John
M. Gottman, Ph.D., was one of the first psychologists to begin a
scientific research to find what truly makes marriages fail or succeed
in the 1980s. He observed that conventional wisdom was often wrong,
e.g., conflict and fighting, which had traditionally been considered
pathological, proved to be one of the healthiest things a couple could
do for their relationship. This proved to be true especially in the
early stages of the marriage for they “help couples weed out actions and
ways of dealing with each other that can harm the marriage in the long
run.”[1]
Gottman observed that “a lasting marriage results from a couple’s
ability to resolve the conflicts that are inevitable in any
relationship.”[2] He found three different styles of problem solving.
In a validating marriage couples compromise often and calmly work out their problems to mutual satisfaction as they arise. In a conflict-avoiding marriage couples agree to disagree, rarely confronting their differences head-on. And finally, in a volatile marriage conflicts erupt often, resulting in passionate disputes.[3]
Regardless
of the style of conflict solving, the marriage must have “at least five
times as many positive as negative moments together if your marriage is
to be stable.”[4]
If the negative moments exceed the positive, the couple begins the
downward spiral which begins with criticism, followed by contempt and
defensiveness, and finally withdrawal. The last stage is the most
destructive for it hinders communication which is a vital component of a
stable marriage. Without communication the couple will eventually
become isolated from each other, which leads more often than not to
divorce.
When
we compare Gottman’s model to the first conflict human beings
experiences the similarity is striking: Adam denied any responsibility
and criticized Eve for giving him the fruit, and God for giving him Eve,
who in turn blamed the serpent. According to Gottman, complaining is
one of the best things a couple can do, for it allows the couple to deal
with their problems instead of suppressing them. But the crucial
difference between complaining and criticism is that whereas complaining
is about airing grievances, criticism is an attack or an accusation
which will quickly lead to contempt on both sides. Unless the couple is
able to use repair mechanisms, such as certain mutually agreeable
actions and phrases which communicate their willingness to reconcile,
they will become engulfed in negativity which will lead to withdrawal
and divorce.[5]
Dr. Emerson Eggerichs’s book Love and Respect
is based on Gottman’s research and as far as he remains faithful to the
principles of gender differences in communication, the gestures of
reconciliation and the breaking of the cycle of negativity (which
Eggerichs calls “the Crazy Cycle”), all is well, but as soon as he
begins to incorporate complementarian theology into his concept, the
trouble begins. Firstly, he perpetuates the belief that Eve conversed
with the Serpent by herself and that Adam was later influenced by Eve to
disobey God. He couples this with the age-old conviction that women
have intuition while men are analytic.[6]
Both beliefs are erroneous, for Adam was with Eve as she spoke to the
serpent, and both men and women must use both intuition and reason to
remain healthy. Secondly, Eggerichs believes “the passage that spells
out biblical hierarchy is Ephesians 5:22-24.”[7] He gives hypotasso
the definition “to rank under or place under,” wherefore he believes
that the wife is to place herself under the man’s protection, while the
husband’s responsibility is to “place himself over the female and
protect her.” In case of a conflict, the “wife is called upon to defer
to her husband, trusting God to guide him to make a decision out of love
for her as the responsible head of the marriage.”[8] Also this belief is based on an error, for is built upon false translations of kephale and hypotasso;
Paul's "submit" has the meaning "to cooperate" and "head" is a literal
head of a literal body, as seen in that the two become "one flesh."
Because
a biblical hierarchy based on Ephesians 5:22-24 cannot be reconciled
with Ephesians 5:21, Eggerichs attempts to avoid a contradiction by
applying Grudem’s concept of differentiating between the submission the
husband owes the wife and the one owed by the wife to the husband.
What, then, did Paul mean when he said Christians should submit to one another? For husbands and wives I believe the answer is found in Love and Respect. If husband and wife have a conflict over how to spend money, for example, the husband “submits” to his wife be meeting her need to feel that he loves her in spite of the conflict. He submits to her need for love (see Ephesians 5:21, 25). On the other side, the wife “submits” to her husband during a conflict by meeting her husband’s need to feel that she respects him in spite of the unresolved issued. She submits to his need for respect (see Ephesians 5:21-22, 33).[9]
But if hypotasso
means “to rank under or place under” how can the word be applied to the
man in his relationship to the woman if it is his responsibility to
place himself “over her”? How can the man be “over the woman” and “under
the woman” in a hierarchy at the same time? And how does one place
oneself under someone’s need?
