Fear or respect

Not long ago there was a post on the BBB about the book of Philemon which has since been removed. In this post and the thread there was some discussion about the ESV being a more concordant translation than other translations.

Since the topic was slavery, I noticed that in Eph. 6:5, the ESV has,

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

But in Eph. 5:33 the ESV has,

However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

You would not know that in Greek the word for "respect" and "fear" are the same. In the T(NIV) they are both translated as "respect." The T(NIV) is simply more condordant in this case than the ESV.

However, the ESV does continue the tradition of the KJV, RSV and NRSV on this word. The difference between the ESV and these other translations is that the ESV claims to be concordant, while the others don't.

My first concern is that the phrase "love and respect" has been used to describe the appropriate marriage relation for today. But I would say that just as we do not expect employees to fear their employers, so a wife should not have to fear her husband. However, we are in no doubt that slaves and wives did fear their masters and husbands in this passage.

My second concern is that slavery is no longer supported by most Bible-believing Christians, but the subordination of the wife is still vigourously taught, based on this passage. This passage has huge significance. To me it says that the marriage relation at this time, described in this passage was one of "love and fear" and ideally the "fear" part should have been done away with by the "love" part.

Here is 1 John 4:18

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

According to this verse, fear relates to punishment. We fear God because we accept that he has the right to punish us for our wrongdoings. A slave fears the master for the same reason, and a wife the husband.

Perhaps, this demonstrates that Christian love should override fear in the wife. She should no longer fear her husband, if he loves her.

However, if "fear" is translated as "respect" then the unsuitability of this chapter for establishing a status quo in a Christian marriage is cloaked. The fact that the slave - master relationship and the wife - husband relationship have something in common is not so obvious. Mind you, I have also read those who do believe that these relationships are parallel. They argue that the wife is to the husband, as the employee is to the employer.

All in all, the problematic issues of basing a marriage on Ephesians are clouded by a poor translation. However, rather than agitate for a better translation, a better Bible, the other option is to reimagine the marriage relationship as a bond of two people who function as equals, and treat this passage as one that is tied to a culture which contained slavery and unequal status for women.

I recognise that equality does not guarantee a happy marriage, which must be based on affection and forgiveness, but it does provide a foundation. Sadly, there are many marriages, both complementarian and egalitarian, which lack compassion and tenderness. It is hard to legislate these things.

Anyway, I want to mention that when I brought up gthe lack of concordance in this passage in Ephesians on a post about Philemon, I was put on moderated status on the BBB. It appears they only want better bibles for men. Its okay to advocate for concordance for general issues, but not for women's issues. Perhaps they don't see that slavery and male dominant marriages appear to be the same topic in a woman's eyes.

Equal Partnership in Marriage

I came across an LDS website which uses Gottman's materials extensively to build equal partnership relationships. This is their summary of an equal partnership marriage,

Benefits of Equal Partnership

An equal partnership benefits marriages as a whole and benefits husbands and wives individually.
Happier marriages. Equal partnership fosters closeness between husband and wife, resulting in a stronger and happier marriage. Spouses feel better about themselves and each other, which makes them more likely to share their thoughts and feelings. This greater emotional intimacy leads to greater physical intimacy, an important element of a happy marriage. Couples with an equal partnership also report more stability in their marriage, less conflict, less dependency, and less resentment. Researcher John Gottman found that husbands who accept their wives’ influence are four times less likely to divorce or have an unhappy marriage.

Benefits to men. Men benefit emotionally from equal partnership because there is greater openness and they feel better about their marriage. They also benefit from the greater physical intimacy that comes with equal partnership. Physical intimacy improves physical health and reduces stress. Men in happy marriages also are more productive at work because they are less distracted by concerns at home.

Benefits to women. The closer communication and emotional intimacy in an equal partnership greatly benefit women. Research shows that having an equal say in decision making is the most important contributor to wives’ perception of their marriages as happy and satisfying. Wives are happier when their husbands appreciate them for the work they do in the home and when their husbands are copartners in home matters. They feel better about themselves, are less angry or depressed, feel their relationship is more fair, and are more happy with their marriage.

