Sounds like a decently interesting book. Kind of like Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus but with a bit more spirituality.

I'm willing to bet my wife would enjoy the "A" in C.H.A.I.R., or maybe not? Heheh

I really do  love this book!  I've bought several as gifts for people since reading it myself, and I think there's a group of young moms at church that are going to use this book in a book study soon.  If you're interested in getting it, Christianbooks.com (link at the top of the page) has a special price right now on it.  You can get the special edition of the book with Bonus DVD for 9.99, plus shipping.  Just thought I'd let you know...  =o)

Yeah, let me emphasize that the Biblical view of wife submission/husband authority has been so misrepresented by the media over the years. Yes, evangelicals believe that husbands are to have authority over their wives (as the Bible teaches) but this does not give the husband license to be a domineering tyrant over his wife.  Rather, it means the husband is to sacrificially and selflessly lead his wife, as Christ led and loved the church.  Indeed, it is a radical call for husbands to lovingly give themselves to their wives. 

Of course, the media often represents this as an archaic view and chauvinistic attempt by primitive church-goers to keep women"in their place" or something.  What few realize is that the Bible actually put forth a radical feminist agenda in ancient times.  The OT especially guaranteed rights for divorced women and widows who were often destined for lives as beggars on the street before Biblical law secured them property rights and an equal footing in the eyes of the law. 

However, both Karen and I believe we have been assigned roles in our marital relationship.  This by no means signifies a superior-inferior relationship but, instead, believe it is in step with how we were designed by a loving and omnipotent Creator to operate within marriage.  We believe that living within our God-assigned roles and and following God's laws and statutes prescribed to us in the Bible is the best way to enjoy a  fulfilling and satisfying marriage.  It is because the world so often does not live within these roles and Biblical guidelines now that I believe there are so many divorces and unhappy marriages in our society.

I'm writing this on two hours sleep right now as I watch James, so I reserve the right to clarify this later, but this is a pretty accurate representation of what Karen and I and, by extension, most evangelicals believe about Biblical roles within marriage, including husband authority and wifely submission.

Oh, and I want to add, this book does a great job of presenting these Biblical guideline prescribed by God for marriage.  Even if you're not a Christian, I believe any marriage would be able to benefit from the advice given by Eggerichs in this book.

"I'm writing this on two hours sleep right now as I watch James, so I reserve the right to clarify this later"

thta might be a good idea considering the biible's position on sex roles is to "submit to each other" (eph. 5:21)

D.A., as I'm sure you know, that is not the Bible's position on "sex roles." That verse was addressed to all Christians and was a general statement meant to characterize Christians' interaction with each other. In verse 22, Paul begins his writings dealing specifically with the marriage relationship:

" Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,  that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. " (Ephesians 5:22-29)

That being said, there will be a great deal of husbands submitting to their wife's desires within marriage.  Part of his duty as a selfless and sacrificial leader will be to determine what his wife wants and to put her own needs/desires/wants ahead of his own.

"That being said, there will be a great deal of husbands submitting to their wife's desires within marriage.  Part of his duty as a selfless and sacrificial leader will be to determine what his wife wants and to put her own needs/desires/wants ahead of his own."

that's what i said.  that it's the husband's duty to submit to the wife as it is the wife's duty to submit to her husband.  the bible says it and you agree.  i just wanted it clarified because above you said women and men had different roles (the implication being that women submit and men don't, that those were your assigned roles - at least how i read it)

Yeah, I agree with you and Karen. Erica and I share chores, and other tasks like that. She's chosen to pick a career that, when we have kids, she could easily take care of them. At the same time though, had she chosen a work intensive career, I would have supported her fully. Just as she's supporting me while I get my degree (emotionally and physically).

In most major situations, she looks to me to make the final decision, but, I of course would never make the final decision without discussing it with her, and she knows this. But, by that, I mean... "are we sure we want to buy this house", or... "are we sure we want to move to this state to further your career" (things of that magnitude).

Todd, I would say that it sounds like we practice our roles within marriage in very similar ways.

D.A., this is from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and their ten affirmations on the Biblical roles within marriage:

1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).
2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).
3. Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).
4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).
   • In the home, the husband's loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife's intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.
   • In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.
5. The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18; Gal 3:28). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15).
6. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.
   • In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands' authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands' leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).
   • In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15).
7. In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission-domestic, religious, or civil-ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10-18; Acts 4:19-20, 5:27-29; 1 Pet 3:1-2).
8. In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11-15, 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God's will.
9. With half the world's population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world (1 Cor 12:7-21).
10. We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.

I hope that helps and presents the Biblical view of gender roles far better than I ever could.

