Love and Respect

[RedPonyDriver]

Her husband had been sinning---that's why they aren't living in the same home. You've been going on preaching to RPD about how she NEEDS to respect/revere her estranged husband (she's been open about their life right now). IMO---she IS respecting him--the way the Bible instructs (they're doing things the right way--I think). She's not going to put up with his mess any longer (trashing the house and disrespecting her and taking her for granted). By setting the standard of "no---you will NOT do that any longer" she *is* respecting him (and honoring God). It's what's best for ALL.

The reverse of that, though.....your "admonition" of her NEED to "repent" would be allowing his attitude to go unchecked (and they'd be living the same patterns as they've always lived with no positive change). That's enabling sin. He could continue in that pattern---just not with her present.

I believe this whole rabbit trail is one that you've taken us down, Link.

Exactly...by allowing him to get away with his behavior (which was/is sinful), I was aiding and abetting his sin. So, the night I put my foot down and chose to do what it took to wake him up (since he wouldn't listen to me), I would say that in many ways, I was acting in HIS best interests at that point.

I'll be straight up...
My husband has an issue with alcohol and anger. On this particular evening, after some other things that had happened, I told him that I was done, I wanted a divorce. He got blind drunk. In his drunken rage, he destroyed our home, he threw an empty tequila bottle at me. At that point I went upstairs and called the cops. He left the house before the cops got there but they found him. He was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct (drunk in public), assault (domestic violence for throwing the bottle at me), destruction of property (destroying the stuff in our house), and resisting arrest. He woke up in a jail cell and had NO idea why he was there. (I can supply a link to the court record)

Now LinkH...should I "respect", "reverence" a man like that? Should I? Really? Someone who chose to be violent? Someone who chose to destroy our home? This is why we are living apart. This is why we will continue to live apart. This is why I do not respect him. This is why HE has to earn my respect back. I will not automatically bestow it upon him because he is "Mr. RPD".

If you think I should "respect" and "reverence" Mr. RPD after this, I would encourage you to go find out what domestic violence is about...go talk to women who are DV victims...and then give them your advice about respecting and reverencing their husbands...then run, really fast.

 

[mkgal1]

I think this discussion is too vague. I don't think a wife should call a hooker to serve her husband, if that's the sort of thing you are talking about.

I don't see how a wife being respectful to her husband like the Bible teaches is 'enabling' or 'allowing him to sin.'

I'll try this again.

It's your interpretation of what "respect" is. That's really what the issue is (as far as I'm concerned).

You're trying to apply 1st Peter 3 to RPD's situation (and implying that is what she ought to be living by).

1st Peter 3 says, "when they view her pure and chaste behavior". My question is---how would it be "pure and chaste behavior" to make the provision for her husband to sin? I say, "make the provision for her husband to sin" because by not saying she's had enough--and wants him out of the home---trying to live together would be like an unspoken acceptance of his behavior.

Even though RPD has shared details about her marriage---I don't feel comfortable using it as an example.

 

[ValleyGal]

We didn't earn Jesus' love.

That does not make it unconditional, nor does it suggest that women should "unconditionally" respect/revere their husband. In fact, it does just the opposite. Jesus initiated love, but only those who respond by accepting it are invited to be in relationship with him. Jesus initiated because he found it attractive to be in relationship with us. Those of us who are in the body of believers respect his love and pursuit of us. That is what wives respect in their husband - the fact that he loves her in deed and in word, by serving her, sacrificing for her benefit, selflessly pouring himself out for her sake.

What is her responsibility in the covenant? To not take advantage of that love, to not abuse it, to respect the fact that he does make sacrifices to serve her.

If Jesus were to stop loving his church, I honestly do not believe that he would continue to expect us to continue respecting and loving him back. It is bilateral in nature, meaning that he initiates love, she respects his love, which then positively reinforces his love, which then positively reinforces her respect. The nature of the covenant is not two separate unilateral covenants where they are mutually exclusive of each other.

 

[mkgal1]

Right (what VG said). If a relationship with God/Christ is unconditional---then we would have universal salvation. Is that what you believe, Link? That there is no condition for our salvation---no conditions to have a relationship with God/Christ?

