Unconditional Respect?

I started writing this comment in the Practical Theology for Women thread Love and Respect but Mostly Respect but it got long. So instead, I'm going to post it here. I somewhat disagree with her and the book she's talking about "Love and Respect" by Eggrichs.

I have used unconditional respect in my work with troubled teens. In most situations it really works.

It is different than respect that you give an authority figure. But it is still unconditional.

The teens I have worked with have been terribly disrespected all their lives. They have been abused on so many levels. And they have little respect for anyone including themselves.

But they respond to me giving them basic, human-dignity respect, regardless of their behavior. They then in turn give me respect that they didn't give to the other 'staff' that is disrespectful.

All human beings respond to unconditional respect. But how do you define respect? There are levels. All women can give husbands basic, human-dignity respect. Even bad-behaving, abusive husbands.

HOWEVER.

There is a level of respect, an authority respect that is reserved for those who deserve it, who act like leaders.

In other words, sure, give husbands unconditional respect. Don't belittle, don't name call, don't roll the eyes etc... Even when they engage in behavior that deserves a huge eye roll. A woman can mostly train herself to be respectful even in difficult situations.

But respect beyond common courtesy that is reserved for those in authority, this respect can be lost. I'm not saying that when a man in authority behaves badly on occasion that all that respect should fly out the window. I'm talking about situations where the one in authority consistently engages in behavior that is demeaning, disrespectful, dangerous and/or abusive (physically, emotionally, spiritually), that man is setting himself in position to lose respect. From God, men, and women, including their own wives. And it is the man's fault for losing it not the woman's fault for withholding it.

A biblical example would be the story of Abigail and Nabal found in First Samuel 25. Nabal acted the fool and nearly got his entire household killed. Abigail did not respect him or his authority when she went to David and called her husband a fool. But Abigail is not held up as a bad wife. She is looked upon as wise, saving many lives, and David's integrity. As a result, she married a man who became a king.

So while I agree with, believe in, and have personal experience with the power of unconditional respect, I know there are limits.

IN ADDITION (another However)

Unconditional respect should not be reserved for husbands.

I know of more than one relationship where it is the man who is the disrespectful one. I know husbands who withhold basic human-dignity respect from their wives. It is the husband who name calls, demeans, and does the eye rolling over minor and even imagined infractions.

I understand that Eggrich says that both men and women need both love and respect. But there is a problem with making the lines between 'respect' and 'love' so thick and so gender specific. It gives men who have issues with respecting women a loophole or excuse. It makes disrespecting their wives easier and acceptable all the while they claim to love their wives.

So, yes. I believe in unconditional respect and unconditional love for both sexes. I also believe that over emphasizing the gender differences in needs concerning love and respect can be disastrous for marriages that suffer from disrespectful and abusive husbands. It can direct men away from meeting their wives basic human need for a little respect.

IN ADDITION (a third However)

One should probably define the word 'need' along with 'respect'.

I believe all people need basic, human-dignity respect just as they need love.

But there are men who believe they 'need' a level of respect that not only goes higher than basic, human-dignity respect. It goes beyond leadership  respect and on into worship.

There are men, and I have met them, who believe that they need 'respect' but their definition looks more like 'worship'. They not only behave badly and crave leadership respect, they abuse and demand a sort of 'worship' respect and honor from their 'underlings'. And they know that they are right and everybody who denies them this worship is wrong. And they use books like "Love and Respect" to support their position.

This is why books like "Love and Respect" that harp on "Respect" while poorly defining the limits of respect give me the heebie-jeebies. These books are gasoline to the fires of personality disorders and emotionally unbalanced people.

Basic human-dignity respect should be enough for all humans, even and especially those in leadership in the Body of Christ. Craving more than that is wrong and leads to destruction.

The Single Story and The False Balance

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, But a just weight is His delight.
Proverbs 20:10 Differing weights and differing measures. Both of them are abominable to the Lord.

The fact of the matter is this, the Single Story, by it's very nature, is off-balanced. It over focuses on one aspect or a few aspects of a matter, any matter, while ignoring all the rest. Having such tunnel vision on anything can do nothing else but create a great imbalance.

This is what Patriarchy and the pushers of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood do when they reduce all things having to do with gender down to their Single Story.

It is a form of Phariseeism and is unjust.
I've written on Phariseeism and the false balance before. It includes a link to an excellent article on Cindy K.'s Under Much Grace blog that is well worth reading.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2010/07/phariseeism-and-false-balance.html

I Really Don't Hate Men

Just in case anyone was wondering. No, I don't hate men.

