistencies - you said this in post ____ but in post ___ you say that - all the while taking things out of context.

Imo, there is a difference between those who make a habit of those kinds of word games and those who do it only when that language will perpetuate long-held social biases or when the inconsistency is pertinent to the outcome of a thread.

It's interesting that you didn't use the language the other way - as in women correcting their husbands and men criticizing their wives. Imo, that would have elicited a whole different response from us. Bias shows up in the language we use.

If you would like to discuss criticism, it is far different than correction. And correction is used far too frequently for every little sin - or even for things that are not sins but rather nothing more than different ways of doing things or other annoyances. Iow, being "corrected" for how the toilet is cleaned is far different than being "corrected" for ongoing and unrepentant adultery. One is clearly a sin and the other is a matter of control. But that is why so many women get so riled up over things like your use of language in your earlier post - the fact that women need "correction" is absolutely no different than either men needing correction or it is nothing more than a Christianese way of justifying and excusing their criticism. Iow, correction has been abused in marriage, primarily by husbands over their wives, and wives are not going to take that anymore. So in the context of this thread when we are talking about love and respect, it was perceived disrespect towards us as women (and wives, even that of other men), to talk about "correcting" wives and how wives criticize husbands. I also think in terms of this thread, that is not making a mountain out of a molehill - it is the whole basis on which this mountain (thread) is formed - [dis]respect.

Right.

Honor is a more descriptive word, I believe, and to honor someone means (in part) to make every effort not to harm the connection or bond between the two. Any grievance is handled with care.

 

[LinkH]

I've been there, Link. There are people who make it a habit to jump all over people's use of certain words and twist other's words - one of my pet peeves on the forum is that there are those who are so skilled at word games that they actually take the very concept you post, twist it to make it sound like you are wrong, then post the original concept as though it were their own. There are one or two who do that here.

ValleyGal,
I don't see that as characteristic of myself. But I do that, it's not because I want to twist other people's words. I have posted in long threads and forgot someone said something or repeated another idea someone wrote on a page I hadn't read and other people jumped on me for acting like something the idea was my original idea. Most of our ideas on here aren't that original anyway. Someone has thought of just about any idea we mention.

There are also those who make a point of exposing all your inconsistencies - you said this in post ____ but in post ___ you say that - all the while taking things out of context.

We also can learn stuff and change our minds while we post and read on these forums.

It's interesting that you didn't use the language the other way - as in women correcting their husbands and men criticizing their wives. Imo, that would have elicited a whole different response from us. Bias shows up in the language we use.

I had a look back at the messages in question. I've spent too much time doing that stuff. I probably should have just ignored the comments and moved on. But I did look back. My use of 'criticism' made a lot of sense in context, because that is the word Eggerichs uses in his book. I don't have the book with me (nor do I care to look up sections for something a discussion like this) but he says something along the lines of a wife giving correction, helpful suggestions, etc. and the husband interpreting it as 'criticism.' I read the book recently, so it makes sense that I use the word.

In the context of your response to me, it makes sense that I would use the word 'correction.' You'd written,

there are very few men who really do self-examine and work on their own improvement rather than expect the wife to make all the adjustments and changes."

The irony here is that the majority female and, from my perspective, Feminist influenced, posters latched on to something small and subtle about the use of 'correction' or 'criticism' in different contexts instead of such a blatant generalization about the male gender.

'Correction' seems to fit the context. I didn't think deeply about my choice of words of course. You can think it's some sort of Freudian slip sort of thing if you want to. I think that's over analyzing it, and an unrealistic theory considering the contexts of the statements.

Christians use that word to point out sins, flaws, etc. So jumping on the bandwagon when someone suggests it sounds like correcting a child seems odd, since it's 'Christianese', too. But folks may come from a different religious tradition than I do where that word isn't used much that way, and that's to be expected. I get the sense that people are finding fault with me, though, when I'm using Eggerich's language. And as I recall, Eggerich is talking about how men perceive wive's comments which are not intended to be disrespectful criticism. I'm not going to blame him for his choice of words. It seems to be a real issue.