1. Agreed

2.   "Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order." 

What kinds of distinctions is this talking about.  The verses listed are insufficient for answering this. 

a. First Genesis 2:18, 21-24 merely says that Adam was given Eve as a help meet and that Adam calls here "flesh of my flesh bone of my bones."  These verses prove my point.  If even Adam realized that he and eve were of the same material, to the point he recognized their similarity with delight!  CBMW overlooks the point from Genesis 1:26-28 "Let us make mankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish . . . let them have dominion over the birds . . . let them have dominion over the cattle . . . let them have dominion over all the wild animals . . . let them have dominion over every creeping thing upon the earth."  They were commanded to do this together.  What else were they commanded to do?  Be fruitful and multiply, yet another thing one could not do without the other.  In the Old estament, "Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh" always refers to similarity or kinship and never implies subordination.  The origin of male and female from the same substance is the physical basis for marriage and its goodness (a man leaving his father and mother, cleaving to his wife, and becoming one flesh).  at creation, God addressed the man and the woman together with both parts of the creation mandate - the building of families and dominion in the wider world.  Eve was not told "have babies, raise children and keep your house - you roles are confined to reproduction and the private sphere."  Adam was not told, "rule over the eart, build culture, go into politics, academia, the arts, and the professions - the public realm is your sphere."  Man and woman had the same status under Godand over the rest of creation and as both were needed for procreation, so both were needed for ruling the earth.   The word "helper" to describe Eve often dsuggests a subordinate person . . . in english.  But subordination is not implied in the Hebrew.  If anything, the word "ezer" refers to a superior.  It appears 21 times in the ot  and never refers to a subordinate person.  Almost always it refers to God, the creator and mighty helper of his people ("My help is the LORD, the maker of heaven and earth!" Deuteronomy 33:26, 29; Ps. 121:1,2)

b. I also have a hard time accepting different gender roles based on 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 which says, "For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.  For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.  Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."  This verse doesn't say anything we haven't already learned from the passage in genesis.  All it says is that Eve came from man.  We know that.  It says she was created for him, which is true.  He probably needed lots of help!  lol/jk

c. 1 Timothy 2:12-14 states:  "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."   The verb translated "to have authority" in verse 12 is not the normal greek word for authority.  It is an extremely rare word, "authentein," and appears only here in the NT.  This means we can't compare it with other uses of the word, because there aren't any.  In fact, I once spoke to a Classics professor from Boston U who said she had never even heard of the word.  Fortunately for us, in Women in the Church H. Scott Baldwin gives a wide range of meanings for this word:  to rule, to rule sovereignly, to control, to dominate, to compel, to influence, to domineer or play the tyrant, to grant authorization, to act independently, to assume authority over, to exercise one's own jurisdiction, to flout the authority of, to be primarily responsible for or to instigate something, and to commit a murder.  Other definitions from Katherin Kroeger and Leland Wiltshire include: to claim to be the originator of, and to instigate violence.  At any rate, it should be pretty clear that some of these meanings are positive, some are really negative and others are just neutral.  But clearly, when interpreting this passage, it makes an enormous difference whether Paul is prohibiting women from exercising authority over men; or from claiming to be the originator of men; or from instigating violence.   Is it plausible to ask the question if Paul intended to prohibit plain old "authority" why didn't he use the normal, common word "exousia"?  So if we don't know for certain what Paul meant by "authentein" then how can we know for sure what he was prohibiting?  Neither do we know whether or not or how this prohibition applies to women today.

3. "Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9)."  Umm no.  Adam's headship in marriage was never established by God before or after the fall.  This is pretty thoroughly explained above.

4. "The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women."  Agreed. . . . sort of.  Genesis 3:16 says, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”  The perfect equality, complimentary, interdependence, and mutual enjoyment between the sexes was badly marred.  Sexual hierarchy, rivalry, exploitation, mistrust and manipulation have distorted sex-gender relations ever since.  But it is crucial to understand this passage not as a command, but as a tragic prediction or description of what life would be like in a broken world.  Like all the other things mentioned - increased conception, pain in child birth, alienation from nature and work, sickness and death - the human response was not meant to be resignation, but resistance!  This text predicts an unrighteous rule of men - including a tendency for husbands to misuse their power over their wives.

5.  "Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community."  This is an opinion and isn't really based on anything, except poor translation of scriptures.

6. "wives should forsake resistance to their husbands' authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands' leadership."  Is this the greatest wishful thinking the world has ever seen or what?