That whole "unconditional" part is something the author added (and even at that---it seems lopsided, with the wife having to earn/win/seduce the husband's love).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Right (what VG said). If a relationship with God/Christ is unconditional---then we would have universal salvation. Is that what you believe, Link? That there is no condition for our salvation---no conditions to have a relationship with God/Christ?

That whole "unconditional" part is something the author added (and even at that---it seems lopsided, with the wife having to earn/win/seduce the husband's love).

IF the unconditional thing is true then what would be the point in bothering to become a Christian?

Its a conditional relationship. We voluntarily enter into it. It is a covenant that can be broken. Just like the marriage covenant can be broken. If one party does not hold up their end of the covenant, then the covenant is broken.

If a Christian chooses to walk away from Christ, then that person has broken the covenant, right? The same as if one spouse walks away from the covenant (see my story above). If one spouse breaks the covenant, then the covenant is broken and neither party is bound to it anymore. In my case, my husband landed up in jail on domestic violence charges...and yet you, LinkH insist that I should continue to "respect" and "reverence" my husband. Where was his love for me when he did these things? Where was his respect for me? For our home? For the fact that I have been the sole breadwinner for the last few years?

If you insist on thinking that I should 'respect' and 'reverence' this guy, you're sicker than he is.

 

[HannahT]

Originally Posted by mkgal1 View Post
The Bible does NOT tell wives to enable sinful behavior. That's not genuinely loving.

I Peter 3's advice tells how it is possible to win a husband who is disobedient to the word.

Yet, what she says is true. Even I Peter 3 doesn't tell wives to enable sinful behavior.

It's strange how you seem to think it is. Enabling sin wouldn't be pleasing or honoring anyone.

 

[mkgal1]

1 Peter 3 says quite a bit---I wonder (Link) if you're grasping onto, "gentle and quiet spirit" and missing the point that it's mainly about the beauty of the inner self....putting hope in God (not in man).....doing what's right and not giving way to fear. I believe RPD is doing all that well (personally).

Something else that the book failed to mention (to bring it back on topic) is verse 7:

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

That's just what RPD is encouraging her husband to do (but not trying to "force" him---it's all his decision). Instead of sitting by and enabling sin---she is encouraging righteous behavior. I think that's pretty honorable (and I believe God does as well).

 

[HannahT]

I didn't say she was, but you are actually making a statement assuming something bad about me. I gave her something to think about.

I do often read of people saying, 'It doesn't matter because it's not a salvation issue', when it is likely an issue that God cares about. Dismissing something as not important because "it's not a salvation issue" is a man-centered (or 'human-centered' if you prefer) way of looking at things.

Then what actually were you saying? It doesn't come across as very clear. She stated that your viewpoint on scripture isn't a salvation issue. She was correct, but let's quote again what you said:

As Christians, only being concerned with what will get us saved can be a selfish way of looking at it. We should be seeking to live our lives in a way that pleases God and glorifies him.

So we were suppose to assume your response wasn't directed at her? Who was it directed towards then? We all knew it was directed towards her, but for some reason you are now claiming it had nothing to do with her statement.

If it wasn't then you need to clarify you are going down a new rabbit trail. Things get confusing when you go off in a new direction without mentioning it.

Are you claiming to prophesy this? The Bible tells wives to respect/reverence their husbands. Do you have some sort of word from the Lord that He is making an exception to this or that He doesn't want this?

What's wrong with respecting a husband as a fellow human being?

Is respecting a husband as a human being somehow wrong? Is there a check box I'm unaware of that defines acceptable levels of respect?

I gave him the respect you mentioned, but now you are saying that this isn't good enough. Are we now adding to the definition so your sarcasm makes things justifiable? Is that honoring and pleasing to God?

 

[Annessa3]

my dears, you will never move the patriarch off his tiny rock.
Just pray for him & his wife & daughters. Isn't that what he always suggests women do for men?

 

[HannahT]

I'm thinking of some of the posts on this thread after we moved away from the book discussion. Besides me, it's pretty much been women. But the common theme from a couple of posters seems to be that a woman doesn't have to do what the Bible teaches wives to do if her husband is bad, and a couple of other posters making supportive comments to those supporting this theme. This particular forum, for years, has had a theme where basically a lot of posters argue that wives don't need to do what the Bible teaches. It's not as direct as this thread as been. Usually, it's redefining what the Bible says.

I've read people making assumptions, and applying motives, because they refuse to listen to what people REALLY said.