If you would like to discuss criticism, it is far different than correction. And correction is used far too frequently for every little sin - or even for things that are not sins but rather nothing more than different ways of doing things or other annoyances. Iow, being "corrected" for how the toilet is cleaned is far different than being "corrected" for ongoing and unrepentant adultery. One is clearly a sin and the other is a matter of control.

Maybe. It's semantics, though, and not something I'd like to discuss, at least not in this thread.

But that is why so many women get so riled up over things like your use of language in your earlier post - the fact that women need "correction" is absolutely no different than either men needing correction or it is nothing more than a Christianese way of justifying and excusing their criticism. Iow, correction has been abused in marriage, primarily by husbands over their wives, and wives are not going to take that anymore.

This sounds like a perception based on individual experiences. I'm more used to seeing couples where the wife is critical of the husband. Lots of marriages are like that, too. 'Everyone Loves Raymond' marriages seems to be a more salient stereotype of marriage in the culture these days.

I'm going to have a different perspective from most posters on the forum. I've participated in a forum where female posters are a bit more conservative, and I would anticipate a reaction like this from most posters on there. Maybe a few of the feminists. Feminism in general tends to train women to be sensitive to this type of wording. It's a kind of 'politically correct' mentality. There are valid instances where a husband might correct his wife.

In message 35, I wrote,

I do recall reading several comments about a wife's correction being taken by a man as biting criticism in the book.

Somehow, my comments got spun around as saying women criticize men but men correct women. It's not even a fair criticism seeing what I wrote in the post quoted above.

So in the context of this thread when we are talking about love and respect, it was perceived disrespect towards us as women (and wives, even that of other men), to talk about "correcting" wives and how wives criticize husbands. I also think in terms of this thread, that is not making a mountain out of a molehill - it is the whole basis on which this mountain (thread) is formed - [dis]respect.

This reminds me a bit of the 'Niagra Falls' sketch. I don't have sound on the PC I'm using. Hopefully this link is the right one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr6VBg1SiYI

 

[ValleyGal]

ValleyGal,
I don't see that as characteristic of myself.

I did not mean to suggest that was you. In fact, I had another poster in mind. I was just saying that I understand being on the losing end of other people's word games.

We also can learn stuff and change our minds while we post and read on these forums.

Again, not about you; just pointing out some of the word games people here have tried to play with me and it is, imo, nothing more than attempts to goad, etc without actually being able to pinpoint the exact goad. But whatever....just immature word games.

I get the sense that people are finding fault with me, though, when I'm using Eggerich's language. And as I recall, Eggerich is talking about how men perceive wive's comments which are not intended to be disrespectful criticism. I'm not going to blame him for his choice of words. It seems to be a real issue.

You like the book. The book is what we are finding fault with, and if you like the book, it's almost like being guilty by association. You can believe what you want, but for me, it is because the book uses such biased language - written by a man from a man's perspective, assuming a[n in]accurate female perspective, the book is not well-rounded, well-written and it makes far too many biased assumptions, etc. I stand by my earlier critique of the book and I still do not like it and will not recommend it for those reasons. If a husband "corrects" his wife, she will likely take it as criticism, just like a man takes correction from his wife as criticism. It's not a male/female characteristic; it is a human one. No one wants to be "corrected" especially when there has been historic imbalance of power and the "correction" comes from the powerful side of that imbalance. Because of that, it comes off not as correction (especially if it is not over a sin-issue) but as an effort to control, manipulate and criticize.

Feminism in general tends to train women to be sensitive to this type of wording.

Your blame is misplaced. It is not feminism that trains women to be sensitive to this type of wording; instead, it is having lived in a world where there has been an imbalance of power. Some of us are extremely sensitive to words and biases because we have grown up and lived in that power imbalance, which creates dissonance for us because the social trend is that women are supposed to be equal. It is not the trend that is making us sensitive. It is coming out of ignorance to it that is making us sensitive.

