Love and Respect

LinkH said:

I think it depends on the perspective you are coming from. IMO, Love and Respect is really 'light' on the topic of respect. It doesn't go into the Greek word. 'Fearing' a husband is a heavier topic than respecting a husband. But it does get western wives moving in the right direction, IMO.

Click to expand...

Really?

LinkH said:

I think it depends on the perspective you are coming from. IMO, Love and Respect is really 'light' on the topic of respect. It doesn't go into the Greek word. 'Fearing' a husband is a heavier topic than respecting a husband. But it does get western wives moving in the right direction, IMO. But honestly, as far as what it recommends, it's really light stuff. I don't see why anyone would object to the actual behaviors it recommends or understanding of the male mind, for example. A lot of women seemed to relate to the understanding of the female mind portrayed in the book in my class, but maybe they come from a different theological perspective (or neutral) on the issue. There are details here or there that I disagree with and I think anyone would find that in a book like this.

For me the big leap is jumping from a command to wives to respect their husbands to saying it is a key emotional need. That's based more on his observation and research.


It is little more than a fragmented, biased, and poorly translated portion of the whole, like sauce without the meat.

This thread was supposed to be about the book, not the meat of the book - if it is about the meat of the book, it boils down to the whole submission theme again. The book, imo, is poorly written, based on biased bits and pieces of scripture that have been taken out of context and poorly translated. It does nothing more than contribute to the divide between men and women rather than unite them in Christ, where there is no male, female, rich, poor, etc.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]


Re: Bolded above..."moving in the right direction"? What are you trying to say here Link?

I understand...you have a problem with us feminists who think that a man has to earn our respect. You also have a problem with those of us who don't "need" a man in our lives for any real reason. You have a problem with those of us who chose careers and derive great fulfillment from them.

Sorry, not all of us are cut out to be "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen". There are those of us who can take care of ourselves quite well and if a man wants to be in our lives, it will be on our terms, not theirs.

As I've said before...a Y chromosome and a wedding ceremony don't automatically confer respect to a man. You disrespect me, you act a fool around me...guess what...you lose my respect AND my trust, and you will never do enough to earn it back.

This sort of thinking has kept women in positively miserable and possibly abusive marriages for centuries. No thanks...

I have already discussed "fearing" and the reason why we are not to fear our husbands in the way you think we should (revere). The correct translation there is respect. And there is nowhere in the passage that says it should be done unconditionally. Rather, the condition is that it is in response to the man's love for his wife. The more he loves her, the more likely she is to respect him - except for those women who abuse their husband's love and take it for granted.

This book does not get women going in the right direction; quite the contrary, those of us who read this book that I know, have had an adverse reaction to it because it is so evidently biased and placed far more expectation on women's respect than it did on men's love, and when women are constantly "reminded" of how we are to submit, respect, or revere our husbands, many (maybe most?) of us are more likely to respond by defensiveness and rebellion.

Link, I will tell you how to earn the respect of the women on this board. Do not come here and "teach" or "instruct" women on how we are to respect our husbands. Rather, come on here and teach/instruct men on how to love their wives the way that Christ loves the church. When you as a man and husband focus more on that plank in your own eye, then we will be more willing to allow you to take the speck out of our own eyes.

I just noticed something about the title of that book (that I don't believe I'd noticed before). She "most desires" love---he "desperately NEEDS" respect. Even that part seems imbalanced.

Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs: Emerson Eggerichs: 9781591451877: Amazon.com: Books

This is a good point made in one of the reviews of the book:

Proverbs 5:18 says "let you manhood be a blessing, rejoice in the wife of your youth. Let her charms and tender embrace satisfy you. Let HER LOVE ALONE fill you with delight". Where does it say respect?

Click to expand...

The NRSV text says:

may you be intoxicated always by her love.~Proverbs 5:18

Click to expand...

mkgal1 said:

I just noticed something about the title of that book (that I don't believe I'd noticed before). She "most desires" love---he "desperately NEEDS" respect. Even that part seems imbalanced.

Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs: Emerson Eggerichs: 9781591451877: Amazon.com: Books

Click to expand...

Ummm....on first thought...if a man "desperately needs" respect...then I think he's an insecure little boy masquerading as a man and is desperately trying to prove it.

It also sounds that (from the author's POV), a woman may "desire" love, she isn't entitled to it...but if a man NEEDS respect, then he's entitled to it no matter what.

Once again...the author's basic premise is flawed, sexist and misogynist...just like the thousands of other Christian marriage books. I swear, anybody could write any rubbish, throw some scripture verses in it and there's be a crowd of folks who would swear by it because it's "biblical" (case in point...To Train Up a Child by Steven and Teri Maxwell and the Ezzo books)

These are some of the reasons I have referred to the book as imbalanced, biased, and as placing more of the responsibility onto women...and yet isn't it the man who is supposed to be the head? A real man finds his confidence in Christ, not in validation by respect from his wife...but he will likely get her respect if he does find his confidence in Christ - that is, in learning to love as Jesus loves.