Seriously. Respect has a baseline, and it grows with time. As the relationship evolves so does the level of respect. When you do things that are extremely damaging, and downright dangerous - your line of respect tends to suffer. On the opposite end of that when the relationship grows and matures in positive ways - so does the level of respect.

There is nothing wrong with that, and we hear testimonies ALL the time about this very same concept with individual's relationship with the Lord.

Sadly, your reasoning is coming across as saying that respect must be 100% all the time no matter what. That isn't humanly possible. That is NOT to say that your respect level automatically wavers due to some disagreement - or something small or petty. That isn't what is being said at all, and yet you seem to feel it is because its NOT 100%!

The bible speaks loads about discernment as well. When people are going through a hurtful season in life that really needs to come into play. If you feel they aren't coming up for air as fast as you feel is necessary - guilt and shame isn't going to make it go any faster. It normally has the opposite effect. Proper biblical discernment should show you that you are fanning the flames with this individual, and you are ignoring that fact. Remember the bible also instructs us on when its time to walk away. Sadly, I think your need to be right is standing in the way.

I can't believe you love your wive 100% of time as the bible commands either. We are sinners - as you stated. We will always fall. On those days you failed I guess you also decided you didn't HAVE to do what the bible instructed. So, it seems you are guilty of the same.

Although, as with most humans - that would be overly simplistic due to our dynamics. Yet, in your world of black and white it would seem to be so.

 

[mkgal1]

my dears, you will never move the patriarch off his tiny rock.
Just pray for him & his wife & daughters. Isn't that what he always suggests women do for men?

For me....this isn't anything personal. What I mean is.....I'm not expecting to change any person's mind on things...but I have heard this traditional line of thought for years and it damages marriages (and individuals)---it doesn't promotes healing (or righteousness). It's the line of thought that I'm against---not any person. Does that make sense?

 

[LinkH]

Sadly, your reasoning is coming across as saying that respect must be 100% all the time no matter what. That isn't humanly possible. That is NOT to say that your respect level automatically wavers due to some disagreement - or something small or petty. That isn't what is being said at all, and yet you seem to feel it is because its NOT 100%!

Jesus taught us to forgive. If someone's child is murdered, that person might have some difficulty with Jesus' teaching on forgiveness. I understand that. But He shouldn't say, "Jesus doesn't want me to forgive. I don't have to forgive." Who killed God's Son?

There are times that it is difficult to love our neighbors. That doesn't mean we aren't supposed to or don't have to. What Jesus taught doesn't change because of our circumstances. I shouldn't be able to go onto the married forums and tell my woes and read posters posts telling me I don't have to love my neighbor.

I can't believe you love your wive 100% of time as the bible commands either. We are sinners - as you stated. We will always fall. On those days you failed I guess you also decided you didn't HAVE to do what the bible instructed. So, it seems you are guilty of the same.

First you create a scenario where I do wrong, then accuse me of guilt because of it.

If on some occasion, I fall short of loving my wife, I need to repent. I don't need people on a discussion forum telling me I don't have to love my sife.

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus taught us to forgive.

And *when* does God forgive---during the sin (actively---and unrepentant sin).....or once the sin is in the past? The Bible is clear that we are to "Forgive *just as* God forgave us". To do otherwise does violence to His principles.

There are times that it is difficult to love our neighbors. That doesn't mean we aren't supposed to or don't have to. What Jesus taught doesn't change because of our circumstances. I shouldn't be able to go onto the married forums and tell my woes and read posters posts telling me I don't have to love my neighbor.

I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion. Love and respect has to do with wanting what's best for a person (and that's what others have been discussing). No one has suggested "not loving" or "not respecting" (that's the strawman that you've set up). What Hannah has pointed out is that love/respect is a spectrum. We don't have the same level of love/respect with strangers as we do our spouses. When a person has done something that damages trust---it's a natural (and healthy---and biblical) response to be guarded in that area in the future. That's discernment. There are varying levels due to history and what's been shown to us about a person's character.

If on some occasion, I fall short of loving my wife, I need to repent. I don't need people on a discussion forum telling me I don't have to love my wife.

But you believe others need YOU telling them they're doing life wrong? Besides.....that's not what's being posted (that anyone doesn't "have to" do anything).

