Love & Respect

[Conservativation]

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.



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?

the answer is in the post by janni about. Its another in the myriad of misconstrued things....to treat him as a personal god....sheesh...yea thats what the book says.

In the most very utmost boiled down and basically stated way....the blow back from this book is easy to define.
Any and all semblance of the mere mention of submission is small pox on a church congregation. When its mentioned, the delivery from the preacher is to be honest nearly apologetic about what God said. So...that has been basically purged. It needs to be kept alive as the boogeyman to be able to spread fear or it.
This book raises it again tangentially, and inoffensively in a balanced way...therefore it needs to be universally reviled, lest it gain credibility.

The equilibrium that is sought today is where Men love as Christ the church AND "submit to one another" is a full paraphrase of Eph 5. AND yet the constant drumbeat that men need to step up and lead the culture and church from the brink of immorality....BUT...first the men need to be rehabilitated per women's image....and then the men can lead, as long as they lead where they are told to. THIS is what stands, unchallenged. And until MEN stop fearing the blow back.....this is life

I heard 2 things on the radio as I drove yesterday that were different yet spoke to this....I will make a thread about them.

 

[Conservativation]

A female psychologists somewhat related comments on respect and teaching boys about dating
Teaching Boys and Young Men about Women and Dating, Part 1 | Shrink4Men

 

[IndigoG]

I don't understand why this issue is so divided, men v women (well, perhaps I can, but I don't know why it has to be that way).
I am a woman and I want to show my husband the most love and respect I can. That is the commitment I made to him - irrespective of what my husband is instructed to do and irrespective of what my husband does or how he makes me feel.
If my husband was totally unloving and disrespectful to me, that doesn't diminish my responsibility.
Also, I'm learning that my attempts to draw close to my husband may not make him want to draw close to me. And his attempts to draw close to me may not make me want to draw close to him.
As I have started to adjust my actions to be more respectful, I am seeing just how damaging my disrespect was.

I needed to learn what respect meant to my husband. Now I believe that this is because as a woman I see things differently to my husband. But even if it wasn't, it is still important for me to learn this.

 

[citizenthom]

Indigo: you're defining "respect" the English way, which is fine, but that's not the concept we're discussing here. But look at the Greek definitions I posted earlier. It is impossible for BOTH spouses to phobos one another: that would mean BOTH make the ultimate decisions even when they are divided, or that BOTH look to the other for leadership.

That's what people really find offensive: the submission aspect of Biblical respect.

 

[IndigoG]

Indigo: you're defining "respect" the English way, which is fine, but that's not the concept we're discussing here. But look at the Greek definitions I posted earlier. It is impossible for BOTH spouses to phobos one another: that would mean BOTH make the ultimate decisions even when they are divided, or that BOTH look to the other for leadership.

That's what people really find offensive: the submission aspect of Biblical respect.

Sorry - I agree with your definition - I didn't realise the 'headship' issue was being contested.

For me the book showed that it is possible to think you are letting your husband lead, but undermine his authority by being disrespectful.

I'll let you all get back to your discussion now