I am still puzzled at how Gottman's research has been used by Eggerichs to support hierarchy in marriage. If this is the case, then any advice that the wife does not need equal say is deliberately teaching unhappiness in marriage. The husband needs equal say also, BTW.

The Mathematics of Marriage

There has been a spate of posts on Bible translations and Kurk has responded to my last post.

In an event of unusual synchronicity, James Murray, co author with John Gottman et al. of The Mathematics of Marriage, gave an address at the Royal Society on March 26, 2009 which makes it crystal clear that their work on love and respect demonstrated the strictly symmetrical nature of these terms. HT Theophrastus.

This demonstrates that Gottman was misquoted by Emerson Eggerich and that there is no social science or scientific support for the notion that "men need respect and women need love." In fact, Gottman and Murray's detailed longtitudinal study demonstrates that marital success is dependent on love and respect demonstrated in a totally symmetrical fashion.

The exact terms which Gottman and Murray used were "affection and humour" for the most positive affects and contempt as the most negative. They also mentioned that the quality of the friendship between husband and wife was foundational.

In the book, The Mathematics of Marriage, Gottman reports that one woman in particular stated that she felt disrespected, and he saw her difficulty as relating to her perception that she had to be subordinate in her marriage. This was presented as a problem by Gottman.

I am very disappointed when a Christian author misintertprets data presented in an honest fashion and then uses the misinterpretation to attempt to promote the scientific truth of the Bible, or the subordination of woman or what have you. Very disappointing.

When Eggerichs writes,

Interestingly enough, scientific research confirms that love and respect are the foundation of a successful marriage. Dr. John Gottman, professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington, led a research team that spent twenty years studying two thousand couples who had been married twenty to forty years to the same partner. There people came from diverse backgrounds and had widely differing occupations and lifestyles. But one thing was similar - the tone of their conversations. As these couples talked together, almost always there was what Gottman calls "a strong undercurrent of two basic ingredients: Love and Respect.

These are the direct opposite of - and antidote for - contempt, perhaps the most corrosive force in marriage."Gottman's findings confirm what has already been in Scripture for some two thousand years. Chapter 5 of Ephesians is considered by many to be the most significant treatise on marriage in the New Testament. Paul concludes these statements on marriage by getting gender specific in verse 33. He reveals commands from the very heart of God as he tells the husband he must love his wife.

According to James Murray, their study did not differentiate for gender. I should stop being surprised that the truth has no currency for those who wish to demonstrate that science proves the Bible.

Love and Respect 7

I have been challenged again to find why it is that some people find this book so good. I will cite a few passages which I think are rather useful and reflect a certain exegesis. It has often been said that Gen. 3:16 teaches that the wife will try to control her husband. But Eggerichs argues against this. He gave this piece of advice to one husband,

Look, women may seem to be out of control or it may appear that they are trying to control you, but their real motive is to connect in love. page 122

He spends some time on this principle, explaining that what the husband interprets as control is really a wife trying to connect. The wife desires to connect with her husband and the husband should understand this rather than accusing her of trying to control him.

Eggerichs does not mention Gen. 3:16 but his argument here supports the notion that the scriptures are saying that the wife desires to be attached to her husband, rather than that the wife desires to control her husband. Eggerichs is not using the typical exegesis of other complementarians and this is the strength of this book.

He goes on to say,

When the ocean of marriage emotions becomes turbulent, a husband can feel as if he is drowning. A wife, on the other hand, stays afloat quite naturally and comfortably. page 121

This accords with other research which indicates that men do not process emotions, either their own or the emotions of others, as quickly or as accurately as women. Therefore, their tendency is to pull back from conflict.