 

[mkgal1]

Exactly...by allowing him to get away with his behavior (which was/is sinful), I was aiding and abetting his sin. So, the night I put my foot down and chose to do what it took to wake him up (since he wouldn't listen to me), I would say that in many ways, I was acting in HIS best interests at that point.

I'll be straight up...
My husband has an issue with alcohol and anger. On this particular evening, after some other things that had happened, I told him that I was done, I wanted a divorce. He got blind drunk. In his drunken rage, he destroyed our home, he threw an empty tequila bottle at me. At that point I went upstairs and called the cops. He left the house before the cops got there but they found him. He was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct (drunk in public), assault (domestic violence for throwing the bottle at me), destruction of property (destroying the stuff in our house), and resisting arrest. He woke up in a jail cell and had NO idea why he was there. (I can supply a link to the court record)

Now LinkH...should I "respect", "reverence" a man like that? Should I? Really? Someone who chose to be violent? Someone who chose to destroy our home? This is why we are living apart. This is why we will continue to live apart. This is why I do not respect him. This is why HE has to earn my respect back. I will not automatically bestow it upon him because he is "Mr. RPD".

If you think I should "respect" and "reverence" Mr. RPD after this, I would encourage you to go find out what domestic violence is about...go talk to women who are DV victims...and then give them your advice about respecting and reverencing their husbands...then run, really fast.

Just wanted to bump this forward. I was hoping for a response to this. It's really an example of "where the rubber meets the road" (I think).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Jesus taught us to forgive. If someone's child is murdered, that person might have some difficulty with Jesus' teaching on forgiveness. I understand that. But He shouldn't say, "Jesus doesn't want me to forgive. I don't have to forgive." Who killed God's Son?

There are times that it is difficult to love our neighbors. That doesn't mean we aren't supposed to or don't have to. What Jesus taught doesn't change because of our circumstances. I shouldn't be able to go onto the married forums and tell my woes and read posters posts telling me I don't have to love my neighbor.



First you create a scenario where I do wrong, then accuse me of guilt because of it.

If on some occasion, I fall short of loving my wife, I need to repent. I don't need people on a discussion forum telling me I don't have to love my sife.

I can forgive someone but still refuse to "respect" them...they are not worthy of respect by their words or actions...One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other...respect and trust has to be earned back...it's not automatic. In my case, his respect towards me was tossed out like yesterday's banana peels. I cannot and will not automatically respect someone who treats me like that.

 

[DZoolander]

Who killed God's Son?

I always find questions like that interesting.

Who did kill God's son?

 

[LinkH]

Right (what VG said). If a relationship with God/Christ is unconditional---then we would have universal salvation. Is that what you believe, Link? That there is no condition for our salvation---no conditions to have a relationship with God/Christ?

Your conclusions aren't logical. You are assuming that God doesn't love people who end up in the Lake of Fire. I'm not willing to make an assumption in that area. God hates all workers of iniquity. Are they an exception to God loving the world? I'm not willing to assume that. I'm also not willing to assume that if God hates someone, He doesn't also love them. I hear some people going through divorces are capable of loving and hating someone at the same time. I try not to assume things about God that He hasn't revealed or that He's revealed and I haven't seen it or don't understand yet.

Like I said earlier, I don't know if I agree with the idea of 'God's unconditional love." Some of it may be unconditional, but some seems to be conditional, since Jesus told His disciples that the Father would love those who kept His commandment (in a passage in John 14 or 15 where He taught them to love one another.)

But John 3 says that God so loved the world. The world didn't earn that. Romans 3 says that God so commended His love toward us, that when we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

But Jesus didn't put conditions on 'love thy neighbor.' Neither did the Torah. Ephesians doesn't put limitations and conditions on wives respecting their husbands either.

This is a bit difficult because I think some posters have a different idea of respect than I do. I think of it as similar to the respect an adult child should have for his parents. But that's lacking in our culture, too. I should be careful not to mock my parents, not to cross the line in humor with them, which is a much more restrictive line than with my siblings, friends, fellows, etc.

Even if someone's parents did a bad job of raising, they should still treat their parents with respect. But I know multitudes of people with disagree with me on that as far as what that means and entails in this particular culture, though I might get more agreement in some of the Asian cultures and the middle east.

