Love and Respect

[LinkH]

Whoever said that thinking critically discounts God's involvement? Those aren't mutually exclusive ways. It's not 'researching' ideas to include our own brains and spirits (it was He that created us with those--I believe He intended us to put them to good use).

It's certainly not my position to discount critical thinking. I've presented clear critical arguments about what the Bible says, and get emotional responses and comments about research that don't show any evidence of research into what the Bible says. I know there are other areas of 'research' so that's why I mentioned my own steps of deductive reasoning related to the Bible and my critical thinking on the issue.

I see people here talking about research and critical thinking here in recent posts, but not a lot of examples of it, IMO, in relation to the topic at hands as far as what Ephesians 4:33 says.

 

[LinkH]

Obedience is better than sacrifice.

The Hebrews in Saul's time may have thought of it as a holy thing to offer great numbers of animals to the Lord. For certain sacrifices, they even got to eat the meat, too. They got to be religious and have a big barbecue (depending on the type of offering) if they offered a lot of animals to the Lord.

Saul disobeyed the commandment of the Lord to kill all the Amalekite animals. He kept the animals for sacrifice. What did Samuel tell him? Obedience is better than sacrifice. The Lord removed from Saul the chance to set up an ongoing dynasty. Saul's days as king were numbered.

That's what I think of when I see people read Ephesians 5:33 and say you'd better not reverence your husband because you might make an idol out of him. Sure, there are some people who can take it too far. I suppose a woman could literally worship her husband like a god. I've never known anyone who has actually done that. The Bible talks about reverencing rulers. There were those who burnt incense to the Caesars as though they were gods. Now, that is taking it too far.

But if Ephesians I inspired by the Holy Spirit and communicates divine truth, and one just disregards what Ephesians 5:33 based on an objection they come up with that if you do it, you might be treating your husband like a god, and doesn't reverence the husband in the way the passage teaches, isn't this a case where 'Obedience is better than sacrifice' applies?

Making an animal sacrifice was a religious thing to do, pious, and also could satisfy one's own fleshly desires. Dismissing what the Bible teaches about how to treat one's husband saying that it could lead to idolatry sounds religious, pious, and also appeals to the flesh.

I realize there are some translation issues around 'reverence' and some people think of that as something only for the Lord. But wives need to follow this in the way it is meant in the passage.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Whoever said that thinking critically discounts God's involvement? Those aren't mutually exclusive ways. It's not 'researching' ideas to include our own brains and spirits (it was He that created us with those--I believe He intended us to put them to good use).

It might be because I don't blindly follow the bible...

 

[LinkH]

It might be because I don't blindly follow the bible...

What do you blindly follow then?

If you research different ideas from different sources, how do you know the conclusions you come to are truth or just what feels good to you?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

What do you blindly follow then?

If you research different ideas from different sources, how do you know the conclusions you come to are truth or just what feels good to you?

I "blindly follow" NOTHING...as I've said before. My background is in the sciences. Hard, fast facts. That's it. If the facts contradict my "beliefs" then they must be changed. I can believe all day long that I can design a bridge with no supports in the middle. I can build it (maybe). However, it won't hold anything up.

There is a way to research, cross-reference, study opposing views, follow a daisy chain of contradictory information, consult experts and come to a valid conclusion. It's called critical thinking, it's called education.

Let's use another example...let's say I go to buy a car. I've talked to a few friends who all love this particular make and model. Ok...now, I go do research. I consult various publications and find the pros and cons of this particular car. Then, I go test drive it, open the hood, look at the engine, talk to the service people, pull up their repair stats. I look at how the car is put together, the form, fit and finish. I also look at a few other vehicles in the same way. Once I am armed with the sum total of the information, I can make an intelligent choice, based on available facts. I may have "felt" that one car was what I wanted...however, based on the facts, I may discover that this car will not suit my needs, may not be as mechanically reliable as I'd like. Therefore, I don't buy it.

Same with anything else. The concept of operating on "feelings" or "emotions" is foreign to me.

 

[ValleyGal]

But as far as what Paul is saying in the passage in verse 33, can't we all agree that wives should have that attitude toward their husbands?

