Love & Respect

[Romanseight2005]

But why is that relevant at all? If someone needs to be taught how to do something, why would it not be important to mention it, in a book that makes a statement that women instinctively know to love their husbands. I mean, I may know that I could wash my clothes, but if I don't know how to use the washer, or the sink, then my knowing would be completely useless. Furthermore, if someone wrote a book making statements like, women don't need to be told anything about washing clothes, because they know to do it, yet, they CAN'T do it, because they don't know how. That makes no sense.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Chaz345 - I think that is correct.

Also, the 'love' is different in Eph 5:25 and Titus 2:4. Eph has agape love and Titus has phileo love. This was commented on in the book and I wanted to look it up, but my husband has taken the book to read

Okay so women instinctively agape love their husbands, but need to be taught how to Phileo love their husbands, but a book on the subject doesn't mention how to do it, because they know instinctively to do it. Are you not seeing how utterly absurd this is?

 

[JanniGirl]

For, I guess it goes into the whole definition of "respect", which is never defined in the Bible. We've got, "Love is . . . . . . . . " but no follow up with "Respect is . . . . . ." So its much harder to determine if one is being respectful or not.

Does always letting your spouse "get their way" show respect? --- IDK. If the only way that my husband felt respected (or felt a lack of respect) was if I had to constantly agree with his every opinion or idea, I think I'd end up feeling pretty unloved. Feeling like MY opinions or thoughts were of no consequence.

So, what is "respect" as defined by the Bible?

 

[chaz345]

Okay so women instinctively agape love their husbands, but need to be taught how to Phileo love their husbands, but a book on the subject doesn't mention how to do it, because they know instinctively to do it. Are you not seeing how utterly absurd this is?

The book isn't a complete manual about how wives and husbands are to relate to each other and never claims to be. In fact any book that claims to be that that's not the Bible should be thrown out immediately. The book is about one specific dynamic that the author has observed to be problematic and how to deal with it. That's all.

But why don't we get right down to the bottom line here. WHat exactly is your problem with the book? What is in it that you see as so wrong or as harmful? I suspect that it's that you've got a problem with the idea that men need and deserve some level of unconditional respect, or that you see what he's calling respect as unquestioning submission.

 

[citizenthom]

So, what is "respect" as defined by the Bible?

It's defined as the same attitude the Church shows God: reverence, submission, humility, willingness to learn and to be taught.

The Greek word phobeo, interestingly, is translated else where as "fear" or "be afraid of," e.g. "fear of the Lord." And the Greek word for "submit" in Ephesians 5:21, hypotasso, was most often used in the military context, i.e. submitting oneself to a commander. Strong stuff.

 

[Romanseight2005]

The book isn't a complete manual about how wives and husbands are to relate to each other and never claims to be. In fact any book that claims to be that that's not the Bible should be thrown out immediately. The book is about one specific dynamic that the author has observed to be problematic and how to deal with it. That's all.

But why don't we get right down to the bottom line here. What exactly is your problem with the book? What is in it that you see as so wrong or as harmful? I suspect that it's that you've got a problem with the idea that men need and deserve some level of unconditional respect, or that you see what he's calling respect as unquestioning submission.

I have been completely frank about my problem with the book. It begins with a false premise. The Bible never says.... So it is obvious to me that the book has made an entire doctrine out of one passage of scripture, and has not considered the rest of scripture. This automatically makes the book lack credibility.

 

[chaz345]

I have been completely frank about my problem with the book. It begins with a false premise. The Bible never says.... So it is obvious to me that the book has made an entire doctrine out of one passage of scripture, and has not considered the rest of scripture. This automatically makes the book lack credibility.

Except that the premise isn't false. The Bible never does say TO the wives themself to love their husbands. The passage in Titus is a different command to a different set of people. It certainly implies that wives are supposed to love their husbands, but it's not a direct command to wives to love their husbands.

Just like it never says TO husbands that they should respect their wives. However, the book isn't at all suggesting, as some here would say, that wives are not supposed to love their husbands or that husbands are not supposed to respect their wives. But he's not saying that. He's not saying that because the Bible doesn't specifically command it that it's not supposed to happen. He suggests that the Bible doesn't specifically command it because it doesn't need to, because the desire to do it is instinctive.

If, as some suggest the book went on to actually say "so women don't have to love their husbands" then you'd have a point. But it's not doing that so I still really don't see your issue.

Let's look at another example. The Bible never really says that parents need to feed and clothe and care for their kids, does it? So if someone said that it didn't, would you, or anyone else make the leap to say that the person was saying that we're not supposed to do that?

Like I said before I suspect, perhaps without even knowing it yourself, that your issue with the book is more with the concept of unconditional respect than it is with anything else.


The reality is though that you can take the "false" premise out of the book entirely and it doesn't change the meaning of what it's really getting at anyway. Which is that when wives are treated with a lack of love, they tend to act disrespectfully and when men are treated with a lack of respect, they tend to act unlovingly. Which then becomes a negative feedback loop. All he's saying, and part of what I think is probably an issue for you, is that that loop/cycle can is initiated by either a lack of him acing lovingly(which is what most people usually blame it on anyway) OR by a lack of her acting respectfully. IOW the real issue that most have with the book is that runs counter to "its almost always his fault".