But that is why so many women get so riled up over things like your use of language in your earlier post - the fact that women need "correction" is absolutely no different than either men needing correction or it is nothing more than a Christianese way of justifying and excusing their criticism. Iow, correction has been abused in marriage, primarily by husbands over their wives, and wives are not going to take that anymore.
​

This sounds like a perception based on individual experiences. I'm more used to seeing couples where the wife is critical of the husband. Lots of marriages are like that, too. 'Everyone Loves Raymond' marriages seems to be a more salient stereotype of marriage in the culture these days.

Perhaps you are from a younger generation. Yes, I agree that "Everyone Loves Raymond" marriages are a problem, and often it is the woman who criticizes the man, and this ultimately emasculates the man. However, in a lot of conservative traditions, there is still the power imbalance of male "authority" and ownership mentality that was predominant in my generation - this is actually a very evident bias in much of your posting, which is why I was not surprised - but really rather miffed - about your use of the word "correction" for men and "criticism" for women. It is typical way to think with that kind of unequal power balance bias.

Marriages are in trouble in many ways. Power imbalance is one of them (which also typically results in men abusing "correction" over their wives. Another is women who criticize their men and thereby emasculating them. Neither is beneficial, which is also why I say that this book is not relevant: if you love your spouse, you will be respectful towards them. That is the bottom line, so to divide that up and say women need to respect and men need to love, why not simply teach love as the moral marital imperative instead?

 

[LinkH]

If a husband "corrects" his wife, she will likely take it as criticism, just like a man takes correction from his wife as criticism.

Criticism isn't necessarily a bad thing. The word does have a bit of a negative connotation much of the time, though.

Some of us are extremely sensitive to words and biases because we have grown up and lived in that power imbalance, which creates dissonance for us because the social trend is that women are supposed to be equal. It is not the trend that is making us sensitive.

The wording I used called what a wife said 'correction', too. So I don't understand getting miffed at me. I suspect the dissonance is more of an issue for those who don't like the idea if hierarchy in marriage, which is also an assumption and directly taught principle in the book we are discussing.

It is coming out of ignorance to it that is making us sensitive.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'it', but writing that makes me feel like Bill Clinton.

That is the bottom line, so to divide that up and say women need to respect and men need to love, why not simply teach love as the moral marital imperative instead?

Ephesians 5 tells wives to respect their husbands. It does not tell husbands to respect their wives. It tells husbands to love their wives, but it doesn't say for wives to respect their husbands.

Another passage tells older women to teach younger women to love their husbands. 'Love thy neighbor' also applies. I Peter 3 tells husbands to honor their wives.

In the context, I don't think wives are supposed to 'respect' their husbands in the same way, considering the Greek word which can also be rendered 'revere' or 'fear.' Fear as in fear God, fear the king, etc. The word usage seems consistent with hierarchy.

In our modern sense of 'respect', the way we usually use it, sure, husbands should respect their wives and vice versa. I'd agree with that.

I think Eggerich is taking a bit of a leap in connecting the theme verse in Ephesians 5 about the command for wives to respect their husbands with the idea that this is an emotional need. The teaching of the passage stands regardless of whether a husband percieves a need for respect. We had about 18 people in our class, all married couples except for one young engaged couple. The idea of men needing respect didn't resonate much at first with one young man and one middle aged married man. The young man said he thought about it and it made sense. It seemed to resonate well with the other men in the class. Even with Eggerich's survey results, we'd expect some men not to care as much about respect as others. No matter what the feelings are, it's right to obey what the verse says.

 

[Hetta]

Criticism isn't necessarily a bad thing. The word does have a bit of a negative connotation much of the time, though.

Unless it's a woman criticizing a man.

 

[LinkH]

Unless it's a woman criticizing a man.

Here we go again.

 

[HannahT]

Ephesians 5 tells wives to respect their husbands. It does not tell husbands to respect their wives. It tells husbands to love their wives, but it doesn't say for wives to respect their husbands.