You're right... I was looking at verse 21-22. However, in verse 33, the fear being referred to is not of reverence; rather, it is the fear of God, which banishes other fears, including fear of judgement. When a husband loves his wife like Christ loves the church, the natural response to that should be (for the church), having basic respect for what Christ did on the cross in order to banish all other fears, including fear of judgement. So now translate that into how a man loves his wife and her response to him. She does not need to be in awe of him or reverence him....she needs the basic respect for him as being a provider, protector, loving and non-judging husband he should be...but he needs to love her first. That is the order of the church - for we love him because he first loved us. Men initiate love, and women respond by respecting that love - the love that banishes all other fears.

The Bible emphasizes wives reverencing husbands, honoring parents, honoring those who rule. So it does make sense to pay attention to special areas where the Bible emphasizes something.

Parents have not "ruled" me since I was about 16 and husbands have never "ruled" me. And they shouldn't. In fact, I have much respect for my husband because he does not assume a position of "ruler" over me.

Sure, there are some people who can take it too far. I suppose a woman could literally worship her husband like a god. I've never known anyone who has actually done that. The Bible talks about reverencing rulers.

Again, my husband is not a ruler over me (that would be abusing his position as "head"). Not only that, but there are women who take it that far... mostly because their men DO assume "rulership" over the wife and the husband expects that kind of reverence that they are next to God himself. Imo, that kind of attitude is terribly egocentric, narcissistic and sexist, not to mention full of arrogance and pride and self-righteousness - all by virtue of high testosterone and male body parts.

I realize there are some translation issues around 'reverence' and some people think of that as something only for the Lord. But wives need to follow this in the way it is meant in the passage.

Just as husbands need to follow that very same concept in verse 21 where we submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

 

[LinkH]

Valleygal,
I kept mentioning referencing 'rulers' in my last post because the same Greek word for fear/reverence/respect is used in Romans 13 to refer to 'fearing' or reverencing the higher powers/rulers.

I wasn't talking about husbands or parents being rulers over people. I was talking about different categories of people the Bible says to respect or reverence.

You're right... I was looking at verse 21-22. However, in verse 33, the fear being referred to is not of reverence; rather, it is the fear of God, which banishes other fears, including fear of judgement. When a husband loves his wife like Christ loves the church, the natural response to that should be (for the church), having basic respect for what Christ did on the cross in order to banish all other fears, including fear of judgement. So now translate that into how a man loves his wife and her response to him. She does not need to be in awe of him or reverence him....she needs the basic respect for him as being a provider, protector, loving and non-judging husband he should be...but he needs to love her first. That is the order of the church - for we love him because he first loved us. Men initiate love, and women respond by respecting that love - the love that banishes all other fears.

So we are agreed that the passage says to fear/reverence the husband? That sure sounds like a 'heavier' word than respect, doesn't it?

The wife whose husband does not obey the word, even if that means not loving her properly, is still to obey what the Bible teaches wives to do in marriage. We see this also in I Peter 3. In fact, doing so may win him over. When it comes to respect, if he doesn't love her as much as he should, she should still reverence/respect him as unto the Lord. If she isn't respectful/reverential toward him, he should still love her as Christ loves the church.

Wouldn't you agree that the attitude that says, "I'll do my part only if you will do your part" can lead to a lot of marriage problems?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Wouldn't you agree that the attitude that says, "I'll do my part only if you will do your part" can lead to a lot of marriage problems?

It can...and it does...because it takes TWO...one can't do it alone. She gives him "respect", he treats her like excrement...so her respect is given begrudgingly, only because she feels she HAS to respect him. It's not freely given or freely earned.

He "loves" her...she can barely tolerate his existence on her planet. He feels he HAS to love her...that love is given begrudgingly, because he feels he HAS to love her.

Neither one of these scenarios are healthy or conducive to a good marriage. It has to be mutual. If one party or the other is not conducting them in the appropriate manner, then it's not a marriage of two equals. Someone is holding the upper hand.

So...it takes two to make it work...in my case it only took one to break it. Well, I guess I had my part in breaking it when I showed him the door...after I'd had enough. Maybe if my husband had chosen to love me as Christ loves the church, I would have felt more inclined to respect him. But...he didn't so I didn't and it ended.