Eggerichs continues,

To wives, husbands often appear as mysterious islands. Wives keep paddling around their husbands, looking for a place to come ashore, but there is a fog holding them back. There is no place to land. He appears to refuse her access. page 138

He cites one woman saying,

It seems as though I am stumbling around in a dark room and the light switch is not where it is supposed to be. page 139

While Eggerichs instructs husbands to spend time offering more involvment to their wives, he adds,

I am not asking men to become women who sit at tiny tables at cappuccino shops and sip coffee as they share life face to face. You are a man, and your wife loves you for being a man, not a woman. She doesn't expect you to become feminine, just like her girlfriend. But when you move toward her, when you show her you want to connect in even small ways, watch what happens. This will motivate her. page 129

I love the images, the wife paddling around her husband looking for a place to land, the husband being afraid of having to sit in a coffee shop at a tiny table, and so on. He talks a lot about trying to communicate and decode each other's needs. He paraphrases Luke 6:31 in this way and earns a lot of brownie points here,

Just as you want you spouse to treat you, treat your spouse in the same way. page 130

He is explicit -

• hold her hand
• hug her
• laugh together
• go for a walk
• set up a date
• run an errand
• be aware of her as a person with a mind and opinions
• have pillow talk after making love

This sounds wonderful. So why am I concerned about this book? Eggerichs goes on to say that the wife is more "expressive -responsive" and the husband is more "compartmentalized."

A man has much more ability to to control his reactions. His blood pressure may be going through the roof, but he can keep it under wraps. He may be deeply
pained, but he shoves it into a "compartment" in his mind, saying to himself, What's the point in trying to talk about this if that's the way she feels. page 137

Susan Pinker, however, in the Sexual Paradox, writes,

So, similar to language, the hardware for women's processing of emotions seems to take up more space and have a more efficient transportation grid than men's. ... Given that language is lateralized on the left, and that most women also encode emotional memories in the left hemisphere, the researchers speculate that women are using some sort of internal language to process and evaluate their emotions as they experience them. In contrast, men would encode emotions in a more automatic way- in the right amygdala.

Keeping emotions accessible so you can remember them, talk about them or use them in decision-making is difficult if you can't identify them in the first place. pages 117-118

Pinker goes to cite another researcher saying that men are more prone to physical action while women opt for verbal tactics. Men are more likely to respond from the older limbic brain with a physical assault and women respond with "I am angry at you."

There is nothing in the research presented by Susan Pinker which suggests that men are less emotional or more in control of their emotions, or more suited to decision-making than women. I am concerned that Eggerichs is inserting this notion in order to justify his teaching that men should always have 51% of the say in a marriage.

It is important to be aware that those who identify as difference feminists, like Susan Pinker, do not in any way suggest that men and women should not have the same rights and opportunities as men, nor that intimate relationships should be hierarchical.

I will post again and respond to Patty's post which outlines her reaction to this Love and Respect by Eggerichs. Thank you, Patty for writing such a thoughtful post, and I will cite from it next time.

Love and Respect 6

With respect to the pairing of love and respect in Eph. 5:33,

however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. RSV

I have tried to represent several of the things that Eggerichs say about this and assess whether or not they are true.

First, the Greek word phobeomai , found in Eph. 5:33 maps poorly onto the English word "respect." In the Tyndale and Coverdale translations the word was "fear." This was changed to "reverence" and finally "respect," while phobeomai, when used with reference to God, is still translated as "fear." So a certain part of the sense of the chapter has been watered down.

We might consider whether wives were in a position where they were to phobeomai "fear" their husbands. Perhaps they were in a relationship not completely different from that of the slave to the slave owner.

On the other hand, I would like to continue exploring further the semantic range of phobeomai. It is used in the commandments in Lev. 19:3

Ye shall fear (phobeomai) every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God. Lev. 19:3

Honour (timao) thy father and thy mother Ex. 20:12

Children, obey (hupakouo) your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Eph. 6:1

Honour (timao) thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; Eph. 6:2

Here we see a continuum from "obey" to "fear" to "honour" within the relationship of children and parents. But let's look a little further and see how the word "honor" timao is used.