Another passage tells older women to teach younger women to love their husbands. 'Love thy neighbor' also applies. I Peter 3 tells husbands to honor their wives.

In the context, I don't think wives are supposed to 'respect' their husbands in the same way, considering the Greek word which can also be rendered 'revere' or 'fear.' Fear as in fear God, fear the king, etc. The word usage seems consistent with hierarchy.

In our modern sense of 'respect', the way we usually use it, sure, husbands should respect their wives and vice versa. I'd agree with that.

I think Eggerich is taking a bit of a leap in connecting the theme verse in Ephesians 5 about the command for wives to respect their husbands with the idea that this is an emotional need. The teaching of the passage stands regardless of whether a husband percieves a need for respect. We had about 18 people in our class, all married couples except for one young engaged couple. The idea of men needing respect didn't resonate much at first with one young man and one middle aged married man. The young man said he thought about it and it made sense. It seemed to resonate well with the other men in the class. Even with Eggerich's survey results, we'd expect some men not to care as much about respect as others. No matter what the feelings are, it's right to obey what the verse says.

For me, there are different levels of respect.

I respect my fellow humans, because I feel it is taught to do so. I also feel that when you finally OWN that, instead of attempting to do this out of some sense of obligation? A heart change maybe...it becomes much easier and almost natural.

There was a time in my life in which I truly struggled with this concept. As God opened my heart things changed. It doesn't mean I have to accept their way of life, prospective, etc. Just respect them as another of God's creatures. To me, this includes individuals I find as poisonous too.

You then have different levels of respect towards your friends, family, children, and spouse.

Jesus tended to persuade people more than concentrating on 'commands'. He most certainly did point those out, but much of the delivery didn't come across that way. I do believe he did it that way to help the heart change, ways of viewing life, and in the end showing us the true attraction to the faith.

Let me give you example! Let's use your comment, using what I seem to be reading on this thread that the author shows no TRUE acknowledgement that is not just men need respect:

Ephesians 5 tells wives to respect their husbands. It does not tell husbands to respect their wives. It tells husbands to love their wives, but it doesn't say for wives to respect their husbands.

Another passage tells older women to teach younger women to love their husbands. 'Love thy neighbor' also applies. I Peter 3 tells husbands to honor their wives.

When you state, "It does not tell husband's to respect their wives" it will come across to many that respect isn't a man's obligation at all. Almost like they don't have too. Yet, the bible would never make that suggestion...ever! That type of statement is a like a clanging gong.

Now, if you phrased it like this:

Ephesians may not tell the husbands to respect their wives, but you do find that in I Peter 3 when the bible speaks of honoring them.

Ephesians may not tell wives to love their husbands, but you do find that in many other parts of the bible - Love Thy neighbor, etc.

Sadly, this author seems to suggest that wives have a real problem with respect...when in reality to me human's in general do. I guess I shouldn't even say suggest - the author pretty cements that concept. I find that quite insulting, because respect is for all humans. We all struggle with this, and not 'especially' women.

Now, lets view this from history:

Back in the day marriage was almost like a transaction, and wasn't based out of love like we find today. I'm sure there were occasions where that was not true, but I'm speaking in terms of overall.

When marriage is viewed in this way love and respect may never even enter their minds, but they do realize it was a lifelong commitment that they made. That's just how it was done, and it was done more for a sense of survival in most cases.

The aspect of sex was even different. Today, the big preaching term is making sure you spouse gets enough. In the bible you find in that culture that the man was obligated to give his wive a child/children. Children gave him a place of honor, and a sense of security for her. You notice in the OT especially the concentration was on the man to fulfill this obligation to his wife...and not the other way around like today.

Honestly, it makes me wonder due to this dynamic of 'marriage' if that is not why men took other ladies. The first was out of obligation to a commitment, and certain ladies were more of closeness or a truer sense of a relationship.

When I look at that relationship dynamic I can see how extreme this teaching could be taken by both genders. You had more of a transaction, commitment more than the relationship that God intended between a husband and wife.