7. Agreed

8. Agreed

9. Agreed

10. I think following some of these principals will lead to consequences in our families, churches and culture.

D.A., for the sake of brevity and time-constraints I would only like to address your objection to the fifth affirmation.  In response you said, "This is an opinion and isn't really based on anything, except poor translation of scriptures."  Could you please elaborate.  Namely could you enlighten what you think the Biblically-mandated roles for men and women are?

the reason why I made #5 the shortest response is because i feel like I already exhausted the arguments for it between #1 and #4.  if i elaborated any more on #5 i would mostly just be repeating myself and i'm not one to reinvent the wheel.  #5 says:

"Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community."

well, didn't i spend #s 1-4 going through old and new testament texts explaining how they don't imply male headship in  marriage? 

"Namely could you enlighten what you think the Biblically-mandated roles for men and women are?"

biblical gendeer roles in marriage should be husband and wife submitting to each other.  that's how i interpret ephesians 5:21.  i thought you disagreed with me but then above you said, "Part of his duty as a selfless and sacrificial leader will be to determine what his wife wants and to put her own needs/desires/wants ahead of his own."  so if anybody needs to clarify their position i think you should explain the reconciliation of male headship to him determining his wife's needs/wants/desires ahead of his own, and then back that up biblically.

D.A.

You make some interesting points. However, I am missing something in your presentation that I am wondering if you might be willing to include. You say, “[B]iblical gender roles in marriage should be [a] husband and wife submitting to each other.  [T]hat's how I interpret Ephesians 5:21.”

Staying on point, regarding the idea of mutual submission, would you “back that up biblically,” simply, and as directly as you can with Scripture? I see quite a few that relate to the duty of a wife, the duty of children, the duty of members of a church, the duty of slaves, and the duty of citizens to submit to leaders in authority, but I haven’t been able to come up with any regarding the duty of a husband to submit to a wife’s authority. Maybe you can help.

Would you cite one reference from Scripture that clearly commands a husband to submit to his wife (in similar fashion to the command in Ephesians 5:22 & 24 given to a wife to submit to her husband)?

Would you cite a reference from Scripture that clearly commends a husband for submitting to his wife (in similar fashion to the commendation given to a wife in 1 Peter 3:5-6).

In like manner, would you cite a reference from Scripture that clearly commands or commends or alludes to the idea of a husband obeying his wife or calling her “lord” (in similar fashion to that given to a wife in 1 Peter 3:5-6)

This seems like a very important idea, but I haven’t been able to find any direct references to support the concept of mutual submission marriage. Let me know what you come up with.

While you are working on that, there is a fascinating article on the topic that might help those like me who wrestle with this subject. It is at http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-1-No-4/The-Myth-of-Mutual-Submission.

A fellow investigator

Above in this thread even Matthew Cochrane admitted that husbands should submit to their wives. 

Right before Ephesians 5:21-22 says for wives to submit to thier husbands it also says to submit to one another which is what a lot of people forget.

D.A.

Whether or not Matthew agrees with the your interpretation of Ephesians 5:21, I missed your answers for the questions that I raised...

1. Would you cite one reference from Scripture that clearly commands a husband to submit to his wife (in similar fashion to the command in Ephesians 5:22 & 24 given to a wife to submit to her husband)?
2. Would you cite one reference from Scripture that clearly commends a husband for submitting to his wife (in similar fashion to the commendation given to a wife in 1 Peter 3:5-6)?
3. In like manner, would you cite one reference from Scripture that clearly commands or commends or alludes to the idea of a husband obeying his wife or calling her “lord” (in similar fashion to that given to a wife in 1 Peter 3:5-6)?

I noticed you have returned  to your "interpretation" of Ephesians 5:21 without providing any biblical support for your position.

Is that because you could find none?

I see several verses in Ephesians that specifiy who the "one anothers" are that some are to submit to, e.g., wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters, but I don't see any in Ephesians (or anywhere else in Scripture) that say husbands must submit to wives, parents must submit to children, masters must submit to slaves. Maybe I missed those and you can help? Or maybe you really are suggesting that Ephesians 5:21 is saying that masters must submit to slaves, parents must submit to children, teachers must submit to students, leaders must submit to members of the church, etc?

It will be interesting to see if you can come up with any, and it sure would clear up the confusion.

BTW, what did you think of the article, "The Myth of Mutual Submission?"

it's about time someone stated the obvious such as Grudem has done in that article

"it's about time someone stated the obvious such as Grudem has done in that article"

C, the ideas in that article may not be so obvious to everyone who reads it.  there are still many things to question it on.  to answer AFI's questions:

"1. Would you cite one reference from Scripture that clearly commands a husband to submit to his wife (in similar fashion to the command in Ephesians 5:22 & 24 given to a wife to submit to her husband)?"