For although they knew God, they did not honor (timao( him as God or give thanks to him, Romans 1:21

but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. Romans 2:10

Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Romans 12:10

But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 1 Cor. 12:23

Honor widows who are truly widows. 1 Tim. 5:3

Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, 1 Tim. 6:1

Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. 1 Peter 2:17

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. 1 Peter 3:7

I hope this is clear. Honor is owed to everyone. The husband must honor his wife and the wife must honor her husband.

I see two choices for the interpretation of Eph. 5:33. "Respect" (phobeomai) could nean that a wife must "obey" or "fear" her husband because he has power over her. If this is the case, then the wife is no better than a child or a slave. The relationship is not reciprocal and according to John Gottman, the person who is not respected, in this case the wife, is demeaned and deprived of dignity.

The second choice is that "respect" phobeomai is roughly equivalent to "honor" timao. If this is the case, then the husband must honor his wife according to the scriptures. "Honor" is something which is reciprocal within the adult church members. Widows especially must be honored.

When Eggerichs writes,

Interestingly enough, scientific research confirms that love and respect are the foundation of a successful marriage

this rings true. But when Eggerichs then says,

Gottman's findings confirm what has already been in Scripture for some two thousand years. Chapter 5 of Ephesians is considered by many to be the most significant treatise on marriage in the New Testament. Paul concludes these statements on marriage by getting gender specific in verse 33. He reveals commands from the very heart of God as he tells the husband he must love his wife unconditionally and the wife must respect her husband, whether or not her husband comes across as loving. page 35-36

Eggerichs is being academically dishonest. One of the things I feel very strongly when I read something dishonest, is that I feel personally disrespected.

I firmly believe that women should be invited into reciprocal relations with men. Unfortunately only men can facilitate this.

Love and Respect 5

To be fair, I want to offer this positive review of Eggerichs book, which nonetheless notes the two difficulties which I outlined in my previous post. For this author, they were not serious detractions, but for me they are.

Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires, the Respect He Desperately Needs, a book by Emerson Eggerichs, makes an excellent observation. Many a woman feels as if her air has been cut off when she feels unloved by her husband, but a man is more likely to feel this way when he feels he's lost his wife's respect. And to make matters worse, women tend to disrespect husbands who don't love them, and men tend to withhold love from wives when they feel disrespected. Eggerichs calls it the Crazy Cycle.

His book offers advice to couples who want to break out of their Crazy Cycle. Lots of books offer advice on how to show love, but few tell how to show respect to a loved one, and I've heard from a lot of men who confirm there's an important difference.

I think it's unfortunate that Dr. Eggerichs, a Protestant minister, chose to bolster his proposals for improving marriage with fragments of verses from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Many come from passages unrelated to his subject and appear to be wrestled into service of his ideas, which would stand quite nicely on their own. He's also going to lose a few readers by emphasizing what he sees as the husband's proper role as head of the family.

But don't let those deter you if they don't fit your religious beliefs. This book offers some important insights not offered elsewhere. Run them past your spouse and see if they'll make your marriage stronger.

Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires, the Respect He Desperately Needs. Emerson Eggerichs. Brentwood, Tennessee: Integrity Publishers, 2004. 240 pages.
Posted by patty at 3:41 PM Permalink

And here is a review by the same person of a book by John Gottman.

One of the most widely read and cited books on marriage is The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by John M. Gottman, Ph.D., and Nan Silver.

Gottman can predict whether a couple will divorce after watching and listening to them for only five minutes. His predictions are correct 91% of the time. He watches for four things as they try to resolve an ongoing disagreement. Here's what tells him a couple is likely to divorce:

1. A harsh startup to the discussion
2. The "Four Horsemen" of criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling
3. Flooding (feeling so overwhelmed that you avoid further discussion)
4. Body language indicating a fight-or-flight response
5. Failed repair attempts
6. Bad memories (rewritten history of their relationship)

The antidote, Gottman claims, is a strong friendship between husband and wife. This helps them remember, when things go badly, that they are dealing with a friend. Gottman claims that 69% of all marital conflicts don't get resolved, perhaps can't be resolved. Those who enjoy their marriages find playful and supportive ways of dealing with these differences.

