Marilyn to John:
Thomas’ second book, Sacred Influence, carries a similar message to Emerson Eggerichs’ Love and Respect. Of the two books, Love and Respect has had greater impact. In part, this reflects the fact that Emerson’s message is beautiful for its simplicity. He presents a framework that a couple can apply in real-time, in the middle of a normal verbal exchange that has the potential to escalate into a fight. It’s short on ennobling rhetoric, but long on a Biblical framework that enables change. So, it is Love and Respect that I encourage you to read next.
John to Marilyn:
I plan to read it next. It requires great dexterity to offer gender-differentiated advice to couples without falling into time-worn stereotypes. Egals tend to give up on the notion of distinct gender identities and correlative counsel. Meanwhile, non-Christian authors including some feminists find very receptive audiences to even outlandish attempts at defining gender-based differences. The only serious explanation for this is that people by and large are aware of generalized (not absolute) differences even if it is not easy to describe them persuasively.
Marilyn to John:
Emerson argues that there can be no such thing as “mutual submission” in decision making. Mutual submission is possible to the extent that God asks different things of the husband and wife – he is to meet her need for love, and she is to meet his need for respect. Since the needs differ, mutual submission is possible in how the couple relates. However – and contrary to what CBE says – as a practical matter, it is not possible with respect to the outcome of a particular decision.
John to Marilyn:
Point taken. It sounds like Eggerichs does not find “mutual submission” as helpful an umbrella concept as “love and respect.” With this I am in full agreement. I sometimes use the term “mutual submission” with couples in marriage prep, but I spend more time describing what it means to honor someone else, and what sacrificial love is about. In an egal culture such as the one we all swim in, honor and sacrificial love have largely gone by the wayside. We associate both honor and sacrifice with military mores (not false in itself) to be avoided by reasonable people (a false conclusion). That is a recipe for mediocrity. Rightly understood, honor, respect, and reverence on the one hand and sacrifice and self-denial on the other describe life-enhancing attitudes of the first order.
Marilyn to John:
I also encourage you to read Love and Respect because it is the complementarian book that has the most thorough discussion of domain-based authority. In fact, it is this discussion that convicted me. For example, Emerson points out that men and women tend to view careers very differently. Women typically view work outside the home as a choice, while men view it as a fundamental responsibility. (This thinking came through on Complegalitarian blog a couple of weeks ago, in Wayne’s “what is a Christian feminist” post. Women wanted the right to choose whether they worked and the right to choose the military. Yet, none of them expressed a willingness to assume primary responsibility for supporting a family or defending their country.) Male authority in marriage follows logically from this responsibility to protect and provide. Of all the complementarian books that have attempted to answer the “why does God command me to submit to my husband when I know we’re equals” question, it is Emerson’s discussion of responsibility and authority that I found to be compelling.
John to Marilyn:
As you know, I am a big fan of domain-based authority. Indeed, I think it’s important to understand how essential and life-enhancing domain-based and office-based hierarchies are in human life.
I’m also a fan of choice and your distinction between choice and responsibility corresponds well to facts on the ground. Those facts, of course, change to some extent from epoch to epoch and culture to culture.
Marilyn to John:
When I read this section of L&R, I thought back to a time in my marriage when I had just finished graduate school and had been offered my “dream job”. Up until that point, my husband’s career had come first. I thought that it was my turn, and my husband agreed to the move. However, he pointed out that we would be living in an area where it would be difficult for him to find professional employment. He was willing to make the move and to stay home with our child. But, he asked me to acknowledge that in accepting that job, I was assuming the primary responsibility for supporting our family. If I wanted to quit work (we had a second child on the way), there was a chance that in the near term, I wouldn’t be able to. I’m so glad my husband had the wisdom to recognize the implications of the decision we were in the process of making and the maturity to share his concerns in a loving fashion. In reflecting on what he said, I realized that I did not, in fact, want to assume the responsibility of providing for our family. Rather, I wanted to keep open the option to quit work as our family grew. I turned down the job. As I reflected on that incident while reading L&R, I became convinced of the wisdom of the complementarian model.
John to Marilyn:
I’m not sure I follow everything you say, but I’m listening.