I'm not talking about respecting owns parents just because they did a good job, sacrificed, put you through school. Sure, that is one kind of respect, mixed with appreciation. I'm talking about a respect you give even if your dad was a deadbeat and your mom tried to abort you and put you up for adoption. There needs to be an honor there.

That whole "unconditional" part is something the author added (and even at that---it seems lopsided, with the wife having to earn/win/seduce the husband's love).

Try thinking of 'unconditional' in a less extreme philosophical sense. Ephesians 5:33 doesn't put conditions on love and respect. If your husband forgets your anniversary, you still should respect him. If he is cross to you one day, you should still respect him. If you say some disrespectful stuff about him in front of his friends when you are in a bad mood, he should still love you. If you are cross with him one day, he should still love you.

I don't recall much about the wife seducing her husband in the book aside from the part about the wife initiating sometimes in the sex chapter. The cycle he talked about his human nature. If you treat your partner well, your partner may treat you well.

But that reminds me of what Jesus said, don't the heathen love those who love them. It's a good thing to treat each other right. It's good for the marriage. At the end, he clarifies that if the wife doesn't respect, the husband is still to love as unto the Lord. If the husband doesn't love right, the wife still respects as unto the Lord. That's a good conclusion to the book, I believe.

But it's one you and other posters seem to disagree with. For me, that approach to the topic fits well with what Jesus said on the sermon on the mount, the example of Christ, the teachings of Peter in I Peter 2-3.

 

[LinkH]

RedPonyDriver,

I just want to say that I am not against you. I want you to do well and succeed. If you guys reconcile your marriage, I want it to be successful. If you do work on reconciliation, I believe having this attitude of respect/reverence will help you. I realize when people hurt us, it can be difficult to forgive. It can also be difficult to love and respect. I just don't think 'lowering the bar' on how we are to be is helpful. We are being conformed to the image of Christ, and Christ suffered unjustly and when He was reviled, reviled not again, as Peter put it 'leaving us an example, that we should follow in His steps.' We should imitate Jesus' example of forgiving and doing good to those who have done wrong to us. If your husband has repented of the things he's done in the past, and you follow the example of Jesus, that's a good start on moving forward.

I wish you success. And in your career, I wish you ongoing success, too.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Try thinking of 'unconditional' in a less extreme philosophical sense. Ephesians 5:33 doesn't put conditions on love and respect. If your husband forgets your anniversary, you still should respect him. If he is cross to you one day, you should still respect him. If you say some disrespectful stuff about him in front of his friends when you are in a bad mood, he should still love you. If you are cross with him one day, he should still love you.

We are not talking about forgetting an anniversary or being "cross". We are talking about a husband who has violated the marital covenant by abusing his wife. Now...what say ye?

 

[DZoolander]

I think y'all are being a bit unfair to Link.

When I first started noticing the guy ages back - I used to think he was marginally troll-ish...due to a lot of the things he would say. But - as I've paid attention to him - I find that while I don't agree with him a lot of the time (IMHO his point of view is unrealistic in a real world sense and could lead to disastrous consequences if followed completely) - I've at least grown to respect where he's coming from.

I don't think he's chauvinistic in the way people seem to think he is - at least not insofar as thinking that women ought to be subservient and men are free to do whatever they want. He's got a quid-pro-quo world-view. Men lead, women follow, but men lead out of love for the woman and with complete regard for her.

He also doesn't appear to believe that divorce is ever acceptable. It would be one thing if I saw him making posts where he admonished men that they were well within their rights and ought to divorce in the case of infidelity - but then told women that they needed to stay with abusers...but from what I can gather - he never advises for divorce...ever...no matter what.

Once again - while I don't agree with the point of view - I can respect it's straightforward-ness and consistency.

So if y'all are sitting here arguing with him for 22 pages (I haven't gone back very far) over trying to give different examples of how love has been betrayed/how respect isn't deserved/etc...you're barking up the wrong tree. His world view consistently has been "regardless, to improve the situation, these are the things that ought be done." That's his focus.

...and therefore, you're wasting your breath.

In a lot of ways he's right... Where I, personally, kinda cringe is that I think his POV treats most things equitably - where often there are things (like violence) that truly should be the litmus test of whether you stay or go (and that are truly different). But - that's my point of view - and I long ago learned it's pointless to get into long winded debates with people trying to get them to accept realities that aren't their own.

Ya know?