Love and Respect

[mkgal1]

So my point is, God ordained marriage. Standing up and saying some words out of the Book of Common Prayer or a variation thereof, or a Roman Catholic version of the same thing isn't what the marriage is based on. If you make promises, you keep them. Fortunately, the BoCP ceremony requires some pretty basic things that should be in any marriage for the most part.

So what I'm saying is if your spouse doesn't cherish you one day, that doesn't mean you have justification before God to get a divorce. God doesn't say, "If He doesn't cherish you one day, you can divorce Him." He might be breaking his promise on his wedding day, but that doesn't mean God authorizes the divorce.

That's been an age-old argument around here (from the guys that hang out on the MRA sites). This was posted in 2010:

The wedding vows are just that--a tradition. We romanticize them a lot but here's the deal--they were written at a time when wealth, health and physical wholeness were often considered grounds for desertion even though divorce was highly frowned upon. I mean consider: what did people mostly marry for then, or at least have as requirements for marriage? For the most part being safe and ideally prosperous.

So today people mostly get married in our society in order to be happy, but many still use the old vows from the Book of Common Prayer and then are mystified when they realize that they aren't happy.

It seems to me that influence may have rubbed off on you.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

"In the Bible, though, the groom would pay the bride's father a bride price for virgins"

EXACTLY...in those days the groom BOUGHT the bride from her father. She was property. Guess what...nobody paid my father for me...

"So what I'm saying is if your spouse doesn't cherish you one day, that doesn't mean you have justification before God to get a divorce. God doesn't say, "If He doesn't cherish you one day, you can divorce Him." He might be breaking his promise on his wedding day, but that doesn't mean God authorizes the divorce.". In case you didn't notice...this not cherishing thing was a PATTERN of behavior...not a one time deal.

"Huh? My disagreement with RPD, ValleyGal, etc. is over the idea that a Christian woman doesn't have to obey Ephesians 5:33 about respecting her husband if she feels he doesn't love her enough. Live, I've said before, I don't know the details of what is going on in her marriage. But I can see what is posted on the forum. They could talk through nitty gritty issues with a pastor, a marriage counselor, or a wise Christian friend who knows them both and gets a chance to hear both sides if they want to."

I was talking about a 16+ year PATTERN of behavior. Not a one shot deal.

Now...I've read those MRA blogs too...and all I can say is they seem like a bunch of little boys in the "He-Man Woman Haters Club"...and the truth is they are SO insecure they see a woman who can achieve more than they do as a threat. The truth is, they are a bunch of little, lazy "King Baby of the Universe" types that think that women should kiss their hindparts because they're such a "great catch"...I'm willing to bet most of them still live in mommy and daddy's basement.

That IS one thing I will say on my husband's behalf. HE overcame a pretty crummy home situation to get an education and be rather successful. However, his didn't get the help he desperately needed with his emotional issues...and that has tainted his life.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Someone coming home and throwing plates or being violent is a scary thing. I know someone whose thrown a few plates, fortunately no one in my immediate family. Just a little of that is unsettling to say the least. But I don't agree with the idea that trashing a house is grounds for divorce or that it gives a married person a free pass to disobey Ephesians 5:33. If it's breaking the promise love or cherish, it doesn't destroy the marriage covenant. Promising to love, honor, and cherish is a tradition, but marriage is created and regulated by God.

Excuse me??? Let's look at the man's part of the marriage covenant in Ephesians 5...
Ephesians 5 King James Version (KJV)

5 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,

16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

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

Now...how on earth can you reconcile the man's part of verse 33...LOVE HIS WIFE AS HIMSELF with a man who abuses his wife. This is an "and" statement. In other words, BOTH sides of this have to happen in a marriage. Not just one, but BOTH sides. If one side doesn't, then neither does the other.

He trashed my home, broke my belongings, scared my pets, threw a liquor bottle at me (fortunately he missed), spit on the carpet repeatedly...and I'm supposed to RESPECT someone who acts like that??? Really???

Now...once again...I highly advise you to go talk to some DV victims...or how about go visit their graves...then tell the ones left behind that she should have "reverenced" him...some women do...at the cost of their lives.

 

[mkgal1]

Have you considered that you have a problem with labelling female behaviors as unhealthy and are quick to label male behaviors as unhealthy?

No.....I know this to be untrue about myself. I'm not gender bias. IRL....I probably know more *unhealthy* women than I do men (if that matters). I look at behaviors---not the gender of the one demonstrating the behavior.