In my marriage, both Paola and I have been offered and have turned down “dream jobs” more than once out of a sense of family priorities. In my case, Paola has consistently objected on every occasion I have been offered an academic position. This has not been easy for me (I am a consummate bookworm and I love to teach).
Not that her objections even made sense to me half the time. Nonetheless, I have accepted her stance. It turns out that this stance of hers has been the greatest gift she has given to me. It has kept me in the pastorate which is a place of great blessing at least as I experience it, much fuller and deeper as a life experience than I would have had if I had pursued academics exclusively.
Marilyn wrote: “Emerson argues that there can be no such thing as “mutual submission” in decision making.”
This is a new one for me, to say that it cannot exist. Do you have a page number so I could try to follow his argument?
I recall a famous Dear Abby answer to a woman who asked what to do as she liked to put ketchup in the fridge and he liked it air temperature. Her answer was to buy 2 ketchups! This is a perfectly mutually submissive solution, so I have no idea why Eggerich would claim that such is impossible.
I agree that there are SOME decisions that are binary, either X or Y and no way to mix them or do both. But there are ways to make the process of decision into one that is mutually submissive. For example, alternating who chooses the restaurant to go to on a date.
I think the term “mutual submission” can throw people, because it sure used to throw me. I thought it meant both people always seeking to submit to the other person at all times. Talk about a confusing picture! It sounded like a recipe for chaos a(especially because I’d been trained to believe that a marriage *had* to have a leader and a follower).
However watching a mature egal couple (who run a large successful ministry) work together really helped me understand what they meant by “mutual submission.” It simply meant that no one got to (or had to) lead simply because they are male/female. Rather, the couple decided *together* who will be in charge of finances, cooking, this, and that.
She was great with finances, so she handled that, whereas he was great with public speaking, so he did a lot of the “front” work for the ministry, etc… They worked those things out together, mutually, deciding who would submit in what areas.
So, their practical definition of “mutual submission” sounds a lot more like John’s concept of domain-based authority.
Marilyn,
You said,
God asks different things of the husband and wife – he is to meet her need for love, and she is to meet his need for respect.
I want to challenge that statement/concept, Biblically.
In 1 Peter 3:7 (or is it vs. 8?), the Scripture tells husbands to honor their wives. Is honor different from respect? If so, how? Likewise, Titus 2 tells wives to give their husbands love. How does this fit with the idea that love is not what husbands need?
Also, where does it say, Biblically, that women do not need respect? In the same way, where is the Biblical framework for the concept that men do not need love? From a Biblical perspective, can a person truly love another person without respecting them?
Thanks,
Molly
Hi Molly,
I’m glad to see that the comments are open, so that I can take a stab at responding to the point you raised.
I agree that both men and women need both love and respect! I also see a continuum, with respect being a deeper/more important value for men, while love is a deeper/more important value for women. (FYI – there is a discussion of this issue on pp. 47-48 of L&R.) So, yes, a woman does need respect, and if her husband loves her properly, she will get that respect.
Here’s my take on I Peter 3:7. From the NIV: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.”
So, husbands are to provide their wives with respect appropriate to that of the “weaker partner.” I interpret this to mean that, in general, wives are both more physically vulnerable and more emotionally vulnerable to their husbands within the context of the marriage relationship. As a result of this vulnerability, husbands are commanded to respect their wives by living with them in a way that acknowledges this vulnerability. Husbands are also commanded to acknowledge that their wives have equal standing before God with respect to the doctrine of salvation. In other words, God requires of husbands that they both acknowledge their wives' femininity and esteem them as "fellow heirs of grace." Honoring women for their femininity (i.e., valuing the feminine as well as the masculine) and acknowledging the equality of women are the two primary concerns of the feminist movement. And, these are exactly the two respect issues that Paul addresses in I Peter 3:7.
Does that explain where I'm coming from?
Hi Molly,
I just now realized that in my earlier comment, I forgot to include a response to your remarks about Titus 2. Sorry! Yes, Titus 2 commands wives to love their husbands, and Ephesians 5 commands husbands to love their wives. But, it’s important to note that different words for love are used in the two passages.
In Ephesians 5:33, husbands are commanded to agape their wives. In contrast, in Titus 2, wives are commanded to phileo their husbands. Related to this, there is no place in the Bible where wives are commanded to agape their husbands.