On another thought, this seems like a wildly popular book for some Christians. Maybe if I write a book loaded with my own opinion, it will also go wildly popular and I can reap the benefits of sounding pious like I have something beneficial to say - as long as I use all the right Christianese. Then again, how popular could a book be, where a mere woman preaches her bias about how men should love like Jesus does. All it would do is lead other women to read it and then go thumping the book to their husbands, saying "see, you don't do this well enough!" and then expect him to change just because another woman said he should. Books like this.... all they do is lead away from personal responsibility to do your part in both loving and respecting your spouse because you can always point the finger that the spouse is not doing their part....kind of like Love and Respect does towards women.

ETA and another thing... I'm not sure how good of a job Eggerich explains how men "ought" to love their wives. Iirc, it had to do with provision, etc, but next to nothing about meeting her needs in other ways where she will actually perceive it as love.

Love & Respect: is the book misogynistic? {a closer look at Introduction & Chapter 1} | Elizabeth Esther

Personally......I don't really believe one has to go much further than this:

From the Introduction:

This book is about how a wife can fulfill her need to be loved by giving her husband what he needs–respect. (pg. 11)

Click to expand...

Like the author of the above blog wrote, "Trigger alert: this book is about WIVES and what THEY should be doing in order to receive love. The only way a wife can truly expect to receive love is by doing something; ie. giving her husband unconditional respect. Trigger alert: performance-based love. "

RedPonyDriver said:

Ummm....on first thought...if a man "desperately needs" respect...then I think he's an insecure little boy masquerading as a man and is desperately trying to prove it.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not the wife's job to soothe insecurities. That's a sign (IMO) of necessary emotional/spiritual growth that's needed (and that's between God and the man). That shouldn't be accepted as a inherent or desirable quality. It's called "immaturity".

It also sounds that (from the author's POV), a woman may "desire" love, she isn't entitled to it...but if a man NEEDS respect, then he's entitled to it no matter what.

Click to expand...

That's how I take that as well. It'd be "nice" for her to get love.....but HIM---he *desperately needs it*---or else?

Once again...the author's basic premise is flawed, sexist and misogynist...just like the thousands of other Christian marriage books. I swear, anybody could write any rubbish, throw some scripture verses in it and there's be a crowd of folks who would swear by it because it's "biblical" (case in point...To Train Up a Child by Steven and Teri Maxwell and the Ezzo books)

Click to expand...

Oh goodness. I literally get a visceral response just thinking about those books.

ValleyGal said:

ETA and another thing... I'm not sure how good of a job Eggerich explains how men "ought" to love their wives. Iirc, it had to do with provision, etc, but next to nothing about meeting her needs in other ways where she will actually perceive it as love.

Click to expand...

Provision? So...a man gets respect because he makes money. Big deal. Maybe this is the big problem with Christian men and the feminist movement. I don't need a man to provide for me. Neither do other women with careers.

I've heard it said that the feminist movement has stripped men of their manhood...I would say that what the feminist movement has done has exposed men's insecurity. They no longer get the unquestioning love, adoration and respect of their wives because she knows that is where her bread and butter are. Men now have to do more to prove their love...they REALLY DO have to love their wives as Christ loves the church because a woman is no longer willing to settle for less. So...men are finding out their boorish ways are no longer going to fly...and therefore THEY must change.

They're finding out that a Y chromosome no longer earns them deference.

Exactly.

If you strip away the inequalities---and instead of a relationship that's a swap between "I'll give you what you want---that only I have (and you can only get from me...ie sex) and you'll give me what I want in exchange for that ($$)".....there will have to be more qualities to keep the couple together (things like mutual love/respect......honor.....acceptance....working towards mutual goals...etc).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XpEbueLMwc

mkgal1 said:

Exactly.

If you strip away the inequalities---and instead of a relationship that's a swap between "I'll give you what you want---that only I have (and you can only get from me...ie sex) and you'll give me what I want in exchange for that ($$)".....there will have to be more qualities to keep the couple together (things like mutual love/respect......honor.....acceptance....working towards mutual goals...etc).

Click to expand...

The spouse and I have been seeing a counselor (we're still not living together nor have been intimate) to attempt to resolve our issues. We purposely chose NOT to see a Christian counselor because of books like these.

He is doing some faith-based counseling, but it's more for HIS issues.

The counselor has said that HE needs to develop the qualities of honoring me, realizing I'm not just an object that he can treat as he wishes, and to realize that I am not just an extension of him to be taken for granted. Many of these things he learned in the men's groups he'd attended over the years. Those groups and studies just served to justify to him, his ill-treatment of me. He said he'd heard many stories of how the men in these groups "laid down the law" with their wives and if the wife didn't like it, too bad...because he was the "master" of his home and could do as he saw fit as long as he was bringing home a paycheck. My spouse realized that it caused him to resent my career and my economic freedom.