I never said I thought the way he communicated with her was healthy. Their method of communication wasn't very healthy. But I don't consider it abusive. He didn't say the go live on the beach line when I was around. She'd say something the indicated she didn't think he was worth much, and he'd say something subtle and ironic to point out what she'd said, and she didn't get it. But his responses weren't insulting or abusive. They just weren't understanding each other. I knew some of the bad things he'd done, so I could see why she'd be upset. But I also respected the fact that he could stay so calm and be as understanding as he was toward his wife in the face of the verbal onslaught. In the interactions I saw between them during that time, she seemed more abusive than he did. But he hadn't been a good husband in a number of ways. She was probably still angry about it, and certainly didn't show him respect. Their trying to make it work didn't work without the respect.

My wife is a woman, too, you know, and she was surprised to see how the woman talked to her husband and how he responded after all the stories she'd heard about the man. We talked about the things she'd told about things he'd say and how she wasn't getting it.

Still, I think it's silly for you to try to diagnose filtered through my own comments. This is illustrative of what I see on the forum, though, people getting little pieces of information and giving advice based on that. Some advice is fine. But when the advice goes into telling people they don't have to do what the Bible teaches (not that I recall your doing that on this thread) based on some set of experiences we read filtered through one poster, then that's a problem.

I was merely responding to the "agree & amplify" tactic that you said he was using in front of you. That's not honest communication. It *is* a tactic---and really not helpful--*especially* in times of urgent stress (which losing your home would be qualified as). ISTM is *was* unhealthy (whether or not you thought it was)......being that they're no longer a couple (as per you). It's not an honest reaction to demonstrate the level of respect you're expecting. I don't see lying as "respect" (and I don't see dishonesty as biblical, either). As quoted by RPD (above):

For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

 

[mkgal1]

But when the advice goes into telling people they don't have to do what the Bible teaches (not that I recall your doing that on this thread) based on some set of experiences we read filtered through one poster, then that's a problem.

Correction: "what some interpret the Bible to say".

The reverse of that is true as well---telling people what they should be doing based on the amount of information that's possible here is equally a problem.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Correction: "what some interpret the Bible to say".

The reverse of that is true as well---telling people what they should be doing based on the amount of information that's possible here is equally a problem.

I could have sworn I said something to the effect that biblical interpretations and opinions have something in common...they're like belly buttons...everybody has one and some are REALLY fuzzy...

 

[mkgal1]

I could have sworn I said something to the effect that biblical interpretations and opinions have something in common...they're like belly buttons...everybody has one and some are REALLY fuzzy...

Yes, you did, a few times (but it seems that there are some that believe their interpretation is what God *really* said).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Yes, you did, a few times (but it seems that there are some that believe their interpretation is what God *really* said).

hmmm....talking about fuzzy.....

 

[LinkH]

I'll have to get to all this later....but does it sound reasonable that ANYONE is talking about "not cherishing ONE day"? I'm hoping that's intentionally unreasonable.

I was giving an extreme case. If breaking 'marriage vows' dissolves a marriage, then wouldn't not loving, cherishing, etc. at any point in time mean the marriage was no more?

Maybe you've missed the part about him having affairs.....her paying for his place (now).....his expenses (now).

Either I didn't catch the part about affairs or didn't recall it. Certain posters backgrounds are similar.

To minimize that and say it's merely "her feeling he doesn't love her enough" is insulting marriage (what YOU said we ought to take seriously).

This is a communication problem. Are you assuming all my comments about marriage are specifically about RPD's case? That seems to be what's going on a lot on the thread. A poster states that if a man doesn't love his wife as he should, that the wife doesn't have to respect him. Maybe that poster has only RPD's situation in mind. But that's not what the poster said. I comment on what the poster says, and certain other posters assume I'm commenting specifically on RPD.

Usually, if I write something general like this without mentioning a specific case, I mean it in general, not only about a specific case. The thread started out as a thread on the Love and Respect book. It's not all about one posters situation, and neither are all my comments on the thread.

One person cannot "obey Eph 5:33" on their own--

Of course they can. A husband with a disrespectful wife can love his wife. A wife with an unloving husband can love her husband. It happens all the time.

-so it's not about "disobeying" anything (that's the straw man you've set up).

That's not a straw man. Go back over the thread and see the posters arguing that if a husband doesn't love his wife, she doesn't have to respect him.

Based on some of these posts......I'd say RPD may just get the award for taking marriage the *most* seriously (and it honors her husband.....herself...and, most importantly, GOD).

Honestly, I don't think either one of us have enough information to make such a pronouncement.

 

[LinkH]

I could have sworn I said something to the effect that biblical interpretations and opinions have something in common...they're like belly buttons...everybody has one and some are REALLY fuzzy...

I tend to keep my belly button clean with no fuzz, even though it's an inny.

 

[LinkH]

Correction: "what some interpret the Bible to say".

The reverse of that is true as well---telling people what they should be doing based on the amount of information that's possible here is equally a problem.