Evolutionist
Steven Rhoads believes the evolutionary process gave the man a higher
testosterone level, wherefore the man’s dominion is a natural impulse
which should not be suppressed. Eggerichs agrees with Rhoads’s overall
principle although he finds a divine origin behind the impulse.
What your husband wants is your acknowledgment that he is the leader, the one in authority. This is not to grind you under or treat you as an inferior. It is only to say that because God has made your husband responsible (review Ephesians 5:25-33), he needs the authority to carry out that responsibility. No smoothly running organization can have two heads. To set up a marriage with two equals at the head is to se it up for failure. That is one of the big reasons that people are divorcing right and left today. In essence, these marriages do not have anyone who is in charge. God knew someone had to be in charge, and that is why Scripture clearly teaches that, in order for things to work, the wife is called upon to defer to her husband.[10]
But
is a hierarchy necessary to avoid the dissolution of a marriage?
Gottman found that the greatest causes of conflict are “how frequently
the couple has sex and who does more housework.”[11]
Although Eggerichs does not discuss housework in detail, he believes
that, “Sex is symbolic of his [the husband’s] deeper need – respect…
When a wife refuses, that symbolizes to him that she does not care about
him and does not respect him and his needs. … The rule that never
changes is: you can’t get what you need by depriving your partner of
what your partner needs.”[12] Gottman could not have agreed more with Eggerich’s statement:
Housework may seem like a trivial concern compared to sexuality, but women see it as a major issue affecting their sex life, as well as the overall quality of their marriage. I’ve interviewed newlywed men who told me with pride, “I’m not going to wash the dishes, no way. That’s a woman’s job.” Two years later, the same guys asked me, “Why don’t my wife and I have sex anymore?” They just don’t understand how demeaning their attitude about housework is toward their wives. Treating your wife as a servant will inevitably affect the more intimate, fragile parts of a relationship. Being the sole person in a marriage to clean the toilet is definitely not an aphrodisiac![13]
Gottman
continues, “The message you send your wife when you do so little around
the house is lack of respect for her.” Eggerichs places so much
emphasis on the man’s need for respect that he misses Gottman’s point
that both men and women need love and respect equally. Instead Eggerich believes that “women want love far more than respect and men want respect far more than love.” [14]
He also concluded that “women are locked in love” wherefore they have
no trouble loving their husbands. But if the instruction for the man to
love his wife in Ephesians 5 is necessary because love is not natural
for a man, why is the instruction for the man to treat his wife with
honor necessary in 1 Peter 3 if he naturally honors and respects her,
just as the wife naturally loves him?
At the end, Eggerichs fails to deliver what he promises - a healthy marriage - for he gives the same old advice, repackaged for a new generation, that hasn't worked in the past.
[1] John Gottman, Ph. D., with Nan Silver, What Marriages Succeed or Fail… And How You Can Make Yours Last (New York: A Fireside Book, 1994), 67.
[2] Ibid., 28.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 29.
[5] Ibid., 73, 85, 99. Perhaps it is the volatile couple which has given egalitarianism a bad name for from the perspective of the validating couple the volatile couple’s marriage seems unhealthy. The volatile couple
see themselves as equals more than the other types. “They are
independent sorts who believe that marriage should emphasize and
strengthen individuality.” (42) The danger the volatile couple
faces is that their honesty, openness about their feelings and constant
bickering can cause too much negativity which may ruin their marriage if
they are not careful to ensure they have more positive than negative
moments. The standardized Christian couple fits the description of the validating couple
in which the responsibilities are divided into separate spheres, the
wife being responsible for the home and children and the husband being
the final decision maker. The man views “himself as analytical, dominant
and assertive,” the woman herself as “nurturing, warm, and expressive.”[5] Although they usually enjoy a stable marriage, the validating couple’s
greatest challenge is to hinder their marriage from becoming a
passionless arrangement, a friendship instead of a romance. Both
conflict solving styles produce equally stable marriages for they fit
the temperament of the couples.
[6] Dr. Emerson Eggerichs, Love and Respect (Brentwood, TN: Integrity Publishers, 2004), 230-231.
[7] Ibid., 206.
[8] Ibid., 207, 218.
[9] Ibid., 218.
[10] Ibid., 221.
[11] Gottman, 154.
[12] Eggerichs, 250.
[13] Gottman, 155.
[14] Eggerichs, 48.
No comments:
Post a Comment