I'm sure it probably looked like it while I was dealing with three small minded men in high places. And truth be known, I don't even hate those men. They frustrate me. Their attitude towards women is so far the polar opposite of inspiring that they make me want to beat my head against the wall. But I don't hate them. I see that they are bound up by sin and woundedness and are so insecure they cannot be honest with themselves over that fact. They have to hide behind mistranslation of Biblical text and wrongly dividing the word of truth in order to protect the deep places of their heart against the 'evil feminine' that wants to suck their manhood down a black hole. The problem is, that black hole doesn't exist outside themselves. And it certainly doesn't exist within any woman. It exists within themselves. They just want to transfer the blame elsewhere. They just want to follow in the foot steps of the first Adam rather than in the footsteps of the second Adam, Jesus Christ.

My attitude toward such men is best summed up in the words of Buzz Lightyear that were quoted and linked to in the April 26th post: "You are a sad, strange, little man and you have my pity."

I'm sure insecure men who might stumble on my small men series would be convinced that I was abused and mistreated as a child and such.

But, in fact, the opposite was true.

The men in my life, my grandfathers, my father, my uncles, my brother, my male cousins... They were/are all strong, good, secure men. And the family I married into, my father-in-law, my brother-in-laws, my husband's uncles and cousins, They are all strong, good, secure men.

In fact I was so surrounded by them that I had a hard time understanding women who were not blessed this way. It took a long time for me to discern and gain empathy for women who had been used and abused by men. But I did get there.

And in gaining understanding of the wounded women of the world, as a Christian, I became concerned with the doctrine that perpetuates an imbalance between the sexes and protects abusers while blaming victims. The more I learned about this false and imbalanced doctrine and the men who push it, the more appalled I became.

But for me, it's not about hating men.

It's about standing against false gospel, a false religion parading around as the gospel, that favors men over women.

So, to balance out my little tirade against the three little men (who might or might not be considered male-chauvinist pigs) I plan to point out strong, secure men, either in my life or on the Internet plus at least one in fiction that more closely represent the true heart of Jesus toward women than anything that comes out of the mouth of Mark Driscoll.

Order vs Chaos in Pop Culture

The funny thing about order vs chaos and the human condition is how much it pops up in entertainment. The opposing forces of Apollonian and Dionysian fighting for power and/or balance crop up all over the place.

The girls and I were just watching Jurassic park the other night and sure enough, there it was. Though I was somewhat aware of it before, only after thinking about it for this blog did I realize how blatant it really was.

John Hammond, the creator of Jurassic Park, represents the Apollonian side. He's dressed in white and has complete control (or so he thinks) of this amusement park with electric fences and safety precautions.

Dr. Ian Malcolm, a mathematician and dressed in black, is spokes person for the Dionysus side which is actually represented by the Dinosaurs. He is the one who keeps talking about the chaos theory.

In this scenario, the Dionysian is not necessarily bad. It is just nature doing what nature does. And when that nature is as big and unpredictable as dinosaurs, it is the Apollonian that comes off as in the wrong for trying to create and control what cannot be controlled so easily.

Another obvious place that speaks of the struggle between chaos and control is the TV series and movie "Get Smart". The opposing forces actually bear the names. The good guys work for "Control" and the bad guys work for "Kaos". And in this scenario control is obviously good while chaos is obviously bad.

Remember the old Star Trek from the 60s or at least have you seen a few reruns? Did you know that Captain Kirk had Apollonian and Dionysian advisers. Dr. McCoy was Dionysian and ran on emotion and intuition, whereas Mr. Spock was strictly Apollonian in nature always concerned with logic and reason. And Kirk was always trying to find the balance between them. In this case, then, there are no good guys or bad guys, only a striving for balance between the two poles.

Others who were influenced by the concept of Apollonian vs Dionysian include Stephan King, Ayn Rand, Jim Morrison, Iggy Pop, and the band Rush

The point of this post is to make people aware of how our culture is influenced by this thinking and how WE are influenced by this thinking and how we may apply it to our lives whether we are aware of it or not. Again remember Job and how his friends worked so hard to Apollonize or use Apollonianisms to order and explain Job's unexplainable chaos. It is human nature to do this. But we must remember, our nature is flawed and fallen and we are but finite living in a universe much bigger than we are. We must take care and not use Apollonianisms when really we ought to be seeking God.