Again...another issue that Christian men have with feminism...we no longer have an economic need to get married...so the old paradigm doesn't work anymore.

Sadly.....that's what I've experienced as well (those things being passed on to my husband through men's groups/sermons that really teach dishonor).

I'm glad it seems you've found a good counselor. It also sounds as if your husband has some self-awareness. Those are good indicators of possible reconciliation.

mkgal1 said:

Sadly.....that's what I've experienced as well (those things being passed on to my husband through men's groups/sermons that really teach dishonor).

I'm glad it seems you've found a good counselor. It also sounds as if your husband has some self-awareness. Those are good indicators of possible reconciliation.

Click to expand...

right now, the only contact we have are the counseling sessions and meeting for church on Sunday morning. Our next step would be "dating" again. I am leaving the 24th for the family gathering in CO, and he will not be accompanying me this year. I'll be back the 3rd. At that time, we will start seeing each other socially, again maintaining separate residences. We'll see how that goes. I have stated that we will not be resuming living together or sharing intimate moments until we renew our vows. If reconciliation is that important to him (and he says it is), then this is how it is going to go down. I am calling the shots here and he can either do what I ask or forget it. (not terribly "submissive" of me is it?? )

Okay, since I tossed that book out ages ago, I went back online to see the table of contents. So in all fairness, provision is only one aspect. Anyway, these are part of the contents, and you can even see the bias in them....italics are my own snarky commentary:

COUPLE - how to spell love to your wife (we need our men to spell out love to us because we can't figure it out on our own, what love means to us. )
C = Closeness - she wants you to be close
O = Openness - she wants you to open up to her
U = Understanding - don't try to fix her; just listen (wait for it; the contradiction is where women need to appreciate his desire to analyze and counsel, but the underlying assumption is that we do indeed need "fixing")
P = Peacemaking = she wants you to say I'm sorry
L = Loyalty - she needs to know you're committed
E = Esteem - she wants you to honour and cherish her.

All of those items above are things SHE wants/needs...iow, it starts with her. Take a look at men now....it all STILL starts with her:

CHAIRS = how to spell respect to your husband (in all fairness, we should not have to spell it out to them.)
C = Conquest - appreciate his desire to work and achieve (this is where I got the provision thing from - the problem is that most women I know also want to work and achieve, so this is not indigenous to men/husbands)
H = Hierarchy - appreciate his desire to protect
A = Authority - appreciate his desire to serve and to lead (Most men I know like the "lead" part, but the "serve" part is a small part, and again, the "serving" in the book is not about sacrificial love. In addition, I happen to know a lot of men who are not cut out leaders and do not want to "lead" a follower, so the assumption that men want to lead OR serve is really faulty to start with)
I = Insight - appreciate his desire to analyze and counsel (this goes against the idea that we do not want to be fixed. Not only that, but men tend to "counsel" by simply giving advice. Counsel is NOT about fixing or giving advice and most men do not know how to counsel in the first place)
R = relationship - appreciate his desire for shoulder to shoulder friendship (except where it interferes with you bringing him snacks during the game)
S = sexuality - appreciate his desire for sexual intimacy (as though women do not want to be appreciated sexually. After all, porn is more of a problem for men than it is for women, generally speaking)

The introduction of the book is entitled "Love alone is not enough" and this comes across like it's enough for him to do for us because that's what the book says, but it's not enough for women to do for their husbands. Iow, men can get by with loving, but women have to both love and respect.

It then goes on to describe the crazy cycle - without love -> she reacts without respect -> without respect -> she reacts without love, and on and on. I'm sorry, but you can love someone and still be disrespectful from time to time, and if I am loved but not respected, I will not withdraw my love, but I might also react without respect. It is an incident rather than a character quality.

The author describes love and respect as something you do for the spouse...but in reality, love and respect are personal qualities that speak to the internal character of the person. Generally I am a respectful person, therefore when I show disrespect incidentally, it is not indicative of who I am as a person. Imo, the book does not even look at love or respect as qualities; rather, he looks at them as how he believes the opposite sex will interpret them - according to his own experience and not according to scripture.

At one point, the author says "Husbands are made to be respected, want respect and expect respect." If this is the case, then those husbands need to start acting in a way that commands respect rather than demands it. In the same way, if a woman wants love, then she can't expect to get it if she is going to be unlovable.