He wanted the genders to take it to the bigger spiritual step. Love and Respect on a deeper level wasn't needed by social terms, but in the spiritual realm...it is what God wanted for us.

Sadly, today you see in many church circles that just because you read it in the bible some instant change is going to come over you. If you can't do that? Your shamed with not being 'biblical', and all that jazz.

Yet, the reality is for most committed couples is that this will be a journey. It will have hills and valley - Good times and bad. There will always be a based sense of love and respect, because we marry for different reasons now. Yet, relationships are work....and we will always have to do that work to grow.

So, this hypothesis that men are perceived as needing respect MORE, and aren't getting it since women don't remember Ephesians? Its demeaning to be perfectly honest. It's also a show of disrespect towards women. That's surface stuff he is teaching, and you can't start there...and then attempt to go into the bread and butter of things.

It's almost like he made his hypothesis - decided on his conclusion - and then filled in all the things he needed and what procedures to follow to make sure it all lined up nicely. That's prejudicial.

Looking at the history of the audience at the time, and what angle the teaching came from is important. That doesn't mean the principals aren't important.

Twisting it a little to say some survey stated that men value respect more still doesn't change it. Most of the time I find certain men's prospective on respect as more wanting to be revered. There is a difference. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but its also very true. I also find some women's prospective on love unrealistic. They set themselves UP for failure.

I feel this author did a poor job towards both genders. Men came across as little boys, and women came across as needy, insecure, and how the world is all about them.

Thankfully, there are mature people in this world. Most are not that extreme, and the pigeon holes doesn't help his opinions. They detract from it.

His view may come from his office visits with clients, but that doesn't mean the world works the way same.

 

[mkgal1]

FI was just going to ignore the last several posts, but maybe it's best to comment on it. From my perspective, this just feels like nit picking over a choice of words. I know you don't perceive it that way. Think of it as 'Christianese'. I have heard 'correction' used in church to refer to pointing out a sin or shortcoming of a fellow believer. I wasn't using it in some kind of gender-specific way. I never said men are always right.

This forum used to be really bad about people making a big deal out of the use of some word, making mountains out of molehills, sometimes even twisting words. Fortunately, that has improved in recent years. Occasionally, though, someone gets irritated about another person's choice of words and a few posters jump on it, making a mountain out of a molehill or implying things the poster did not say or intend. From my perspective as the poster whose words are being picked apart, that's what it feels like.

About nit-picking, choice of words, and making mountains out of molehills. That seems sort of ironic to make a comment like that in this thread---one that is about a book that's playing with semantics in the Bible (for a profit).

 

[LinkH]

For me, there are different levels of respect.

I respect my fellow humans, because I feel it is taught to do so. I also feel that when you finally OWN that, instead of attempting to do this out of some sense of obligation? A heart change maybe...it becomes much easier and almost natural.

There was a time in my life in which I truly struggled with this concept. As God opened my heart things changed. It doesn't mean I have to accept their way of life, prospective, etc. Just respect them as another of God's creatures. To me, this includes individuals I find as poisonous too.

You then have different levels of respect towards your friends, family, children, and spouse.

The respect toward a husband that Ephesians 5:33 talks about is different from the respect toward other people. Eggerichs doesn't go into this. He's really 'soft' on the issue in his book, actually. 'In all things' becomes 51%, for example.

I went online and found some other verses that use the same word rendered 'respect' or 'reverence' in Ephesians 5:33. It is actually the word for 'fear', used in reference to regular plain old 'fear' and also fearing/reverencing God.

This lexicon Greek Lexicon :: G5399 (KJV), defines it as follows:



Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry

TDNT Reference: 9:189,1272


Outline of Biblical Usage

I.to put to flight by terrifying (to scare away)

A.to put to flight, to flee

B.to fear, be afraid

i.to be struck with fear, to be seized with alarm

a.of those startled by strange sights or occurrences


b.of those struck with amazement

ii.to fear, be afraid of one

iii.to fear (i.e. hesitate) to do something (for fear of harm)

C.to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience

I think we can agree the Bible isn't telling wives to cringe or have a heart attack from fear when their husband comes into the room. But she is supposed to treat him with a type of differential reverence.

