Love & Respect

[Romanseight2005]

But is the respect you have for your child the same as that which you have for your husband, or for God, or for your boss? No, of course it isn't. Different relationships would of course mean that the respect within that relationship, or the love within that relationship would look and be different.

But why is it different? That's what I am trying to get to. Without answering that, we can't get to the crux of the issue. I have really pondered this, and honestly, I don't respect my boss. She does not have integrity. She is deceitful, so i don't trust her, nor do I respect her. I have to do what she says because she's my boss, so, I respect her position of authority, but since I don't personally respect her, I am often skeptical of what she says. If there are rules that she must decide, I have to go with those rules because of her position, but I don't respect her. On the other hand, I know a teenage boy whom I have tremendous respect for. He has integrity, and is highly capable. He will probably be in a position of power one day, due to his wisdom, leadership ability, and Godly character. Like Joseph in the OT, his circumstance didn't really matter. He was who he was whether he was leading Egypt, or whether he was the bottom of the slaves. When I read about Joseph, I respect him, in every circumstance, position of power, or lack there of.

Now, there is a certain respect that I have for all people, just because they are human, and made in the image of God. Likewise, there is a love that is also there for all. Children, start with a basic respect. But also, you respect who they will be. You don't know who they will be, but you trust that God has a purpose for them, and you can respect who He is growing them into. But always, love is there.

Now back to the theory set forth in this thread. Someone said that men are not told to respect their wives, because men naturally do this. I don't believe this because men are told that their prayers are hindered for dealing treacherously with their wives. Also, their allowed to divorce due to their hard hearts. Can a hard hearted person who deals treacherously with his wife, be respecting her? I am not saying all men did this, but merely pointing out that scripture does not assume that men are better respectors.

Okay, I got this off of my chest. I am done.

 

[marky1]

We believe love best motivates a woman and respect most powerfully motivates a man. Research reveals that during marital conflict a husband most often reacts when feeling disrespected and a wife reacts when feeling unloved. We asked 7,000 people this question: when you are in a conflict with your spouse or significant other, do you feel unloved or disrespected? 83% of the men said "disrespected." 72% of the women said, "unloved." Though we all need love and respect equally, the felt need differs during conflict, and this difference is as different as pink is from blue!

 

[Romanseight2005]

But Marky my point was that those terms are rather ambiguous. What does that really mean?

Dictionary.com says that respect entails three different things.
Deference, admiration, and affection. Deference means a yielding of a will. Admiration means visible praise, affection means visible love.

So a man is feeling slighted during an argument because he doesn't feel that his will was being yielded to, he doesn't feel praised, and he feels unloved.

You are saying that the woman just feels the lack of affection part.

What I would generally agree with, is that men I know, often take it more personally when their ideas are not used. If the wife has another idea about something, and she wants to look at both ideas and then decide together, he may feel unyielded to, and therefore his pride may be hurt by this. But, is this right? Are you saying that his hurt pride should be catered to?

I don't know a single woman who only feels a lack of affection during an argument, depending upon what the argument is about. If it's simply ideas being shared, and he gets upset because another idea was shared besides his, then she will likely feel disrespected, in that he thought his idea was the only one worth considering. A man would also feel slighted if his wife made a unilateral decision without considering his ideas.

 

[Conservativation]

But Marky my point was that those terms are rather ambiguous. What does that really mean?

Dictionary.com says that respect entails three different things.
Deference, admiration, and affection. Deference means a yielding of a will. Admiration means visible praise, affection means visible love.

So a man is feeling slighted during an argument because he doesn't feel that his will was being yielded to, he doesn't feel praised, and he feels unloved. (he didnt say that)

You are saying that the woman just feels the lack of affection part. (neither did he say this)

What I would generally agree with, is that men I know, often take it more personally when their ideas are not used. If the wife has another idea about something, and she wants to look at both ideas and then decide together, he may feel unyielded to, and therefore his pride may be hurt by this. But, is this right? Are you saying that his hurt pride should be catered to?

I don't know a single woman who only feels a lack of affection during an argument, depending upon what the argument is about. If it's simply ideas being shared, and he gets upset because another idea was shared besides his, then she will likely feel disrespected, in that he thought his idea was the only one worth considering. A man would also feel slighted if his wife made a unilateral decision without considering his ideas.

if you would honestly try to step away from your preconceived ideas of what people are going to say, it would not only help....it would be charitable and kind. You consistently assume the very exact same motive and meaning for certain topics. This poster and what you responded to are like different topics completely

But, on another point.....why does this matter so much to you? Why do you care if what the man says he wants is vorvg and what the woman wants is flarb. Seriously? Why take something that has some merit, and fuss about the exact terminology? why assign some perceived slight to the women in the scenario....you seem very concerned that a woman wanting love (he didnt say affection) is perceived as inferior to the better desire...respoect....why?

 

[citizenthom]

It is false? Where then? Where does the Bible specifically tell wives to love their husbands?

Husbands and wives still owe the basic duty of 1 Corinthians 13-style love to their spouses. It's just that spouses have a lot more daily situations where they must apply "love is patient, love is kind" and so on and so forth. Those commands apply to both spouses.