I see the Titus 2 passage as very consistent with the Ephesians 5:33 command to wives to respect their husbands, in that the friendliness of phileo love is the exact opposite of the criticism and contempt that characterize disrespectful communication.
Marilyn, a number of Greek scholars have pointed out by the time the New Testament was written, Greek phileo and agape are essentially synonyms. There may be some passages where the two words have some slight meaning difference, but much of the time the differing usage of the two words is largely stylistic. It is true, however, that in earlier Greek, there was a difference in meaning between phileo and agape.
Some links:
Biblical Greek discussion list message
AGAPE and PHILEO: That much different?
Marilyn, I should add that I don’t think the matter of phileo vs. agape takes away from the good point you are making. I suppose my comment could even be considered off-topic.
We are to agape/love our neighbor, according to Jesus, and if one is married how much closer can one get?
As an egal, I make symmetrical the recommendations that Eggerich makes. I use them as a starting point to ask for what it means for love and respect for each individual.
It may be that in many cases it will be what Eggerich teaches, but why would anyone NOT want to individualize the possibilities?
As far as I can tell, unless someone believes all females are the same on some aspect, why would gender-specific advice be thought superior to individual-specific advice?
I appreciate this discussion. I strongly believe that both men and women need both love and respect in intimate relationships. I am female and I would NEVER marry someone who did not respect me – even if he acted quite loving. Likewise, I would not marry someone I did not deeply respect — even if I felt a great deal of affection / love for him.
My observation is that my desire to be respected in my relationships may be stronger than that of some other women but I know I am not alone in wanting both. Generally speaking, I believe it is hard for a relationship to be truly healthy w/out mutual love and respect. There are, of course, degrees of health — and situations where one person is uniquely called to lay down their life for the other w/out much mutality in it, but few people aspire to that.
Marilyn,
Thanks so much for your explanations.
I have a question about respect. How does respect for a man, in Eggerich’s view, differ from respect for a woman.
(I did read the book, lol, I just can’t remember a lot of the specifics anymore)…
“why would gender-specific advice be thought superior to individual-specific advice?”
I don’t see why both kinds of advice cannot be given. Indeed, you can be an egal and give both kinds of advice.
Paul, of course, gave at least three kinds of advice. There is no reason why we cannot give all three.
(1) Advice to all, irrespective of gender. I just finished officiating a wedding. One of the passages they chose for their wedding was Colossians 3:12-17. “As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience.” This is advice irrespective of gender, indeed, irrespective of whether one is married.
It is excellent advice, and I emphasized in the service that a marriage is doomed if it is overlooked. As it turns out, in the couple I had before me, the young man is meek by nature, the young woman not so much. So general advice speaks to individuals in different ways.
The couple did not choose to also have read the continuation,(2) Paul’s gender-specific advice, Col 2:18-19. “Wives, be subject to your husbands. Husbands, do not treat your wives harshly.”
After all, that text, though it was certainly appropriate in a patriarchal setting and is still profitable advice if integrated with other advice, seems less relevant to the lives of most couples today, comp or egal in terms of framework.
But Paul’s gender-specific advice in Ephesian 5, love / respect, continues to be surprisingly relevant. So I preached on that.
It is not difficult to find examples from ordinary life that illustrate the need of a wife for agape-love and the need of a husband for reverence and respect.
Finally, Paul offers individual-specific advice. See for example, Colossians 4:17: “say to Archippus, ‘See that you complete that you received in the Lord.’”
Egalitarianism is about understanding marriage as a reciprocal authority arrangement. It is not about the assumption that men and women, typically, have the same needs.
Of course the genders do have the same needs at some level. But it is not in conflict with egalism to suggest that at other levels, they typically do not.
As I see it, any gender-specific advice (as contrasted with advice to anyone and individualized advice) was given in the 1st century for specific cultural reasons.
If those cultural reasons no longer apply, then the rationale for the gender-specificity goes away.
Paul’s radical command to a husband to love his wife (rather than rule her) does not seem so radical today precisely because the Kingdom principle of love is more pervasive in the culture today, see the romantic fairy tales.
Paul’s command for wife to respect her husband was said in a shame/honor culture that tried to give shame to any who would worship a crucified god, which simply made no sense to a polytheistic pagan. We do not live in such a culture today in the West.
Marilyn wrote, “there is no place in the Bible where wives are commanded to agape their husbands.”