So if you ask me if a husband should respect his wife, yes of course. But should he have the kind of phobeo this particular verse says a wife should have for her husband, I don't believe so. The use of the word implies hierarchy as do other parts of the passage and I Peter 3.

Eggerichs didn't go into all this. I do like the fact that his book pushes wives who aren't respecting their husbands further in the direction of what Ephesians 5:33 teaches.


Luk 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: G5399 Fear G5399 him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear G5399 him.

Lets look at how phobeo, translated 'respect' or 'reverence' in this verse is used in other contexts:

Luk 1:50
And his mercy is on them that fear G5399 him from generation to generation.

Luk 18:2
Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared G5399 not God, neither regarded man:

Rom 13:3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid G5399 of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Eph 5:33
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence G5399 her husband.

Jesus tended to persuade people more than concentrating on 'commands'.

I might say that about Paul. Jesus told a lot of parables. He also showed a fair amount of attention to commands: the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5, his commentary on the greatest commandments, his encounter with the rich young ruler, his conflict with the Pharisees over washing hands, etc.

Let me give you example! Let's use your comment, using what I seem to be reading on this thread that the author shows no TRUE acknowledgement that is not just men need respect:

I think he mentions that both genders need both up front. I see a lack of respect toward husbands on the part of wives and the culture in general as a big problem, so I think it is a good topic to focus on in a book like this. d

Also, if he's writing to an audience where a lot of people are very conditioned to think in terms of 'equality' just based on their culture and philosophy (not something God has revealed) that his book is a good start to get people to think about their different roles in marriage, by different roles I mean different roles for husbands and wives.

When you state, "It does not tell husband's to respect their wives" it will come across to many that respect isn't a man's obligation at all.

Not if you read that section of my post the way it was intended, along the lines of a logical syllogism, without reading into what I said.

Notice I said that the Bible does tell husbands to honor their wives. So with our common vernacular usage of 'respect', yes husbands should respect their wives. But there is more to the verse than this. Eggerichs doesn't go into detail on it, but that's not the point of his book. The wife is to 'fear' her husband. But it doesn't say for the husband to fear his wife, and I don't believe he should. He should love, care for, protect, and provide for his wife. The relationship is hierarchical. The relationship between Christ and the church which marriage is to depict is also hierarchical.

Sadly, this author seems to suggest that wives have a real problem with respect...when in reality to me human's in general do. I guess I shouldn't even say suggest - the author pretty cements that concept. I find that quite insulting, because respect is for all humans. We all struggle with this, and not 'especially' women.

I wouldn't phrase it like that. The author is pushing wives in the direction of phobeo, which they should show toward their husbands. I think the book could have been improved if it had more emphasis on respectful behaviors back and forth. If he'd talked about a kind of baseline of common respect for both genders, that might have improved it. The book might have been a lot longer. He had a message to communicate in the space he had, which he did.

Personally, I think you may be a bit hypersensitive if you consider this aspect of the book to be insulting. Do you find it insulting when any author points out a potential problem a reader might have? Would you be insulted if Dave Ramsey's book pointed out that too many Americans go into debt? Why should pointing out common marriage problems that he's seen in his own experience be insulting to you? Do you buck against the idea of a wife respecting her husband? What about fearing/reverencing her husband like the passage actually commands?

The aspect of sex was even different. Today, the big preaching term is making sure you spouse gets enough. In the bible you find in that culture that the man was obligated to give his wive a child/children. Children gave him a place of honor, and a sense of security for her. You notice in the OT especially the concentration was on the man to fulfill this obligation to his wife...and not the other way around like today.

That was an emphasis of Judaism. Paul applies it to both genders in I Corinthians7.

He wanted the genders to take it to the bigger spiritual step. Love and Respect on a deeper level wasn't needed by social terms, but in the spiritual realm...it is what God wanted for us.