The kind of love discussed in the "love and respect" context, on the other hand, uses a different analogy: the husband is to "give himself up" for his wife as Christ did for the church, to love her sacrificially and unconditionally. And that love involves leadership and setting an example for her--again, something separate from, and more difficult than, general lovingkindness.

 

[FaithPrevails]

It is false? Where then? Where does the Bible specifically tell wives to love their husbands? Of course it tells all believers to love everyone but that's different than the specific commands to wives and husbands. Doesn't mean that it doesn't apply, it just means that there is no such specific command.

And even at that, there is a difference between saying that the Bible never commands wives to love their husbands and saying that men don't need love.

If I recall an interview I heard with the author correctly, he says that the reason that women are not commanded to love their husbands is not that men don't need love but because love is a woman's "native language" so they don't need to be reminded to do it. Same with men and respecting their wives. Respect is the man's "native language" so he doesn't need to be reminded to respect his wife. Of course that each is one gender's "native language" doesn't mean that they do it well all the time in all cases.

Titus 2:1-5

1But as for you, teach what accords with(A) sound[a] doctrine. 2Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled,(B) sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3(C) Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior,(D) not slanderers(E) or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled,(F) pure,(G) working at home, kind, and(H) submissive to their own husbands,(I) that the word of God may not be reviled.

 

[chaz345]

Titus 2:1-5

1But as for you, teach what accords with(A) sound[a] doctrine. 2Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled,(B) sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3(C) Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior,(D) not slanderers(E) or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled,(F) pure,(G) working at home, kind, and(H) submissive to their own husbands,(I) that the word of God may not be reviled.

But in the context of commands specifically to men and women as regards their marriage, God only tells husbands to love and wives to respect.

Again, no one, not me and more relevantly not the author of the book is suggesting that women not love their husbands or men not respect their wives. But there's got to be a reason that God emphasized one to one gender and the other to the other gender. That's all the book is about. It never even comes close to suggesting that wives aren't supposed to love their husbands or that husbands are not supposed to respect their wives. At least not from the several lengthy interviews with the author that I've heard where that very objection is asked about. I suppose it's possible that what he says in interviews is in direct contradiction to what's in the book, but I find that rather unlikely.

 

[chaz345]

Husbands and wives still owe the basic duty of 1 Corinthians 13-style love to their spouses. It's just that spouses have a lot more daily situations where they must apply "love is patient, love is kind" and so on and so forth. Those commands apply to both spouses.

Of course they do, and the book and it's author never suggest otherwise.

 

[chaz345]

I am asking you to define exactly why the way you respect your boss, verses your child, are different. It's either ability, or position of authority.

It's different precisely because in one case(the boss) it's about respecting their position of authority and in the case of a child or spouse it's not. But similar to how you must respect your boss's authority even if you don't respect them as a person, you must, on some level respect your husband(not in an authority sense) even if there's things about his behavior that are not respectable. Which is exactly analagous to God's command to husbands to love their wives even when they are being unloveable, or to live with them in an understanding way even when they are being un-understandable.

 

[FaithPrevails]

But in the context of commands specifically to men and women as regards their marriage, God only tells husbands to love and wives to respect.

Again, no one, not me and more relevantly not the author of the book is suggesting that women not love their husbands or men not respect their wives. But there's got to be a reason that God emphasized one to one gender and the other to the other gender. That's all the book is about. It never even comes close to suggesting that wives aren't supposed to love their husbands or that husbands are not supposed to respect their wives. At least not from the several lengthy interviews with the author that I've heard where that very objection is asked about. I suppose it's possible that what he says in interviews is in direct contradiction to what's in the book, but I find that rather unlikely.

Titus 2 is a part of God's Word and God's teaching, therefore it is essentially a command.

I am not disagreeing about the whole love vs. respect thing.

 

[chaz345]

Titus 2 is a part of God's Word and God's teaching, therefore it is essentially a command.

I am not disagreeing about the whole love vs. respect thing.

So you don't agree that the fact that the author seems to be in error when his seminar says that wives are not called to love their husbands, makes pretty much everything he says invalid?


I think the problem here is actually one of semantics though. I'd certainly agree that the author or his speakers at seminars should be more clear, but it is essentially true that, in the portion of scripture that is directly speaking about marriage, wives are not specifically called to love their husbands. And as relates to the point he's making, about unconditional love versus unconditional respect, it makes sense to limit the conversation to that portion of scripture. I agree that the statements made abou tit being nowhere in the bible are way too broad and unclear though if that is in fact what is actually meant.

The other thing though is that Titus is not a command TO love their husbands and children, it's a command to train other women to love their husbands and children. Again semantics but as it's there in Titus it's only counter to what the author is saying if he were saying that wives aren't supposed to love their husbands.

 

[FaithPrevails]

So you don't agree that the fact that the author seems to be in error when his seminar says that wives are not called to love their husbands, makes pretty much everything he says invalid?


