Who’s to Blame When Pinocchio or Mr. Magoo Reads Love & Respect?

One person said about my book Love & Respect: 

This was one of my chief concerns with the book when I read it 10 years ago. Wives are portrayed as being actually disrespectful, while a husband is portrayed as simply being misunderstood. The problem was always ultimately the wife, either her own actions, or her perception.

I am uncertain if this person is taking the Pinocchio approach, meaning she is willing to lie about a book in order to sound like she is making a substantive argument against the content, or if she is taking the Mr. Magoo approach. Did she read the book but did not actually see any of the 300 pages she read (or at least not the 150 pages geared toward teaching husbands), and therefore decided to make assertions about things not written in the book when they were there in plain sight the entire time? Either way, since she made this allegation, her concerns are worthy of a reply. 

Both Husband and Wives Fail at Times to Obey Ephesians 5:33

It is true that I wrote in Love & Respect that wives can be disrespectful, and husbands can be misunderstood. That is not an untrue accusation. But does anyone wish to go on record and assert otherwise—that wives cannot be disrespectful and husbands are never misunderstood?

My wife, Sarah, would be the first to tell you: wives are not sinless in marriage. They, too, need the forgiveness of Jesus Christ. My mother, sister, wife, and daughter have been firm with me about that point. They, too, need Christ’s grace and mercy for failing to obey Ephesians 5:33 perfectly. 

But the same is equally true of husbands. Husbands also are sinners who fail at times to obey Ephesians 5:33. Who would postulate otherwise?

Transgressions cut both ways. All Christ-followers know this. 

Equally, we are all sinners unable to save ourselves (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8, 10). Yes, sins can manifest themselves differently. Some can be filled with selfishness, lust, and anger, whereas others can be filled with self-righteousness and judgmentalism. But whatever the sin, only Jesus’ saving work on the cross can forgive us.

Let’s be clear: contrary to what the above “reader” of my book said about its message, husbands can be disrespectful, and wives can be misunderstood. In fact, I wrote an entire chapter devoted to 1 Peter 3:7, which says, “You husbands . . . live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman, and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.” Peter says it right there: Husbands, don’t misunderstand your wives! What astounds me is that I would’ve thought only Mr. Magoo could have missed reading a whole chapter devoted to this. 

The Husband Is the One Held Mostly Responsible

Anyone who reads Love & Respect knows of the fair and balanced approach I carry out by design. This is obvious as I unfold the three cycles: the Crazy Cycle, the Energizing Cycle, and the Rewarded Cycle. I affirm and challenge a husband and wife equally. I do this because God’s Word itself is balanced in Ephesians 5:33 and 1 Peter 3:1, 2, 7. Also, we write that a wife needs respect (1 Peter 3:7) and a husband needs love (Titus 2:4-5). Parenthetically, I am currently writing a book on mutuality, based on 1 Corinthians 7. 

Crucial to the topic at hand, I hold the husband mostly responsible (Ephesians 5:23; 1 Corinthians 11:3). There are two chapters in the book devoted to a husband’s primary responsibility. I do not hold the wife always and ultimately responsible as the problem. Because a person alleges this does not make the assertion true. The Bible does not teach that, nor does Love & Respect.

Why would someone not readily acknowledge what is open to view and lacking in subtlety?

Some folks see what they look for. They look at any challenge toward a wife as proof of a bias in a male author. For some, that is taboo and can only mean he is against women. But most wives see themselves as strong and independent and appreciate the godly challenge to respond to Scripture, and they do not see the message as truncated against them.

Having said this, on a personal note, my dad attempted to strangle my mother to death, or so it appeared that way to me when I witnessed this act at age two. So, a major point of my life message has been against the mistreatment and abuse of women. I spoke to twelve thousand students at Liberty University about me being a wounded healer because of my dad. I gave a similar message to seven thousand professionals at the American Association of Christian counselors.

I hold my dad mostly responsible because I see my mom as the more tender and vulnerable one. I emphasize this ceaselessly based on my experience and my exposition of 1 Peter 3:7. To say otherwise is disingenuous. 

Interestingly, I was invited to return to Wheaton College for my ten-year reunion and speak in chapel. What did I speak on? First Peter 3:7. This has been deep in my soul for decades.

So I reject this criticism of the book: “The problem was always ultimately the wife, either her own actions, or her perception.”

If that were so, I would be speaking against my beloved and loving mother.

What About Mr. Magoo’s Perceptions?

Others have actually told me. “Well, Emerson, it isn’t what you say but what some people think you say. After reading the book, some people think that you are against women, as this critic states. It isn’t what you say or write but what others think you say and write. Therefore, you must stop publishing your book.”

That’s comparable to a trespasser either ignoring or somehow not seeing 150 “No Trespassing” signs posted on wooden fences over a thirty-acre farm. Then when the fence they’re climbing over collapses and they break their arm and collar bone, they decide to sue the property owner. In court, the trespasser says to the rancher, “You may have said ‘No Trespassing,’ but I never saw or read any of these 150 signs. It isn’t what you posted that matters. What matters is that I did not understand that you intended for me to stay out. You are at fault, not me.”

Such an argument would never win in court. The person is responsible to read and read fairly. There were 150 signs! Reasonable people hold the trespasser accountable for intentionally ignoring the signs. 

Can we take seriously someone who says, “Yes, you said for 150 pages that a husband must love, honor, and cherish his wife based on Ephesians 5:33, 1 Peter 3:7, and many other scriptures, but it isn’t what you said that matters; the only thing that matters is that I concluded something different”?

If a person only sees that I say wives are disrespectful and cause marital problems, what do we do with the 150 pages where I write the opposite?

But this isn’t just about bad eyesight. Not seeing what is written represents to many the classic definition of “selective exposure.” A person favors information that bolsters his pre-existing views while ignoring contradictory information. 

Added to this is “selective retention.” An individual recalls information that is closer to her interests and beliefs than she does information that contradicts her interests and beliefs. 

This is human nature and we must all fight against it. The best of editorial writing always rightly represents the other person’s position. Unfortunately, basic civility in writing or commentary is no longer deemed necessary in today’s progressive social media. 

Despite this, we are on record for writing half of Love & Respect, or 150 pages, about the husband responsibly loving, honoring, and cherishing his wife. The three colossal images of the three cycles—the Crazy Cycle, Energizing Cycle, and Rewarded Cycle—send a simple and loud message to husbands: love your wife as a demonstration of your love for Christ to hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant." This message cannot be missed unless one intends to miss it. If a critic or abusive husband misses this, it is done on purpose.

The Love and Respect message seeks to be balanced in affirming and challenging both the husband and wife, and most of the 2.1 million who purchased it would agree. Only Pinocchio or Mr. Magoo would say otherwise.