In the two greatest commandments, given in Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus says that we are to agape the Lord our God, and our neighbor as ourselves. In other words, we are all to agape one another.
Don,
You say:
“As I see it, any gender-specific advice [in the New Testament](as contrasted with advice to anyone and individualized advice) was given in the 1st century for specific cultural reasons.”
You then go on to claim that those reasons no longer apply.
We might argue about this claim of yours for quite some time. I’m wondering, however, if you would agree that an egal need not necessarily agree with you that your claim corresponds to the facts on the ground.
That is, there is no conflict in principle between being egal and holding that gender specific advice is helpful.
After all, there are many best-selling non-Christian egal authors who give out all kinds of (to me) outlandish gender-specific advice. As in “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus.”
Hi Don,
Emerson’s discussion of mutual submission begins on p. 217 of L&R.
BTW, thank you very much for providing the ketchup example. When I read general statements such as “egals believe in mutual submission,” I’m left scratching my head. The rhetoric sounds ennobling, but I have no idea what it means in practice. I’m someone whose understanding is hugely aided by specific examples. So, I really appreciated your story.
I see your ketchup story as an example of brainstorming to successfully avoid a stalemate. This sort of problem solving strategy should be used on a regular basis in well-functioning comp and egal marriages. For example, Emerson writes on p. 219 of L&R: “Two good-willed people who feel loved and respected almost always discover a creative alternative that resolves the conflict. When love and respect are present in the marriage, husbands and wives process things far more wisely. They accept the fact that a degree of conflict is inevitable in a marriage relationship. As the conversation progresses, neither one overstates his or her position. No one ‘loses it’ emotionally. Proposals are made to solve the conflict. There are offers and counter-offers. There is give and take. All of this results in a course of action that makes sense to both of them.” He then goes on to point out, of course, that if a stalemate occurs, the wife is called upon to defer to her husband.
Now, mutual submission can serve as the basis for poignant stories about reciprocal gift exchanges. I’m thinking here of the cash-strapped Victorian couple who sacrifice to purchase Christmas gifts for each other. She sells her hair to buy a gold chain for his heirloom pocket watch, unaware that he has sold the watch to purchase tortoiseshell combs for her hair.
But, when a decision needs to be made and there is a stalemate, I don’t see mutual submission as a solution. “You decide what car we’re buying. No, you decide what car we’re buying.” What is the path to closure?
Could you please say more about the statement in your later comment that “If those cultural reasons no longer apply, then the rationale for the gender-specificity goes away”? Emerson points out that his interpretation of Ephesians 5 is consistent with the gender-specific patterns that persist today (see, e.g., John Gottman’s research). It sounds as if you disagree. What gender distinctions do you find to be meaningful in the contemporary context?
One man said that in those stalemate situations, he and his wife choose a number between 1 & 10 (indicating how important the subject is to them), and, provided no great moral questions are at stake, the one to whom it is less important submits to the judgment of the one to whom it is more important.
As long as both people are honest and not manipulative and one person isn't picking 10 all the time (or it isn't a 10 to both), I can see how that would usually work.
Funny thing is, this couple would probably consider themselves comp – from what I know of them.
Hi Molly,
Sorry for the delayed response to your question about women and respect! The seven week period spanning the end of October through the beginning of December is my busy season. I wanted to give you a thorough answer, and had to delay a bit until I had time early this morning to review L&R.
Emerson’s discussion of what it means for a husband to respect his wife is in Chapter 14 of L&R and is entitled ‘Esteem – She Wants You to Honor and Cherish Her.’ Here, Emerson emphasizes the two points from I Peter 3:7 that I mentioned in my original response – husbands are to live with their wives in an “understanding way” and are to acknowledge their status as a “fellow heir of the grace of life.” Emerson goes on to say (p. 174) “when I say your wife wants ‘honor’ (respect), it is a different kind of honor from what you seek as a man. For her, respect is a part of love. Probably the only time you will ever hear her say, ‘You don’t respect me!’ is when you dismiss her opinion.”