 

[ValleyGal]

So we are agreed that the passage says to fear/reverence the husband? That sure sounds like a 'heavier' word than respect, doesn't it?

No. It does not. Not without the clarification I provided. It is respect - fear of God banishes all other fears.... ALL other fears. When we put this together with God's character - love - then we know that his perfect love casts OUT fear. So there is only one way to live this out... we love him because he first loved us. So yes, it is absolutely up to the husband to initiate this dynamic in the marriage because God love us first. And a wife should respond to that love with the same respect that he initiates by loving her.

I absolutely do agree that this is how it is supposed to work - otherwise you end up with people like RPD whose husband abused that power, did not love like he was supposed to love her, and now due to his inability to love her, has had to deal with the fallout. Because of the mutually influential nature of relationships, the husband has more responsibility as the head to initiate and take responsibility for the tone of this dynamic in the marriage.

I absolutely do NOT believe that women should respect men who do not initiate this kind of love or take responsibility for this dynamic. Women respond... we do not initiate. Can you imagine the mess the church would be in if WE had to take responsibility for respecting a God who does not love us? Let's paint a bit of a picture. Take the god of money. Money makes big promises today....nice house, glamourous lifestyle, lots of friends for fellowship, and high status. A lot of people make money into a god, and they place themselves in submission to it, are driven to pursue it, but yet live completely empty lives because of it... because it does not love us. So even the wealthy are still empty, unfulfilled, seeking something more - and are deceived into thinking that something more they're looking for can be bought with more money. But the more they pursue it, the more unfulfilled they are. Now that can be the exact same thing for a woman pursuing respect for a husband where there is no love. She will be just as unfulfilled tomorrow as she is today.

Rather, women respect a husband who loves her - even when that love is imperfect love, we can still recognize the intent is there, the desire is there, the purpose is there, so we still have respect - even if for nothing more than knowing the goodwill of his intentions. God has not called us to respect a man who does not love her.... no, God's standards are ideal so that would mean that a husband will love his wife...and she will respect him for it. God did not call us to respect the unrespectable. Respect is conditional. That is what it means.... "as unto the Lord" or "out of reverence for Christ." If God didn't love me, I would not respect him either, and I don't think he would expect me to....just like I do not respect the god of money for the simple fact that there is no love.

Wouldn't you agree that the attitude that says, "I'll do my part only if you will do your part" can lead to a lot of marriage problems?

Not necessarily, but it can. But let's consider the attitude that says "let's both love and respect each other, maintain mutual goodwill and believe in each other when we screw it up from time to time." Imo, I'll do my part in this kind of marriage because I know my husband is doing his - and this is the order of Christ and the church. But if he ever for a moment starts to take it for granted that I have respect for him now, he can be sure to lose it if he stays on that trajectory. In the same way, if Jesus were ever to come down from heaven now and start to behave contrary to the love he has lavished on us already, I would no longer respect him either. But I do respect Jesus because he has the integrity to maintain his love for me and live up to his nature.

 

[ValleyGal]

Link, here is an afterthought for you... you love your wife. She respects you. Let's say for some reason she stops respecting you, emotionally withdraws from you, eventually starts flirting with other guys, can't stand you anymore, finds you boring and even disgusting. Let's say she meets someone who she falls in love with and then has an affair with. Let's say that's ongoing and she even has his child. Let's say she grows over time to resent you, starts becoming verbally aggressive with you and finally becomes violent to the point you fear for your life. Yet your job is STILL to love her like Christ loves the church, to stay married to her - in spite of her hatred of you, her outpouring of contempt and disgust. Even Jesus does not force us to be in relationship with him....he loved us first, so he initiated the relationship with us, but he does not expect that love will now bring the sinner to her knees and reverence him. He hopes she does... but will not force it. He continues to stand at the door to her heart and knock, persisting in his love, but giving her the freedom to revere him or not.

 

[Donkick]

I like the book as well, I feel he does a good job with the text, except he tends to to exclude lots of other good scripture and has a bit too much psychology for my liking. Scripture is sufficient.

 

[mkgal1]

It might be because I don't blindly follow the bible...