His Seven Principles emphasize Emotional Intelligence and friendship. Each one comes with a set of exercises. Couples who do them together will build Emotional Intelligence skills and strengthen their friendship with each other.

Those who already Assume Love will find it much easier to master Gottman's Seven Principles. They will also have a great tool for fighting off the Four Horsemen: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.

The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. John M. Gottman, Ph.D., and Nan Silver. New York: Crown, 1999. 288 pages.
Posted by patty at 5:08 PM Permalink

Love and Respect 4

I fell out of order somehow. A little bit of the white queen sometimes, I'm afraid.

One of the difficulties with using the "love and respect" pair in Ephesians 5:33 to represent the marriage relationship, as Eggerichs does is that there is no Bible which gives us a transparent translation of this verse.

In all the major translations which I reviewed I found that people are still to "fear" God, but wives are to "respect" their husbands. It is striking that all translations have agreed to translate the word phobeomai differently in collocation with God and with husband.

The word "respect" in English only marginally includes hierarchy in the meaning, if the context makes this clear already. So, it is the context and not the word "respect" which communicates hierarchy. We can equally say in English "respect your children" and "respect your elders." I noted about 60,000 hits in google for "respect your children" and 100,000 hits for "respect your elders." One cannot say that the word "respect" necessarily involves a recognition of hierarchy.

There is, however, the expression to "respect" someone with greater power. One might say that you should have a "healthy respect for bears" and not feed them in national parks. This may be a trace reminder that "respect" once included the meaning "fear." Here are a few takes from google.

Every person in the backcountry should have a healthy respect for bears: a sense of caution, knowledge and awareness of potential hazards. ...

Although most people maintain a healthy respect for bears, this wilderness ethic goes far beyond fearing bears and their powerful abilities. ...

Bear attacks are rare, and most can be avoided with the proper precautions. Always maintain a healthy respect for wildlife. Never feed animals, and be sure ...

Vancouver Island is home to black bear and cougar, and while conflict between these animals and humans cannot always be avoided, a healthy respect for their wildness is key to reducing dangerous encounters.

So the question is whether a husband "needs" this kind of respect, or whether Ephesians 5:33 recommends "respect" because it is a part of the existing power relations at that time. In some sense it is hard to replicate the meaning of phobeomai, but we should be hesitant to read it into the use of the word "respect" in most social science literature. Park signage is a different thing altogether.

Love and Respect 3

In Love and Respect Eggerichs writes,

Gottman's findings confirm what has already been in Scripture for some two thousand years. Chapter 5 of Ephesians is considered by many to be the most significant treatise on marriage in the New Testament. Paul concludes these statements on marriage by getting gender specific in verse 33. He reveals commands from the very heart of God as he tells the husband he must love his wife unconditionally and the wife must respect her husband, whether or not her husband comes across as loving. page 35-36

Two things are at work here. First, Eggerichs wishes to reinforce the position of husbands as leaders in the home. He assumes the leadership of the male by writing approvingly of this attitude,

He may not be perfect as the head of the family, but you are quite willing to allow him to live in that role as you submit to his leadership. (page 211)

Next, Eggerichs wishes to find that scripture and the best of modern social science fall together. He wants science to confirm scripture for him. (I think we all know what happens when this is applied in other fields. I remember distinctly being taken to see a documentary which portrayed the footprints of humans walking alongside dinosaurs. Certain Christians wanted science to validate scripture. This obscures clear vision. It was later proven that the tracks were not human.)

Here is the scripture text in question,

however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. RSV

Neuerthelesse, let euery one of you in particular, so loue his wife euen as himselfe, and the wife see that she reuerence her husband. KJV

Neverthelesse do ye so that every one of you love his wyfe truely even as him silfe. And let ye wyfe se that she feare her husbade Tyndale

There is no doubt that the word in Greek has as its primary meaning "fear." Phobeomai in the Liddell Scott Jones lexicon means "to be put to flight," "to be siezed with fear," "to be afraid," and "to stand in awe or dread of." In the BDAG, it is "to be afraid" and "to have a profound measure of respect for, reverence, respect with special reference to fear of offending."