 

[JanniGirl]

So, the problem is obvious. Husbands aren't necessarily worthy of "unconditional" respect. The Bible doesn't command it. And, quite frankly, if you sat any number of married women down and said, "well you've got to treat your husband as if he were your own personal God" -- well, they'd rightly say that they already have a God.


This is how the whole misapplied concept (touted in the 1960-1970s in Baptist churches) where the entire family is saved through the husband/father -- and the wife and kids merely bask in the glow of his salvation, garnering bits of it that fall from him.

Yeah -- I don't think anyone on the planet "respects" the way Thom is saying that women should respect their husbands -- I'll go on to say that respect isn't even listed as one of the big 3 (faith, hope, love).

I disagree with the very premise of the book -- As Roman's says, basing an entire marriage concept around one line of scripture is pretty shaky when you extrapolate and flesh it out based on your own personal beliefs and then sell it to the masses as some sort of "how to". Yuck.

 

[chaz345]

Unconditional respect does not equal treating him as your own personal God. Yes some have, largely in the past, taught that, but it's not at all what the book is getting at.

 

[citizenthom]

So, the problem is obvious. Husbands aren't necessarily worthy of "unconditional" respect. The Bible doesn't command it.

Yeah, actually, it DOES. And it's not about who is and is not "worthy" of it. It's about God commanding this structure for the family because it is what ministers to men's and women's needs.

How many wives are truly worthy of "unconditional love," at all times, in all seasons, in all moods? The same number as husbands truly "deserving" of unconditional respect: zero. How many people in the Church are worthy of our agape? A sliver. How many people in government are worthy of our obedience? A smaller sliver. How many poor people can be trusted to use our donations wisely? Eek. That's not the point. The point is that the Bible commands certain attitudes and actions towards people, and those commands are from God. They are not conditioned on human character because they are divine commandments.

Yeah -- I don't think anyone on the planet "respects" the way Thom is saying that women should respect their husbands -- I'll go on to say that respect isn't even listed as one of the big 3 (faith, hope, love).

My wife does. And I am blessed by it. I never feel for a second that I "deserve" it, either; that makes her respect all the more treasured.

Here's what really gets my goat: for most of human history, men have complained much more loudly about their end of the bargain: "my wife treats me like dirt, why should I show her a gentle spirit at all times?" Now it seems extremely taboo even to question that husbands should be gentle and kind at all times. But the respect side of the equation? That message always seems to be accompanied by horror movie music to women's ears. Why is that? We submit ourselves to unworthy authorities all the blasted time. Why are husbands the one category we can wantonly attack and rebel against?

 

[chaz345]

Here's what really gets my goat: for most of human history, men have complained much more loudly about their end of the bargain: "my wife treats me like dirt, why should I show her a gentle spirit at all times?" Now it seems extremely taboo even to question that husbands should be gentle and kind at all times. But the respect side of the equation? That message always seems to be accompanied by horror movie music to women's ears. Why is that? We submit ourselves to unworthy authorities all the blasted time. Why are husbands the one category we can wantonly attack and rebel against?

That's exactly the point. As a whole we've got no problem with the concept of unconditional love. We may have a problem with DOING it, but no one tires to deny that it's what we're supposed to try for. But as soon as the idea of even limited unconditional respect come up, the wailing and moaning about treating him as a God and justifying or enabling bad sinful behavior comes flying out.

The bottom line is that men need respect in the same way that women need love and just as a woman who is unloved will respond badly, so will a man who is not respected. Doesn't make either right, but it is what usually happens.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I don't think anyone denies that we should respect each other either. It's the idea that men need gobs of it, and it's not worth mentioning for women, that I think is the issue. It's an imbalanced view, that is obvious when the author goes so far to make his point that he says the bible never tells.... and it's not even true.

 

[chaz345]

I don't think anyone denies that we should respect each other either. It's the idea that men need gobs of it, and it's not worth mentioning for women, that I think is the issue. It's an imbalanced view, that is obvious when the author goes so far to make his point that he says the bible never tells.... and it's not even true.

But the book goes the other way too. I says that women need gobs of love and never mentions that men need it too.

And again, take what you have such a problem out of the equation since it's not really a foundation to the main point of the book in the first place. Even without the "The Bible never says..." (which by the way IS in fact the case) his point is still valid.

His real point if you could even stop and look is that love, the woman's primary need(yes she needs respect too and the book never suggests otherwise) is viewed entirely differently than respect. We, in general view love as something that just should be given, period, but when it comes to respect it needs to be earned. But you just go ahead and keep ignoring that point based on your wrong assertion that he starts with a false premise. Why don't you go ahead and show me where exactly the Bible, speaking to the wives themself, says that they are to love their husbands. The Titus passage doesn't cut it because it's a command to other women to teach wives HOW to love, it isn't a command to the wives to love. But when you get down to it, that really makes ZERO difference unless the author were to go on to suggest that wives aren't supposed to love their husbands, which he never does.