Emerson then goes on (p. 175) to contrast this with the respect that the Bible commands a wife to give her husband. He is designed to chair/head the relationship. “He does not feel this in the sense of ‘being superior.’ He simply feels responsible to protect her and to die for her. God has made husbands this way, and they feel this responsibility….The biblical view is that a wife does not feel called to die for her husband as he feels called to die for her. In Ephesians 5, the husband is the Christ figure; Christ died for the church. The wife is the church figure, and her husband is to die for her. Your wife does not want to chair the relationship, but she does want to be first in importance to you. This is what Peter means by ‘show her honor’ (I Peter 3:7). Your wife wants to know that you have her on your mind and heart first and foremost.”
This resonates with me. I don’t want to control decisions. But, I do want to have confidence that my wisdom and preferences are given full consideration. From the four years that my husband and I have been applying L&R principles, I’ve gained experiential evidence of the truth of the complementarian position that a wife’s submission empowers her. My submission frees my husband to listen to me in a way that he never did before. He no longer views me as in competition with him. Emerson writes, “… the Bible is sharing what the Hebrew mind understood about wisdom and real empowerment. Respectful quietness will cause your husband to move toward you. When you go on record that your husband is 51% in charge, this actually gives you more of a platform for sharing the opinions from your deepest heart.” This has been my experience.
Hope this helps explain the L&R applications!
P.S. To put all of this in perspective, it’s probably also worth concluding with a final quote “A wife’s deferential attitude should not undermine her God-given abilities. ‘She considers a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard.’”
Marilyn asked: “But, when a decision needs to be made and there is a stalemate, I don’t see mutual submission as a solution. “You decide what car we’re buying. No, you decide what car we’re buying.” What is the path to closure? “
There can be many many possible ways to decide is a mutual way without giving the husband an automatic final “trump” card in some manner.
For example, who is affected more by the decision? Who cares more about the decision? Is it possible to alternate the decision? Is there a creative alternative, per the kepchup example; if it is cheap enough, buy 2 so each gets what they want.
If it is going somewhere together, perhaps each really wants to go alone to do different things; there is a natural elastic give and take of a relationship.
For example, if Ann really wants to see X movie and Bob really wants to see Y movie, they can go to the theater together but watch movies separately; or watch both movies; or let one person pick the movie this time and the other next time or flip a coin.
There are very few decisions that need to be made immediately and the lack of ability to come to a consensus MAY mean that the couple is SUPPOSED to wait and explore more.
Just to say it, in a life threatening situation, one acts to save life and prevent harm as much as possible. I hope this is obvious, but some might use it as an example when mutual submission does not work as a decision MUST be made.
My fear in having a permanent trump card as a male is 2 fold:
1. I have a selfish brat inside me that can rationalize the whole day to get what he wants and make it APPEAR to be the right choice, when it is really the selfish choice. How do I know I am not deceiving myself whenever I might use the trump card?
2. By having the trump card, I would be afraid of squelching my spouse in ways that may not be even apparent. How can I be assured that even the existence of the trump card does not somehow impose on her freedom?
My solution is to toss that trump card away, to simply not want it as the cost can easily outweigh any supposed benefit.
2. By having the trump card, I would be afraid of squelching my spouse in ways that may not be even apparent. How can I be assured that even the existence of the trump card does not somehow impose on her freedom?
Some men have confessed that the trump card allows them to have an appearance of considering what their wives may contribute, but in reality they have made up their mind and determined in their hearts to follow their own desires and will no matter what their wives said. There is no accountability for the man who holds ad uses the trump card.
Some women who are more discerning often suspect it is so and this knowledge lends them a hopelessness that drains the marriage and their hearts. No one should have such absolute authority upon another person’s life. Even criminals have lawyers as advocates.
I don’t like the trump card, either, for similar reasons.
One question I have for Eggerich’s is why he views monetary provision as a proof of decision-making authority.
There are many kinds of provision. In a traditional arrangement, a husband may provide financially for the marriage, while the wife provides children, nurture of said children, meals, etc. Why is one kind of provision given higher status?
Financial provision is wonderful. But so is being pregnant and birthing children. (For example, I do not feel entitled to authority over my husband because I provided him with children).
I hear the argument, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t understand it. How does financial provision equal authority-over?
He simply feels responsible to protect her and to die for her. God has made husbands this way, and they feel this responsibility….The biblical view is that a wife does not feel called to die for her husband as he feels called to die for her.