The use of phobeomai in collocation with "God" indicates that it means to "respect someone who is stronger than you." Eggerichs is clear that when he uses the word respect he does mean to validate hierarchy with the husband at the head of the hierarchy. He writes,

If you want a Love and Respect marriage, do not argue or fight against hierarchy. (page 213)

I understand Eggerichs to be saying that a wife gains love by acknowledging that she is in a hieararchical relationship with her husband, with him on top. The author of Ephesians does tell the wife to phobeomai her husband. He clearly says then that the wife must view the husband as having more power in the relationship.

However, there is a disagreement about whether we now interpret this author to be saying that the husband has earthly power, as does a slave owner or an emperor, or natural power as an adult does in relation to a child; or whether, as some theologians teach, it means that God intends the husband to exercise power over the wife.

I would argue that the author of Ephesians is commenting on the fact that the husband at that time had more power in the marriage relationship. A wife could not change this. In the same way, slaves were told to obey their earthly masters.

The first difficulty with Eggerichs use of the term "respect" is whether the English word "respect" conveys this difference in hierarchy and whether it can also be used of the way a husband is to treat his wife.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary says of "respect" - 1 regard with deference, esteem or honour. 2a avoid interfering with, harming, degrading, insulting, injuring or interrupting. 2b treat with consideration 2c refrain from offending, corrupting or tempting.

Other definitions and uses of the English word "respect" indicate that whle it can be used with reference to a hierarchical regard, it does not necessarily entail hierarchy. While Eggerichs uses the word "respect" to indicate hierarchy, Gottman does not. Gottman clearly says that "love and respect" are "mutual" and he speaks approvingly of "power-sharing." I am not aware of any social science articles that confirm the notion that hierarchical relationships provide more love for those under hierarchy than non-hierarchical relationships.

I will continue in my next post with a look at other ways Eggerichs uses the word "respect" and whether the scriptures specifically require a husband to respect his wife or not. There is more to be written about the Greek word phobeomai and its near synonym timaô.

Love and Respect 2

Some significant questions have arisen in relation to Love and Respect by Emerson Eggerichs. This topic first came up when John Hobbins mentioned it here, and here. I understand it's a popular book, but otherwise I would not have heard of it.

First, this book includes some gender specific communication advice derived in part from the work of Deborah Tannen and John Gottman. I respect the notion that men and women are different and communicate in different ways. I resist the extremes of this position and the many ways it is manipulated. For example, I agree with Gottman's statement, cited by Eggerichs on page 60,

"The more wives complain and criticize, the more husbands withdraw and stonewall."

However, I consider the following to be untenable. It was hard for me to keep reading after this. Eggerichs writes,

I've asked any number of businessmen, "Do you want your associates to love you or respect you?" They all laugh and say, "I could care less if they love me, but respect me? Absolutely!" Right or wrong, men interpret their world through the respect grid, and a wife's softened tone and facial expressions can do more for her marriage than she can imagine. (page 65)

Clearly, Eggerichs would not get a different answer if he asked a group of businesswomen the same question. But he pretends that he would. Either Eggerichs is not aware that businesswomen exist, or he does not care to be evenhanded in his portrayal of men and women.

My last post discusses in more detail how Eggerichs misinterprets Gottman's work to support his notion that men need respect and women need love.

Now I want to respond to two questions. The first one is whether the Bible actually says that men need respect and women need love, or whether it says that wives should "fear their husbands. Gem writes,

Ephesians 5:33 is not telling wives to respect/reverence their husbands. It is telling wives to phobeo/FEAR their husbands.

The second question is whether the subordination of women movement among Christians is not actually a part of a wider cultural phenomenon reflected in groups like MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way. Janet writes,

Google the terms "MGTOW" and "eggerich" in one search and see for yourself. Click around and you'll be disgusted at what you find.

