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.
Very well written. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you read the book that Eggrrichs claims supports his thesis. Gottman is highly respected for his research. Gottman's book, when read in its entirety, is diametrically opposed to Eggerich's book. They could hardly be any more different.
ReplyDeleteEggerichs claims other surveys show that men have a greater fear of living without respect than living without love. However, surveys of women show the same result. Most people, however, have a really hard time differentiating between love and respect in a marriage because when you love someone enough to marry them, it goes without saying that your will treat them respectfully. You cannot have a loving relationship with someone your regularly treat with disrespect.
The survey that Eggerichs quotes in his book was done by Shaunti Feldhahn. That survey is important to look at for several reasons. First, Feldhahn asked that question ONLY of men. In her conclusions, she ASSUMED that women would always choose love over respect. Eggerichs took that faulty conclusion and used it support his thesis. It is preposterous that so few people have called Feldhahn and Eggerichs out on this.
Second, the question itself did not measure what Feldhahn claimed it measured. Her own survey respondents wrote that the question was confusing and a statistically significant number could not answer the question because it was worded so poorly. (If you understand survey development, it was a double barreled question. This type of question is completely invalid, it is impossible to evaluate the responses.)
Third, the professional survey company that Feldhahn hired told her that the question had a fatal flaw (being double barreled) and did not support her conclusion. This information is buried in a footnote in her book.
We need to hold Christian authors to a higher standard. If they want to write books full of their opinions, so be it. We should expect more, though
When they cite research, we need to go to the source and see if it actually supports their points. When it doesn't, the authors should be expected to revise their work. It's a sad commentary on the evangelical community that they have such a low standard.
There are great marriage books out there. This is not one of them.
Even beyond disagreeing with Eggerichs about theology, I can't help but consider him to be wildly dishonest. He knows that there is no legitimate research to support his ideas. But he knows that so few will check.
Thank you for your review and providing what Gottman truly said!
ReplyDeleteI was in the middle of trying to formulate my thoughts of how disturbing Eggerichs labels complaining in the book, and then I found your blog. While he was trying to be fair many times saying that when women criticize or complain, they are not trying to be disrespectful but only trying to feel loved and be closer to their husbands..... that message gets overshadowed when he lists complaining as one of the things that makes a man feels disrespected. Like: Men hears criticism and complaints as contempt. He emphasized so much on the man needing respect that it almost sounds like a wife should not complain at all, lest it makes a husband feel disrespected and find her irritating.
I so appreciate finding out that Gottman sees complaining as a natural thing for wife and husband to do in order to address issue. Yes, complaints should be loving and respectful. Yes, complaints should never be in the form of criticisms. But the problem isn't the complaints itself. The problem is the failure to see complaints as a cry to fix something. I wish more emphasis was put on how to see complaints correctly.