Your objection is just a smokescreen to avoid his real point about respect and the need for it though so I'm sure you'll cling to it even though it's not even accurate.

 

[Romanseight2005]

No it doesn't. Women need to be loved sacrificially but so do men. Men don't need to be put on a pedestal which is all this amounts to. Furthermore, Citizen Thom, do you believe that all men know more than all women, so women are always in need of being taught by men? Are men ever the ones who know less?

You guys are acting like women don't have to do anything and they are supposed to be loved perfectly. You are forgetting that women also have to love that way, and a large part of love, is respect. What Citizen Thom is laying out, really sounds like a parent child relationship, rather than a husband /wife partnership.

 

[citizenthom]

What Citizen Thom is laying out, really sounds like a parent child relationship, rather than a husband /wife partnership.

All I did was quote from the Bible itself and Strong's Concordance to try to illuminate Scripture. Talk about killing the messenger. Sheesh.

To answer your other "question," I think men have a much stronger Biblical mandate to learn and to lead, and I think a man who doesn't educate himself in the Scriptures and in God's wisdom fails one of his duties to his wife as well.

But here's the rub that you seem to be ignoring repeatedly: the fact that a man is not perfect, or even is severely flawed, does not change the Biblical command FROM GOD to wives. You're talking like it's a human commandment (specifically my commandment, oddly enough), but it's not.

How would you react to a man saying, "I need not love my wife because she habitually overeats and does not take care of herself?" Or, "I need not love my wife because she refuses to do Sexual Act X?" Or, "I need not love my wife because she is not as good as this other man's wife?" That's the logic you're using. It doesn't work.

 

[chaz345]

No it doesn't. Women need to be loved sacrificially but so do men. Men don't need to be put on a pedestal which is all this amounts to. Furthermore, Citizen Thom, do you believe that all men know more than all women, so women are always in need of being taught by men? Are men ever the ones who know less?

You guys are acting like women don't have to do anything and they are supposed to be loved perfectly. You are forgetting that women also have to love that way, and a large part of love, is respect. What Citizen Thom is laying out, really sounds like a parent child relationship, rather than a husband /wife partnership.

Putting men on a pedestal is not at all what the book is about. That you see that in a message that essentially does nothing more that say that respect is important to men in the same way that love is to women is quite telling.

 

[JanniGirl]

My husband doesn't worry that I don't respect him. He worries that I'll stop loving him. And, quite frankly, my biggest complaint is that my husband lacks respect for me.

I think the author (maybe because he's a man, idk) grossly underestimates a woman's need to feel respected.

And, quite frankly -- I'm not going to take every line out of context in the Bible as a commandment. It loses its meaning when its not taken in perspective.

 

[Romanseight2005]

All I did was quote from the Bible itself and Strong's Concordance to try to illuminate Scripture. Talk about killing the messenger. Sheesh.

To answer your other "question," I think men have a much stronger Biblical mandate to learn and to lead, and I think a man who doesn't educate himself in the Scriptures and in God's wisdom fails one of his duties to his wife as well.

But here's the rub that you seem to be ignoring repeatedly: the fact that a man is not perfect, or even is severely flawed, does not change the Biblical command FROM GOD to wives. You're talking like it's a human commandment (specifically my commandment, oddly enough), but it's not.

How would you react to a man saying, "I need not love my wife because she habitually overeats and does not take care of herself?" Or, "I need not love my wife because she refuses to do Sexual Act X?" Or, "I need not love my wife because she is not as good as this other man's wife?" That's the logic you're using. It doesn't work.

But you can take scripture out of context, which is what I believe you did. Tell me. can you picture the doctrine espoused by the book, fitting in sync with the Proverbs 31 wife? Scripture does mention the husband teaching the wife, but it was given to a particular group, at a particular time, that was relevant. This was a new scenario. The church had not been before, as it was when the NT was happening. Women hadn't been versed in the scriptures. So it fully makes sense that men would have more experience with the scriptures, and that they would be able to expound on them to their wives. But let's not forget that women in the NT were being taught the scriptures alongside their husbands in the church. This was HUGE! This does not mean that women will forever be less knowing of the scriptures. Now we have the exact same scriptures to draw from, as the men, and we have the Same Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. This is precisely why it is dangerous to take one passage of scripture, out of its context, and turn it into a doctrine!

 

[chaz345]

This is precisely why it is dangerous to take one passage of scripture, out of its context, and turn it into a doctrine!

Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church.... has been taken out of context and doctrine has been made of it. And I'm quite sure you've got no problem at all with how that's been done. That one verse has become pretty much the only thing said in the Bible about how husbands are to treat their wives that is even acceptable to say. Talk about out of context.

 

[Conservativation]

what a silly thing for women to be upset about...truly hair splittingly silly, filled with good stuff like pettiness, envy, fear...etc.