(Yes, Janet, I was.) My thesis will be, first, that the notion that men need respect and women need love is NOT based on scripture at all. Second, I suggest that the resurgence in the subordination of women teaching is part of a wider cultural reactionary movement in response to the equality that women have achieved.

In order to respond adequately to Gem's question, it will require a fair bit of analysis of the Greek terms which are translated into English as "respect." I want to be clear that I personally do not consider the use of these terms to be the foundation for marriage counselling in the way that Eggerichs does. My purpose is to demonstrate that the paradigm Eggerichs writes about in Love and Respect cannot be supported by scripture. If scripture is his foundation, he needs to start over. I think this will prove to be an interesting discussion.

Love and Respect

When someone originally recommended Love and Respect by Eggrichs, I read the table of contents and decided to go no further. Any book which touts how much men want to be respected for working and providing, and how much women want to be understood, has missed the boat many times over in my view. I provided, am I not to be respected? Apparently not.

What is worse is that Eggerichs has dragged into this debate the respectable work of John Gottman. On Amazon.com a dissatisfied customer has this to say,

Mr. Eggrichs quotes John Gottman, a renowned and well-respected University of Washington psychology professor. However, he fails to keep the context of the studies by omitting John Gottman's scientific research to include `mutual' love and respect.

Direct quotes from John Gottman's books: "No matter what style of marriage they have adopted, their discussions, for the most part, are carried along by a strong undercurrent of two basic ingredients: love and respect. These are the direct opposite of - and antidote for- contempt, perhaps the most corrosive force in marriage.

But all the ways partners show each other love and respect also ensure that the positive-to-negative ratio of a marriage will be heavily tilted to the positive side." . . . "By this I mean a mutual respect for and enjoyment of each other's company." . . . "They don't just "get along"- they also support each other's hopes and aspirations and build a sense of purpose into their lives together. That is really what I mean when I talk about honoring and respecting each other." "...you need to understand the bottom-line difference that is causing the conflict between you-and to learn how to live with it by honoring and respecting each other." (Reference John Gottman's books `Why Marriages Succeed or Fail' pages 61 and 62 as well as `The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work' pages 19, 23 and 24.)

In spite of this, Eggerichs has managed to give the strong impression that Gottman supports Eggerichs' thesis that men need respect and women need love. Recently on Mike's blog, a commenter said,

Furthermore, it’s interesting that a family psychologist like John Gottman emphasizes that respect is typically the more important need of a husband and love the more important need of a wife. It’s all relative, of course, but maybe, just maybe, Paul was on to something, in his gender-differentiated advice.

He claims that Gottman supports Eggerichs' thesis that men need respect and women need love. In fact, what Eggerichs wrote was this,

Interestingly enough, scientific research confirms that love and respect are the foundation of a successful marriage. Dr. John Gottman, professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington, led a research team that spent twenty years studying two thousand couples who had been married twenty to forty years to the same partner. There people came from diverse backgrounds and had widely differing occupations and lifestyles. But one thing was similar - the tone of their conversations. As these couples talked together, almost always there was what Gottman calls "a strong undercurrent of two basic ingredients: Love and Respect. These are the direct opposite of - and antidote for - contempt, perhaps the most corrosive force in marriage."

Gottman's findings confirm what has already been in Scripture for some two thousand years. Chapter 5 of Ephesians is considered by many to be the most significant treatise on marriage in the New Testament. Paul concludes these statements on marriage by getting gender specific in verse 33. He reveals commands from the very heart of God as he tells the husband he must love his wife unconditionally and the wife must respect her husband, whether or not her husband comes across as loving. page 35-36

I am personally unable to understand how anyone can derive the notion that Gottman said that men need respect and women need love. I feel incredibly disrespected by the author of this book and by anyone who cites approvingly from this book. I am resisting expressing myself on the rest of this book. My impression is that some people think that if they say something, that makes it true.