Ideally, we should mature till these things flow out of us 'naturally.' But if we aren't there yet, it is good to have the instructions of the way we should be and what we should do.

Sadly, today you see in many church circles that just because you read it in the bible some instant change is going to come over you. If you can't do that? Your shamed with not being 'biblical', and all that jazz.

We need the grace of God of the work of the Spirit in our lives to obey God. But one way the Lord uses is to let us have access to the scriptures to read and see how we should be.

So, this hypothesis that men are perceived as needing respect MORE, and aren't getting it since women don't remember Ephesians? Its demeaning to be perfectly honest. It's also a show of disrespect towards women.

Honestly, I think that's more of a hypersensitivity on your part, maybe because some of these concepts rub against some other ideas you hold to and you are experiencing some dissidence.

I'm not sure about the 'emotional need' part. I just see that the Bible instructs women to reverence their husbands as described above. But it could be a need. That was the author's personal experience and experience from counseling, and the results of his survey research. So he may have a valid point. I don't see why it should be seen as either demeaning or demeaning toward women. I could see how someone dead set in a philosophy that goes against what he is saying might perceived it that way.

It's almost like he made his hypothesis - decided on his conclusion - and then filled in all the things he needed and what procedures to follow to make sure it all lined up nicely. That's prejudicial.

From reading the book, it seems to me that he had a lot of academic study on marriage and family and years of experience in his own marriage and counseling others. Then he came up with his hypothesis after reading Ephesians 5:33 and did a bit of research that offered some support for his hypothesis and used it as the basis of his book.

 

[HannahT]

I think he mentions that both genders need both up front. I see a lack of respect toward husbands on the part of wives and the culture in general as a big problem, so I think it is a good topic to focus on in a book like this. d

Also, if he's writing to an audience where a lot of people are very conditioned to think in terms of 'equality' just based on their culture and philosophy (not something God has revealed) that his book is a good start to get people to think about their different roles in marriage, by different roles I mean different roles for husbands and wives.

This is where I disagree. I look at the culture, and disrespect is all over the place. I don't see it as a one way street majority of the time. I see in churches, and society as well.

We live in a very selfish culture, and equality in the sense of what you speak about isn't part of the problem to me. lol unless you want to say they are equally immature, equally insecure, equally selfish and small minded.

Sadly, that 'role' seems to be shared. People take one issue, and bend it out of shape. Someone says something - they make all these assumptions about what they 'really' mean. They list goes on. People it seems only respect some icons in their life's - be it the pastor, rock star or whomever.

People get so bent out of shape over nothing. This, 'I shouldn't have too' is going to be the death of us.

People abandon their families, children because 'they shouldn't have to' deal with them.

The code of good personal behavior is gone, because 'they shouldn't have too' act in a certain way anymore. You should just accept them as they are. When their are consequences, 'they shouldn't have to' deal with them.

I remember my missionary uncle telling us stories of all kinds of ugly things happening within the church, and sadly most people get defensive and say NOT in my church!

That happens even within bigger organizations, and bigger issues - like sexual abuse cases that just came out in the news over at BJU (bob jones universality). We see that in smaller organizations too, because you have convictions of church members in the church everyday.

I think the bigger problem is people always seem to feel most of their life is wonderful, because they won't acknowledge the blinders they have on. They refuse to acknowledge the damage they have done. They make excuses for themselves - or their organization - by saying people misunderstood them...when they really need to own up. lol NOT all of society is stupid, but I gather they learned that excuse from politicians.

Thankfully, we have some wonderful men and women around. Then you have the man-child, and defensive woman. I see them doing that cycle you speak of all the time, and its a lifestyle. Its not just their spouse that they do this too either, and when you point something out? "They shouldn't have too".