I think I would strongly challenge Eggerich’s here, as well. Is it accurate to say that it’s Biblical that *only* husband’s feel called to die for their spouse?
This has not been my experience. I have given up much, in fact more than I should have of myself, for my husband. Most marriages I know, both partners equally give of themselves to make the marriage work. While my husband would die to protect his family, so would I, no less than he would. This is because I love them.
When you love, you are willing to sacrifice yourself for the good of those you love. I do not think that sacrificial love is only for men, nor do I think they experience a deeper form of it.
We may experience different forms of it. For example, a male, historically speaking, may sacrifice for his family and risk his life for them, such as by defending them in war. Being pregnant and bringing to birth is, (particularly in history with it’s abysmal rates for surviving childbirth), a distinctly feminine way of giving to the death. She risks her own life, that the union might be made larger.
Both spouses sacrifice “unto the death.” I would strongly argue with anyone who would suggest that only husbands are called to give their lives for their wives. Elisabeth Elliot cared for her second husband as he slowly died of cancer: was she being masculine as she sacrificed for her husband? Not at all. Because Believers, male and female, are called to love, and love means doing what is best for the other, which (while it can certainly include saying no, etc) can sometimes be sacrificing our own lives for their sakes.
I don’t see how a biblically faithful comp husband could make use of “overall” authority as a trump card without violating Paul’s statement that a husband is to love his wife and Christ loved the church.
I agree with Don of course that it is not so simple, and that sin finds a way into the best Christian’s life. But this applies equally to egals.
It stands to reason that each framework is more exposed to some dangers than others.
I don’t find it surprising that people who were raised egal sometimes sense that something is missing and find it in the writings of complementarians like Thomas and Eggerichs.
Egalism as they experience it leaves them with a marriage and family life over-exposed to certain dangers. They look beyond egalism for something more, and if they find it in the advice of someone like Thomas or Eggerichs, the “cultural shock” they undergo is palpable but not insuperable.
Marilyn asked: “Could you please say more about the statement in your later comment that “If those cultural reasons no longer apply, then the rationale for the gender-specificity goes away”? Emerson points out that his interpretation of Ephesians 5 is consistent with the gender-specific patterns that persist today (see, e.g., John Gottman’s research). It sounds as if you disagree. What gender distinctions do you find to be meaningful in the contemporary context?”
Gottman is very insightful, I need to study more of what he writes. But whatever the conclusions are, they are generalities and approximations over his samples, one does not marry a generality, one marries an individual. It is not that it is wrong for a wife to ask how she can better respect her husband, but this is also a good question for the husband to ask; and ask each other for examples of when they felt respected and when they felt disrespected.
And if there is a reason one disrespects a spouse, what is it? Perhaps one needs to repent and/or perhaps the other needs to repent.
On the specific question about which gender distinctions persist today, my basic understanding is that MOST women have more connected brains and so OFTEN see the big picture with all the connections; while men OFTEN have separated brains and can focus on 1 thing without all the other “distractions”. BOTH types of seeing things and solving problems are needed, each has its advantages and disadvantages; the trick is to get both working together for the advantage of all parties.
And of course the procreation differences, I will never know all about what it is like to be a mother, but I can ask mothers.
Marilyn wrote: "Emerson’s discussion of mutual submission begins on p. 217 of L&R."
Thanks for the info, I reread that section.
My take is that Eggerich takes some verses out of cultural context, something that is easy to do in some cases. That is, he reads some NT text AS IF it was penned yesterday to directly apply to today's challenges, like a Christian Dear Abby.
My take is that the Bible ALWAYS needs to be understood in a 2-step process. Many times the 2 steps will essentially have the same result as 1 step (what I call teleporting), but for some important texts, this will NOT be the case.
Hi Bonnie,
Point well taken! It’s a matter of relative emphasis, not absolutes!
” Emerson argues that there can be no such thing as “mutual submission” in decision making. Mutual submission is possible to the extent that God asks different things of the husband and wife – he is to meet her need for love, and she is to meet his need for respect. Since the needs differ, mutual submission is possible in how the couple relates. However – and contrary to what CBE says – as a practical matter, it is not possible with respect to the outcome of a particular decision.”
Most Christian egals would disagree with this. Mutual submission is possible in every facet of a marriage. It involves not forcing ones will upon their spouse.