I am extremely relieved that a psychotherapist who knows Gottman came to my rescue and wrote in a further comment on Mike's blog,

I have been a practicing psychotherapist for over 15 years and have taken training in couples therapy from John Gottman in Seattle. Although his research points to typical patterns of communication among husbands and wives, with gender specific advice to each on how to deal with their spouse, he certainly does not support Eggerich’s generalization that wives are somehow less in need of respect than husbands — indeed, even 80% of men prefer respect, wives need both love AND respect.

Gottman’s work being based on sophisticated top-notch research is far more embracing of the nuances and individual differences across couples than what you see from Eggerich. For example, Gottman acknowledges a pattern that he describes as wife-demand-husband-withdraw, a pattern that Eggerich discusses at length in his book, to the point of generalizing it to almost all couples (only one page is devoted to emotional husbands with stonewalling wives). But Gottman’s work goes much further, noting patterns of mutually volatile couples, belligerent husbands, etc., each requiring different interventions.

Unfortunately, these facts are lost on those who have become fans of Eggerich, seeing his work as the answer to restoring gender roles, when much damage can be done to individuals and communities by its simplistic one-size-fits-all message. For example, there has been a burgeoning Christian “men’s rights” movement on this internet (aka “MGTOW”, “MRA”) that uses Eggerich’s writings to reinforce their mysogynistic stereotypes of women as shrews. In the wrong hands, Eggerich’s sweeping quotes can be very toxic stuff.

I am dismayed not only that equal respect is not a premise among some Christian groups, but more specifically because some people appear to have no consience whatsoever in citing something and treating it as if it said the exact opposite of what it actually says. Gottman is disrespected, the reader is disrespected and everyone else. Christianity falls into disrepute. I am fed up with this kind of nonsense in the gender debate.

I run a remedial reading programme. I have decided that there are many adults around who could benefit from such a programme.

On the other hand, Gottman, in this article, actually said some lovely and tender things about relationships.

It sounds as if we have a stake in relationships staying together — but we don't. My major stake is in understanding. We have a stake in people not staying together if they don't feel good about their relationship and it's not really going anywhere for them, it's not really helping them build one another's dreams, it's not a relationship that has dignity.

But we like to help people understand why it is that it didn't work, so that the next relationship, or next set of relationships, can be better. One of the major things we found is that honoring your partner's dreams is absolutely critical. A lot of times people have incompatible dreams — or they don't want to honor their partner's dreams, or they don't want to yield power, they don't want to share power. So that explains a lot of times why they don't really belong together.

Eggerichs

Update: I want to be fair to the Eggerichs so I have linked to their blog, and these two posts. I am glad to read something of their own writing without reading the book. I can see how some people might like what they say, but I cannot agree technically on their opinion on the "weaker vessel."

***********
Someone recommended that I read Eggerichs' book. It was mentioned on complegal. I did not look at it then and much to my regret I did read the table of contents today. You can too!

Here is my reaction to the table of contents second page,

I am a single parent so I need to

work and achieve
protect and provide
serve and lead
analyse and counsel

and I miss having a partner

But apparently I cannot be respected for this or recognized for this because I am a woman. A book like that makes a single woman feel like trash. It is so fundamentally disrespectful of women that women can do no better than shut themselves off from life denying bondage into the deception of weakness.

Should I want closeness and understanding at the expense of supporting and raising my children? Has someone lost their cotton pickin mind? How on earth do single women parent if they do not have all the attributes that Eggerichs (and who knows who he is) says men have?

Doesn't anyone see how utterly ridiculous and damaging Eggerichs ideas might be to a single woman. How much more damage would people like to do? Tear the self esteem of women one little piece from the next!

One little reason why I quit the complegal blog. (Maybe it is a good book with a downright terrible table of contents - who knows)

If some man wants to talk with me about finances and snow tires and computers, great, but this crap - OMG.

PS I am so happy today that I drive a 4wheel drive Suburu. Nothing can touch that for happiness today. I am the luckiest woman alive.