Ephesians 5:33 tells wives to respect/reverence their husbands. So if I say that wives have to respect/reverence their husbands, that doesn't really require interpretation. I'm just saying what the verse says. How much 'interpretation' goes into the oft repeated and agreed upon statement that husbands are to love their wives?

 

[LinkH]

That's been an age-old argument around here (from the guys that hang out on the MRA sites). This was posted in 2010:

The wedding vows are just that--a tradition. We romanticize them a lot but here's the deal--they were written at a time when wealth, health and physical wholeness were often considered grounds for desertion even though divorce was highly frowned upon. I mean consider: what did people mostly marry for then, or at least have as requirements for marriage? For the most part being safe and ideally prosperous.

So today people mostly get married in our society in order to be happy, but many still use the old vows from the Book of Common Prayer and then are mystified when they realize that they aren't happy.

It seems to me that influence may have rubbed off on you.

I see you are engaging in a 'tactic' trying to diminish what I've said by associating it with someone you apparently consider to be bad.

I don't recall ever having read that quote on the forum. But I arrived at the ideas I shared about wedding vows versus what God requires in marriage around 14 years ago or so. I remember where I was in Jakarta when I did a bit of resarch on Roman customs back then. I've either written or made a video along those lines probably before I even heard of the manosphere.

I'm sure other people have thought the same thing. It's pretty obvious our marriage customs aren't in the Bible if you actually consider the issue of what marriage is and how it was conducted in the Bible and study it and do a bit of research on where our marriage customs came from.

Personally, I think the expectations of the traditional 'vows' are fairly reasonable for a married couple. I don't think pointing out that someone fell short of one of the vows is any kind of basis for divorce. If you'll notice, adultery isn't specifically mentioned in the vows. 'You only' is, so you might argue it is implied. There are also marital obligations not in the traditional vows that I am familiar with.

Assuming that we can set all the rules for marriage based on what we say in a ceremony is rather foolish. If a couple had their own vows for an 'open marriage', that doesn't exempt them from the sin of adultery. Divorcing a spouse for not cherishing enough, as in my example, doesn't exempt someone from sin against God for violating His precepts when it comes to marriage.

 

[LinkH]

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

Now...how on earth can you reconcile the man's part of verse 33...LOVE HIS WIFE AS HIMSELF with a man who abuses his wife. This is an "and" statement. In other words, BOTH sides of this have to happen in a marriage. Not just one, but BOTH sides.

I agree that both must.

If one side doesn't, then neither does the other.

If your spouse commits adultery, does that mean you can? If someone steals from your house, are you free to steal from their house? If your spouse curses you, are you allowed to curse your spouse? If your spouse curses your mother, are you free to curse your spouse's mother?

I don't see how your spouse's sin would justify your sinning.

I Peter 3's instructions to wives apply even if their husbands do not obey the word, and husbands can be won in this way.

He trashed my home, broke my belongings, scared my pets, threw a liquor bottle at me (fortunately he missed), spit on the carpet repeatedly.

I'm not defending any of this behavior. I don't understand why someone would spit on the carpet either. Does he chew tobacco?

..and I'm supposed to RESPECT someone who acts like that??? Really???

Even if you guys are divorced or separated, you can show respect to your husband in the way you talk about him and to him. If you do decide to reconcile, then an attitude that you won't respect him would be damaging to your attempt to reconcile.

Again, the issue is obedience to the Lord.

Now...once again...I highly advise you to go talk to some DV victims...or how about go visit their graves...then tell the ones left behind that she should have "reverenced" him...some women do...at the cost of their lives.

I don't see how respectful people are more likely to die than disrespectful people. It's probably the other way around. think you've got a false dichotomy going on here.

 

[LinkH]

"In the Bible, though, the groom would pay the bride's father a bride price for virgins"

EXACTLY...in those days the groom BOUGHT the bride from her father. She was property. Guess what...nobody paid my father for me...

When I lived overseas, there were cultures that had all kinds of marriage customs. In one culture, the bride's family gave the groom's family gold. But they didn't seem to really think about it as 'buying' the spouse. They might joke about it. But it was the custom of how they got married. IMO, it seems a bit ethnocentric to be too down on these customs.

But if you see the Old Testament custom that God commanded as a man buying a wife, then you should be in favor of God buying wives since Yahweh gave Moses laws about it.

>>"So what I'm saying is if your spouse doesn't cherish you one day, that doesn't mean you have justification before God to get a divorce. God doesn't say, "If He doesn't cherish you one day, you can divorce Him." He might be breaking his promise on his wedding day, but that doesn't mean God authorizes the divorce.". In case you didn't notice...this not cherishing thing was a PATTERN of behavior...not a one time deal. <<

Again, I'm talking about some of the principles people are promoting on the forum. I'm not saying those are the problems in your marriage in particular.