The entire concept of "unconditional" love and respect does not even exist. God found a beautiful quality in Abraham - so much so that he entered into a covenant with Abraham's offspring, which actually were a miraculous gift from God to start with. Abraham was faithful, righteous....and God pursued those qualities by initiating the covenant. That covenant was dependent on Israel's obedience. Israel disobeyed, God divorced her. God took her back, she disobeyed, and there were all kinds of consequences from then on, even to this day. In the same way, a woman has a set of qualities that attract a man's attention and they get married. Staying married to her is dependent on fulfilling the covenant, just as her staying married to him is dependent on fulfilling his part of the covenant. It is a BI-lateral covenant, meaning both parties must live up to their part of the deal or the covenant is broken. That is not unconditional love; the conditions are contained in the covenant.

Now...God's love for Israel is rejected, and there had to be atonement...so God gave Israel a child - Jesus, and Israel has rejected him...so now the Father raised the Son and he is betrothed to the church (given to Jews and Gentiles alike, who accept him). God provided the atonement for his "wife's" waywardness. But Jesus is not betrothed to those who do not accept him - iow, there is a condition on it; reciprocation. We must return the love of the Groom.

Reciprocation is key...and it is not that love is reciprocated with respect or that respect is reciprocated with love. Love begets love; respect begets respect. These are all points that are contrary to the book...

ValleyGal said:

her.


At one point, the author says "Husbands are made to be respected, want respect and expect respect." If this is the case, then those husbands need to start acting in a way that commands respect rather than demands it. In the same way, if a woman wants love, then she can't expect to get it if she is going to be unlovable.

In the same way, a woman has a set of qualities that attract a man's attention and they get married. Staying married to her is dependent on fulfilling the covenant, just as her staying married to him is dependent on fulfilling his part of the covenant. It is a BI-lateral covenant, meaning both parties must live up to their part of the deal or the covenant is broken. That is not unconditional love; the conditions are contained in the covenant.

Reciprocation is key...and it is not that love is reciprocated with respect or that respect is reciprocated with love. Love begets love; respect begets respect. These are all points that are contrary to the book...

Click to expand...

YES!!!!! As I've said...it's a two-way street...both parties GIVING if they expect to receive. If I give to you and get nothing back, after awhile, I'm going to stop giving...If I treat you with respect but that respect is not reciprocated, I'm going to figure out you are not worthy of the respect I've given you. If you treat me with disrespect, then I will not respect you, no matter how much you stomp your feet and DEMAND it...it just ain't gonna happen.

This is something that is being worked through for us. He thinks that I have to respect him no matter how he acts, he can act any way he wants and I have to put up with it because we're married. Guess where he learned that? Yup...men's groups. He told me there were men who bragged about how they would refuse to give their wives adequate money for groceries and then get angry when the food would run out...and how much "fun" it was to mess with her that way. They would go blow money on whatever they wanted, and so what if the wife and kids went without...it was HIS money to parcel out as he pleased. There were men who thought it was great that although the wife worked, they had joint bank accounts so he could blow HER paycheck on stuff and as far as he was concerned he didn't have to account for one dime.

Yeah...there are some REAL problems with how marriage is defined in the Christian community...what is defined as "biblical" is nothing more than a power play by men who don't know how to be adults, let alone men.

LinkH said:

The Love and Respect book wasn't 'give me what I want and I'll give you what I want.' Well, it does point out that that is how many people act when talking about the topics of love and respect. But there is a good chapter, IMO, one of the best in the book, that encourages wives to respect their husbands to glorify God and encourages husbands to love their wives to glorify God, regardless of what one's partner does.


Comments on the video:
I've read another theory, different from what is proposed in the video. Feminists and egalitarians now push the idea that men should be 'nice' and share power in the marriage in an egalitarian manner. I know there is at least one marriage book out there that suggests that some divorces are caused by men being too 'beta.' He doesn't exercise leadership in the home, doesn't have any kind of plan, and constantly defers to her, and he tries to be nice and accommodating, maybe even letting his wife walk all over him if she's ever unreasonable. She has difficulty respecting him. He becomes boring to her. They end up getting a divorce, not because he's not nice and kind enough, but because he's conformed too much to egalitarian and feminists expectations for a man in marriage. She can't handle a man not acting like a man and being put in an unnatural role.

If the type of egalitarian that's being pushed on us is heaven coming to earth, why hasn't heaven revealed this as God's will in the past? Why did the LORD give a patriarchical Torah full of patriarchical laws, create men to be fathers and reveal Himself as Father? Why include a bit of hierarchy in certain passages on marriage in the New Testament?

Click to expand...

Regarding the bolded above...why do men feel they have to have ALL the "power" in a marriage? Why is this necessary? Exercising power over a wife is not following the command "husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church".

Regarding the patriarchal laws in the bible...CULTURE of the times...What worked for a bronze age nomadic culture does not work for a modern, city-dwelling society.

Now...yes, I am saying that the patriarchal examples in the bible are not applicable to now...I don't see where that's a problem.