As far as men only need respect and not love, and women only need love and not respect, I do not find that a Scriptural principal. I think we all need both at different times, and perhaps in different ways. The fact that women tend to vent their anger with general non approval (a form of disrespect) is a good point to bring into balance. And the fact that men tend to not give words of affirmation (a form of love) is also a good point to bring into balance.
”Women wanted the right to choose whether they worked and the right to choose the military. Yet, none of them expressed a willingness to assume primary responsibility for supporting a family or defending their country.) Male authority in marriage follows logically from this responsibility to protect and provide”
1 Tim. 5:8 (context vs. 3-8) is written to women who have lost their husbands. They are told that anyone who does not provide for his own has denied their faith. IOW women also are told to provide for their family. A man’s desire to be the primary provider is indeed born out of a need to protect the weaker vessel and this is good and right. However, it does not mean that a woman’s contributions are to be denied. Nor does it mean that a career would be sinful for a woman.
Because of their superior physical strength and their ability to better withstand rough elements, it is natural that men are to ones to take primary responsibility for the ravages of war. But this should not be equated with denying those women who are able to contribute.
Believer333,
You provide a quotation but do not attribute it to anyone.
Does it come from Thomas or Eggerichs?
Or are you introducing another author?
BTW, in Proverbs 31 it is already praiseworthy that a woman provides for her family. Typically, that would be supplemental income. On the other hand, it occasionally happened that a woman might be wealthy on her own, presumably from an inheritance. She might then have the means to do the very positive things other women would not have been able to. See 2 Kings 4:8ff. There is not a hint in the narrative that the woman of Shunem’s financial independence and initiative should be criticized.
Believer333 says:
“Mutual submission . . . involves not forcing one’s will upon their spouse.”
Whereas hierarchy involves coercion?
That seems to be the assumption. I don’t agree. There are domains in my marriage in which my wife, typically, calls the shots, and there are domains in which I, typically, call the shots. Since the overall framework is one of mutual consent, the lack of mutual submission on a domain-by-domain basis doesn’t feel like coercion.
Of course, there are the rare tough decisions in which, whether we take the path that my wife insists on, or I insist on, it does feel like coercion to the other. But that is a situation egal and comp couples alike must face.
John,
Marilyn was quoting a statement that Emerson had made wherin he said that there can be no such thing as mutuality in decision making. I was responding to that statement when I stated that
“Mutual submission . . . involves not forcing one’s will upon their spouse.”
IOW true mutuality is very achievable in marriage. It is simply about not forcing one’s will upon the other person. There was no reference to what compism does or doesn’t do. Please do not put words in my mouth and then disagree with them.
Believer333,
Let me try again. Your quote I was referring to begins with:
“Women wanted the right to choose whether they worked and the right to choose the military. . .”
Can you tell me where the quote comes from?
Eggerichs criticizes a particular concept of “mutual submission,” not “mutuality.” He upholds mutuality as the way in which decisions should usually be made [p. 219]:
“in most cases when love and respect are both present, couples resolve the conflict. Two good-willed people who feel loved and respected almost always discover a creative alternative that resolves the conflict.”.
“Let me try again. Your quote I was referring to begins with:
“Women wanted the right to choose whether they worked and the right to choose the military. . .”"
It is Marilyn’s words to you in this article. Her third paragraph down.
Thanks, Believer333.
The moral of that story: always click on “show original post” before doing a search.
Marilyn and I put this dialogue review together weeks ago.
In the quote she is not stating her own opinion but trying to describe, I think, the views of others.
In any case, I doubt we have significant differences here.
Believer333,
Marilyn's words are not a quote from L & R, as you mistakenly say:
"Marilyn was quoting a statement that Emerson had made"
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but that is the way I read you, which caused the difficulty.
You will discover that L & R teaches a version of complementarianism that is closer to, say, the soft egalism of the Briscoes than it is to the hard compism of Bruce Ware.
LOL You are imitating my cat me thinks, who only hears whatever relates to what HE was thinking.
” Emerson argues that there can be no such thing as “mutual submission” in decision making.”
All I know and said, was what Marilyn said. I don’t know where she got the quote from, only that she said, “Emerson argues”. hehe
Have you had your quota of coffee for the day. Of course its 1:20 here, don’t know where you are.
If only all our misunderstandings could be so simple.