The Bible seems to be on your side....you know "let us reason together" and being like Bereans like in Acts 17:11 (and Paul didn't say the Bereans were being 'emotional' or 'disobedient' for not just taking his word for things).

 

[LinkH]

The Bible seems to be on your side....you know "let us reason together" and being like Bereans (and Paul didn't say the Bereans were being 'emotional' or 'disobedient' for not just taking his word for things).

It doesn't say the Bereans were perfect either. They were just more noble than the Thessalonicans. Why? Because they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. They didn't say, "I don't like these scriptures because they don't agree with what I believe".

But the Bereans got stirred up and ran Paul out of town, too, a few verses later so they aren't the best example. They were just more noble than the Thessalonicans before they did that.

 

[LinkH]

Link, here is an afterthought for you... you love your wife. She respects you. Let's say for some reason she stops respecting you, emotionally withdraws from you, eventually starts flirting with other guys, can't stand you anymore, finds you boring and even disgusting. Let's say she meets someone who she falls in love with and then has an affair with. Let's say that's ongoing and she even has his child. Let's say she grows over time to resent you, starts becoming verbally aggressive with you and finally becomes violent to the point you fear for your life. Yet your job is STILL to love her like Christ loves the church, to stay married to her - in spite of her hatred of you, her outpouring of contempt and disgust. Even Jesus does not force us to be in relationship with him....he loved us first, so he initiated the relationship with us, but he does not expect that love will now bring the sinner to her knees and reverence him. He hopes she does... but will not force it. He continues to stand at the door to her heart and knock, persisting in his love, but giving her the freedom to revere him or not.

I know there are people who can't live with their spouses, like if their spouses turn mean like you describe and go live somewhere else. But that doesn't mean you are supposed to stop loving the person.

The situation I'm thinking of is in a marriage. If the husband does something the wife feels is unloving, and she decides (based on something she heard or read) that she doesn't have to respect/reverence him anymore, that can create a 'crazy cycle.' If the husband considers his wife to be disrespectful, and he tells himself he doesn't have to love her anymore (based on nothing because he probably couldn't find a preacher or poster to tell him that), then that is not going to help how his wife treats him. That sort of attitude can cause a marriage to spiral downhill in a cycle.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

It doesn't say the Bereans were perfect either. They were just more noble than the Thessalonicans. Why? Because they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. They didn't say, "I don't like these scriptures because they don't agree with what I believe".

But the Bereans got stirred up and ran Paul out of town, too, a few verses later so they aren't the best example. They were just more noble than the Thessalonicans before they did that.

Stop putting words in my mouth, OK?

I said I didn't agree with your interpretation or Eggerich's book. For many reasons, starting with he purports that "Love & Respect" will solve ALL marriage problems.

Yes, I believe in a more egalitarian view of marriage...I believe that BOTH parties should be respected in a marital relationship. I do not believe that the man is superior to the woman...they are equals. I do not hold to rigid gender roles.

Maybe that comes from what I saw growing up...my parents adored each other...however, neither one had the upper hand (I think us kids did). They worked together on everything. I don't remember hearing my father "lay down the law" with my mother, ever. They were married about 50 years when my dad died. My father had his career, my mother had hers. When it came to us kids, they were a united front. We respected our mom as much, if not more than our father. However, we kids knew that as much as our parents loved us, they loved each other more. My dad had his strengths and so did my mom. They raised us to understand there was no such thing as "dad's job" and "mom's job" when it came to things at home. Us kids learned how to do whatever needed to get done, from wiring electrical sockets to cooking.

I do not understand the insistence on these rigid gender roles...they're an artificial construct and a stereotype that folks hold on to because it's easier than trying to figure things out on their own.

Now, I am 50, separated, probably headed for divorce court. I have 2 undergrad degrees and 2 graduate degrees. I have overseen projects worth millions of dollars. I've had crews, contractors and subcontractors working for me. I've bought houses, bought cars, crocheted baby afghans and rebuilt engines. Yes, I can do just about anything myself. So...if some man demands my "respect" by virtue of penis...well, i'd just have to laugh at him. If he hasn't got what it takes to deal with me...then I am just not interested.

Now...if you have a problem with that, take it up with the Creator who made me.