I think your bias against 'feminism' is clouding things for you. lol Heck I'm OLD and I don't even know what that word means anymore! You have so many definitions and meanings of that - and heck even what it means to be a man too. Today they do that with everything - not just that term. The church's Charature of it doesn't even make sense anymore, because they are stuck back in the 1960's...and the world left them behind. If they want to be effective they need to acknowledge this is 2014, and stop beating to death the issues that happened 50 years ago.

 

[HannahT]

I wouldn't phrase it like that. The author is pushing wives in the direction of phobeo, which they should show toward their husbands. I think the book could have been improved if it had more emphasis on respectful behaviors back and forth. If he'd talked about a kind of baseline of common respect for both genders, that might have improved it. The book might have been a lot longer. He had a message to communicate in the space he had, which he did.

Personally, I think you may be a bit hypersensitive if you consider this aspect of the book to be insulting. Do you find it insulting when any author points out a potential problem a reader might have? Would you be insulted if Dave Ramsey's book pointed out that too many Americans go into debt? Why should pointing out common marriage problems that he's seen in his own experience be insulting to you? Do you buck against the idea of a wife respecting her husband? What about fearing/reverencing her husband like the passage actually commands?

Please. lol! You mention the book could be improved, and they go ranting on about things that have nothing to do with it!

Come on now! You even mentioned you feel its more women that have problems respecting their husbands, and you left out the other side. Does that make you hypersensitive?

Dave Ramsey as far as I can see didn't use women in most of his examples like this author did.

Link - your response is called diverting.

 

[HannahT]

The aspect of sex was even different. Today, the big preaching term is making sure you spouse gets enough. In the bible you find in that culture that the man was obligated to give his wive a child/children. Children gave him a place of honor, and a sense of security for her. You notice in the OT especially the concentration was on the man to fulfill this obligation to his wife...and not the other way around like today.

That was an emphasis of Judaism. Paul applies it to both genders in I Corinthians7.

Was that not majority of his audience? Yes. It was also part of the overall culture too. They were asked to treat their spouse differently, and not just as a contract. They were asked to learn to love and respect each other.

Context is important too, because you get more meaning out of the text when you understand that part.

I realize that text is there, but that wasn't part of the overall point I was making. I think you know that.

 

[LinkH]

This is where I disagree. I look at the culture, and disrespect is all over the place. I don't see it as a one way street majority of the time. I see in churches, and society as well.

I can agree with that. But if wives disrespecting their husbands is one aspect of this problem then it is a good thing for a book to attack one tiny part of the problem. Someone else could write a book on respecting parents, or teachers, or whatever.

But the New Testament teaches wives to do more than respect their husbands. The word used in the passage translated 'respect' in one translation is translated 'reverence' in another. It's literally the word for 'fear' but the word for fear is used in a variety of ways, including deferential reference. It is used in reference to the fear of God and fear of government officials as the minister of God.

The book doesn't emphasize husbands respecting wives, but it does encourage specific behaviors that are respectful.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I can agree with that. But if wives disrespecting their husbands is one aspect of this problem then it is a good thing for a book to attack one tiny part of the problem. Someone else could write a book on respecting parents, or teachers, or whatever.

But the New Testament teaches wives to do more than respect their husbands. The word used in the passage translated 'respect' in one translation is translated 'reverence' in another. It's literally the word for 'fear' but the word for fear is used in a variety of ways, including deferential reference. It is used in reference to the fear of God and fear of government officials as the minister of God.

The book doesn't emphasize husbands respecting wives, but it does encourage specific behaviors that are respectful.

Deferential reverence? Ummm...no. Just no. Just because he has a Y chromosome and put a ring on my finger, I'm not "fearing" him in any way, shape or form. He's a man...just a man. Once again...just because there's a ring on my finger and I'm "Mrs. Somebody" doesn't mean that king baby of the universe is going to be deferred to no matter what.

Just like any other person, respect has to be earned. In my case, he acted incredibly disrespectful to me...that is why I gave him the left foot of fellowship. At least I was nice enough to open the door before I put him through it.

 

[Inkachu]

It's useless, ladies. Men command respect and reverence and fearful awe from ALL of us because penis.