1 Corinthians 7:4 says a wife has authority over her husband's body.  taken literally, this verse means a husband is to submit his body to his wife

"2.  Would you cite one reference from Scripture that clearly commends a husband for submitting to his wife (in similar fashion to the commendation given to a wife in 1 Peter 3:5-6)?"

First, I offer the same verse as before - 1 corinthians 7:4.  if we are to follow the master's way of doing things.  He always takes the loss.  He takes the loss for his bride in his death and setting aside a bit of his glory during his earthly ministry.  He even asks "Can this cup pass me by."  The answer is no.

I think the individual named D.A. has some serious confusion over the Word of God and obviously injects alot of femenistic type of thinking into his opinion on scripture. Man is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church. The wife is to be submissive to the husband in everything, as he is her authority and the head of the home (Ephesians 5;22-25; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-3; Gensis 3:16). The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it (Ephesians 5:28-29). That would include a sacrificical, forgiving love. D.A., you have a serious issue of 'rightly dividing the word of truth' (2 Timothy 2:15). 

R.D.

Wow.  How amazing that R. D. was able to solve this entire theological controversy in all of 6 sentences.  I'm glad this issue is so cut and dry and that his interpretation of the scriptures is the only one he is willing to see.

There is no theological controversy. The gospel of Jesus Christ and His doctrines are simple, and easy to understand. Controversy only exists when people deny the Word of God or are unregenerated and do not understand the Word of God. 

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:3)

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish [the unsaved bound for hell] foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18). 

The issue is entirely cut and dry. LISTEN to the Word of God. Come to God's Holy Word with a submissive spirit and humbleness and He will give you truths in all matters. Additionally, this is not a difficult subject to discern. Its the modernistic and femenistic philosophy of thinking that has perverted God's plan of the home. 

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

May I encourage you to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

And then “shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” (2 Timothy 2:16)

R. D.  i would appreciate it if you would just respond to my previous statements with point by point arguments instead of making accusations and quoting Bible verses I don't disagree with. 

this guy's kinda whack:

http://everydaychristian.com/features/story/3646/

So, guys, do you think all of this applies when a woman is married to a man who may be insane--the submission thing?  And what about emotional abuse and/or controlling manipulators?  Has anyone ever investigated trends of psychological disorders--as in, their proliferation among the world at large and the percentage of individuals who possess them, including those within the Christian community?  It's all well and good to debate theological issues on this esoteric level, but the realities of life usually throw in serious curve-balls that can't simply be dismissed or otherwise explained away.

Y-chromosomes

you all are missing the entire point.  Have any of you actually read the book.

I just went to the seminar this weekend and it is the absolute best thing I have done for my marriage.

Dr. Eggerich's makes biblically and scientifically proven descriptions of the God given nature of men and women.  He also explains in detail how our culture and the feminist movement has fought to make us believe that masculiniity is wrong and that men today need to be more sensitive and feminine. The world has bought the line "ALL we need is Love" hook line and sinker. 

The feminist movement has also distorted the concept of leadership and headship.  Headship is a responsibilty for a man, not a RIGHT.  They have a deep natural desire to be the provider, protector, and leader of the family.   That is how God fashioned their heart.

He makes a point to explain LOVE to the man who doesn't quite understand it. and also RESPECT to women who tends to confuse acts of love with acts of  respect.    

Dr. Eggerichs also explained that while both in the marriage are equal, there are areas where I will be "WEAKER" and my husband will be stronger,  And areas where he will be weaker and I will be stronger.  We compliment each other.  

I am a well educated and independent women, but before you argue the points of Dr. Eggerich's, I think you should watch the DVD's or read the book.  There would be no debating the points after that. 

Thankyou. 

I, too, enjoyed this book. I've read it 3 times now. My thoughts on Mr. Cochrane's book review. I agree with most of the review. For the athiest readers out there, such as myself, the points could have been just as easily written less the biblical omments. Using your common sense gets his points across without having to drown us in biblical quotes. However, I do respect it at the same time, given that it's a "religious book."

The pink/blue sunglasses? Oh, come on! I loved it!! Sure made sense to me unlike the venus/mars speghetti references you also mentioned. If my husband is hearing me in a "man's way," to explain it that he is listening with his blue hearing aid (an object most people don't see,) is perfect!

As a feminist, I did get quite uncomfortable with his continual " Women, wake up and do what your husband wants and expects from you before you should expect anything in return." That got old quickly. The author did try to disguise it by saying the same about men but not nearly as often.

Eggs probably knows the pink hearing aid can't pick up the wake up line unless it's repeated ad infinitum