I think the problem here is actually one of semantics though. I'd certainly agree that the author or his speakers at seminars should be more clear, but it is essentially true that, in the portion of scripture that is directly speaking about marriage, wives are not specifically called to love their husbands. And as relates to the point he's making, about unconditional love versus unconditional respect, it makes sense to limit the conversation to that portion of scripture. I agree that the statements made abou tit being nowhere in the bible are way too broad and unclear though if that is in fact what is actually meant.

The other thing though is that Titus is not a command TO love their husbands and children, it's a command to train other women to love their husbands and children. Again semantics but as it's there in Titus it's only counter to what the author is saying if he were saying that wives aren't supposed to love their husbands.

I didn't sleep well so I may not be writing clearly. I wasn't disagreeing with what you said about the whole love vs. respect thing. I was strictly posting the scripture I did to show that it is in the Bible...even if it is semantics, as you said.

What I take away from the whole love vs. respect thing is that women need love communicated to them in order to feel both loved and respected and husbands need respect communicated to them to feel both loved and respected. Does that make sense?

 

[chaz345]

What I take away from the whole love vs. respect thing is that women need love communicated to them in order to feel both loved and respected and husbands need respect communicated to them to feel both loved and respected. Does that make sense?

This is pretty much exactly what I see the author to be saying. Which is why it puzzles me that there is such vehement opposition to him and his ideas.

I think that the issue is that, while no one has much of an issue with unconditional love, people are afraid(somewhat irrationally in my opinion) that unconditional respect enables or excuses continued bad behavior.

 

[citizenthom]

Of course they do, and the book and it's author never suggest otherwise.

Dr. Eggerichs doesn't exactly talk about it much, either. My wife and I used Love & Respect for our premarital counseling; while his base premise is excellent and he teaches a message a lot of couples need to hear both before and during marriage, on the "mutual" type of love I discussed, his cupboard was a little bare.

Then again, the love and respect message is meant to be foundational, basic, a starting point; whereas learning how to love your spouse the way they like to be loved is more of an advanced study.

 

[chaz345]

Dr. Eggerichs doesn't exactly talk about it much, either. My wife and I used Love & Respect for our premarital counseling; while his base premise is excellent and he teaches a message a lot of couples need to hear both before and during marriage, on the "mutual" type of love I discussed, his cupboard was a little bare.

Then again, the love and respect message is meant to be foundational, basic, a starting point; whereas learning how to love your spouse the way they like to be loved is more of an advanced study.

I don;t think anyone, let alone Eggerich, would ever suggest that the Love and Respect concept is ALL there is to a great marriage. It's one aspect, one dynamic that he saw as needing to be addressed.

 

[FaithPrevails]

This is pretty much exactly what I see the author to be saying. Which is why it puzzles me that there is such vehement opposition to him and his ideas.

I think that the issue is that, while no one has much of an issue with unconditional love, people are afraid(somewhat irrationally in my opinion) that unconditional respect enables or excuses continued bad behavior.

I think the struggle with it is that by respecting the person you are, in effect, somehow condoning (or respecting) the behavior. But, the sum of an individual is not just their flaws, it's the good parts of them, too.

 

[FaithPrevails]

Dr. Eggerichs doesn't exactly talk about it much, either. My wife and I used Love & Respect for our premarital counseling; while his base premise is excellent and he teaches a message a lot of couples need to hear both before and during marriage, on the "mutual" type of love I discussed, his cupboard was a little bare.

Then again, the love and respect message is meant to be foundational, basic, a starting point; whereas learning how to love your spouse the way they like to be loved is more of an advanced study.

You can tie the two ideas together - love/respect and love languages. If you are speaking to your spouse in their love language, they are going to feel loved/respected.

 

[chaz345]

I think the struggle with it is that by respecting the person you are, in effect, somehow condoning (or respecting) the behavior. But, the sum of an individual is not just their flaws, it's the good parts of them, too.

So why is there not similar resistance to the idea of unconditional love? I mean wouldn't loving someone who is acting unloveable be condoning their behavior too?

 

[FaithPrevails]

So why is there not similar resistance to the idea of unconditional love? I mean wouldn't loving someone who is acting unloveable be condoning their behavior too?

People can wrap their brain around unconditional love b/c it is the example given of Jesus. If the Bible said unconditional respect, maybe that would be more readily accepted, as well. Personally, though, I think that Jesus did exhibit acts of unconditional respect when dealing with certain people in the Bible. The woman at the well comes to mind. He was respectful to her, IMO, when she hardly had a reputation that others would have considered her a person deserving of respect.

 

[chaz345]

People can wrap their brain around unconditional love b/c it is the example given of Jesus. If the Bible said unconditional respect, maybe that would be more readily accepted, as well. Personally, though, I think that Jesus did exhibit acts of unconditional respect when dealing with certain people in the Bible. The woman at the well comes to mind. He was respectful to her, IMO, when she hardly had a reputation that others would have considered her a person deserving of respect.

I don't think the Bible ever explicitly says unconditional love any more than it says unconditional respect though. But like you say there are examples of Jesus giving both.

I do think that the modern Church emphasizes the idea of unconditional love, but when you get down to it, is God's love really unconditional? Yes He loves us no matter what we do, but having that love really mean anything absolutely requires that we meet conditions.