Notice my other point. Marriage is not based on 'the marriage vows.' That's something we do in our culture's wedding ceremonies. Some cultures have the couple jump a broom or exchange goods and have a party. God didn't ordain the Book of Common Prayer wedding ceremony as the way to get married. No matter what our customs, marriage is based on what God has established.

Now...I've read those MRA blogs too...and all I can say is they seem like a bunch of little boys in the "He-Man Woman Haters Club"...and the truth is they are SO insecure they see a woman who can achieve more than they do as a threat. The truth is, they are a bunch of little, lazy "King Baby of the Universe" types that think that women should kiss their hindparts because they're such a "great catch"...I'm willing to bet most of them still live in mommy and daddy's basement.

I've read a little bit of the manosphere, but I don't like the attitude of some of the men towards women. One of the posters here kept referencing a conservative Christian's site who was popular with the manosphere. His posts weren't all that bad, but he did have a few narrow themes through which he interpreted a lot of social and marriage issues. The comments on his posts included harsh, jaded comments from some of the manosophere types. Some of those comments seemed like they were coming from bitter divorced men who'd been taken to the cleaners or single men who'd been listening to them.

I'm not getting my ideas about marriage ceremonies from the manosphere. I'm sure other people have similar observations from reading the Bible and studying culture or history a bit.

That IS one thing I will say on my husband's behalf. HE overcame a pretty crummy home situation to get an education and be rather successful. However, his didn't get the help he desperately needed with his emotional issues...and that has tainted his life.

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

 

[RedPonyDriver]

From LinkH "Even if you guys are divorced or separated, you can show respect to your husband in the way you talk about him and to him. If you do decide to reconcile, then an attitude that you won't respect him would be damaging to your attempt to reconcile."

Ok...we have tried to explain there are different levels of respect. There's the basic respect that SHOULD be shown to all people. Then, depending on the relationship, that respect goes to different levels. The respect I would show a properly behaving husband is a whole different level of respect than I would show to the average person on the street.

From LinkH: "If your spouse commits adultery, does that mean you can? If someone steals from your house, are you free to steal from their house? If your spouse curses you, are you allowed to curse your spouse? If your spouse curses your mother, are you free to curse your spouse's mother?"

What does that have to do with anything?

Once again...you can't argue the main points so you deflect...I give up.

Bottom line...that book Love and Respect is very bad pop psychology wrapped up in bad biblical exegesis...toss it and find a good group...I understand Re|engage is very good.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

All I can say after reading this thread is that I'm really thankful for freedom in Christ. Being bound to the law like some people are makes life a miserable and dangerous existence.

It's just such a shame that so many people follow the law so blindly.

 

[LinkH]

What does that have to do with anything?

Once again...you can't argue the main points so you deflect...I give up.

I think I'd explained it rather clearly in the words that followed. The Bible commands the husband to love his wife. If his wife sins by not reverencing her husband, that doesn't give the husband license to sin by not loving his wife. If the husband does not love his wife, that doesn't give the wife license to sin by not reverencing her husband.

 

[mkgal1]

I see you are engaging in a 'tactic' trying to diminish what I've said by associating it with someone you apparently consider to be bad.

No......I reject all that based on content---not who said it. I was just making an observation about just how similar your argument was to that old post.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Ephesians 5:33 tells wives to respect/reverence their husbands. So if I say that wives have to respect/reverence their husbands, that doesn't really require interpretation. I'm just saying what the verse says. How much 'interpretation' goes into the oft repeated and agreed upon statement that husbands are to love their wives?

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

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

 

[mkgal1]

Ephesians 5:33 tells wives to respect/reverence their husbands. So if I say that wives have to respect/reverence their husbands, that doesn't really require interpretation. I'm just saying what the verse says. How much 'interpretation' goes into the oft repeated and agreed upon statement that husbands are to love their wives?

Apparently it *does* depend on interpretation or else there wouldn't be any issue in this thread. We are are as far apart as two people can be in our separate interpretations of those verses. I don't see it as a *prescription" but, instead, a "description" of what the ideal is (mutual love/compassion/respect/honor)---*that's* what it looks like (Eph 5).

And......the "husbands must love their wives as them selves" seems to *also* depend on interpretation as well (as you seem to have a different idea about that as well).

I think they *both* get interpreted in various ways (especially when other verses are neglected to come along side---especially all the verses that RPD quoted in post #283 ).

The whole message of the Bible is, "they will know you by your love"....not...."they will know you by the rules you keep". In fact.....the message of the Prodigal son and his brother is a great illustration of that. The older brother missed out on the genuine love and relationship with his father (but he kept his rules).