 

[ValleyGal]

I know there are people who can't live with their spouses, like if their spouses turn mean like you describe and go live somewhere else. But that doesn't mean you are supposed to stop loving the person.

And a woman can "respect" her husband or ex by virtue of being a human being worthy of God's love, but that does not mean she has to "reverence" him.

Now let me ask you this. If your wife were to decide to go and be a $10 "lady of the night" would you respect her? I doubt it. If she were to beat you or your children on a regular basis, would you "reverence" her? If she were to set your house on fire, would you respect her? If you are honest, you will admit that you will not respect her as a wife, even if you managed to find a shred of respect for her as a human being worthy of God's love.

 

[mkgal1]

It doesn't say the Bereans were perfect either. They were just more noble than the Thessalonicans. Why? Because they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. They didn't say, "I don't like these scriptures because they don't agree with what I believe".

But the Bereans got stirred up and ran Paul out of town, too, a few verses later so they aren't the best example. They were just more noble than the Thessalonicans before they did that.

Who *is* perfect? I'm only aware of One human who was. Maybe you should speak to someone about their character being praised for all to see? Personally----I take it just as it's said---they were "noble in character", and the following text doesn't cause that to be discredited. People of sincere and noble character can be deceived (like they were when in the text you're referring to).

The text says the Bereans were "of noble character" and includes how they searched the Scripture to see what Paul was saying was true (IOW....they *don't* blindly follow). Another way of putting it....blindly following doesn't equate to be spiritually superior....in fact....it appears the opposite (based on this text).

No one has suggested they "don't like these Scriptures because they don't agree with what I believe". It's man's interpretation that people are disagreeing with---not Scripture.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Who *is* perfect? I'm only away of One human who was.

The text says the Bereans were "of noble character" (I must have missed the comparison, because I wasn't aware of it being a competition) and includes how they searched the Scripture to see what Paul was saying was true (IOW....they *don't* blindly follow). Another way of putting it....blindly following doesn't equate to be spiritually superior....in fact....it appears the opposite (based on this text).

No one has suggested they "don't like these Scriptures because they don't agree with what I believe". It's man's interpretation that people are disagreeing with---not Scripture.

I'm definitely not perfect...heck, there are times I don't like living with me! I just have a different way of looking at certain things that may not line up with someone else's...and since my background is in the sciences...I prefer cold, hard facts as opposed to opinions (which are like belly-buttons...everyone has one and some are fuzzier than others)

 

[mkgal1]

I'm definitely not perfect...heck, there are times I don't like living with me! I just have a different way of looking at certain things that may not line up with someone else's...and since my background is in the sciences...I prefer cold, hard facts as opposed to opinions (which are like belly-buttons...everyone has one and some are fuzzier than others)

I think Link is trying to dismiss my example of the Bereans as not being valid. They didn't blindly follow Paul, himself...instead, the Bible says, "they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth." I was using that as an example of how blindly following is *not* what's ever taught in the Bible.

As far as I'm concerned.......that's a good protocol.

 

[LinkH]

I "blindly follow" NOTHING...as I've said before. My background is in the sciences. Hard, fast facts. That's it. If the facts contradict my "beliefs" then they must be changed. I can believe all day long that I can design a bridge with no supports in the middle. I can build it (maybe). However, it won't hold anything up.

This isn't a discussion about math or physics. It's about a book written by a Christian author that has a theory based on Ephesians 5:33. Ephesians 5:33 tells husbands to love their wives and wives to reverence/respect their husbands. His theory is that men crave respect and the women crave love and that this fulfills emotional needs. He had a bit of research that showed that more men in his sample would choose to live a life where no one loved them than a life where no one respected them and most women would choose a life where no one respected them over a life where no one loved them.

I don't see how your looking for hard facts has much to do with your objections to the book or our discussion of the Bible telling women to respect/reverence/fear their husbands.

From an anthropological perspective, there is reason to see wives deferring to husbands as natural since societies tend toward patriarchal. I can't think of any 'scientific' reason to be egalitarian or to hold a number of philosophical or moral positions.

I'm working on a dissertation toward a PhD, so I am familiar with education, the scientific method, etc., also. I don't see how you can prove right and wrong by collected mathematical data, for example.