• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Burning Question Part 2

I am curious to see where you take this, Andrew. I think the point Steve has brought up is accurate, with a caveat, and it isn't the whole picture.

It is beneficial, in my opinion, to understand how others express love. This can be beneficial in at least a couple of ways. First, it helps you understand that they are showing love, and second, it helps you to understand what they need to see from you. The caveat is this: we should not selfishly be concerned with how others are expressing their love to us. I don't seem to be able to find the words to make that point as clear as I want to make it.

I think the better use of the idea is to know how to show love to others. If I know what love language speaks to my wife, then I know how to better show her my appreciation for her.
 
windblown said:
I regret ever taking the blasted test.
Click to expand...
Windblown, I sincerely hope that this thread is not making you regret taking the test. To be honest, my curiosity is up, and I would take it if I had the chance. That doesn't change that our primary focus should be showing others love though. I don't believe anything anyone has said is meant to be condemnation though - not at all.

Like I said, I sincerely hope this thread isn't making you regret it, and even more so, I hope nothing I said is making you regret it.
 
Windblown........my family has benefited from the book. I can see the potential pitfalls but if you take it with the grains of salt offered here I can see it being helpful. One point made about recognizing another's love expression was helpful for me. "Acts of service" isn't high on my list but it is for my husband. So him busting his buns to do stuff around the house doesn't feel "warm and fuzzy" to me but it does help me see he is loving me in his way. He also knows now that I really get a buzzzzz from words of affirmation and while it isn't his natural tendency he sometimes puts some effort into doing that for me. Bottom line, we don't use the info in the book to beat eachother up with, or hold "love" hostage, or demand to be loved "our way"......we've used it to recognize what works best for us in our relationship. I think this thread has had some really good points. Chew up the meat and spit out the bones.
 
I also think that since 1 Peter 3:7 directs us to dwell with our wives with understanding, giving honor as if to the weaker vessel; that the precise conduit through which she metabolizes affection most efficiently would be pertinent information.
 
Lol, aineo, not this thread. The knowledge of these "love languages" has been hands down more detrimental to me than beneficial.
 
In what way, windblown? I see where Andrew is coming from to a degree, and am very interested to see where he takes this as anyone with three happy wives is more worth listening to than anyone else! But I struggle to see how understanding this could be seriously detrimental, so if you could elaborate that would be great.
 
I am in no way able to engage in philosophical debate with such intellectuals as yourselves.

I just know that people got along just fine without it for millennia.

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Ecc. 1:18

For where no law is, there is no transgression. Rom. 4:15

;)
 
I'm not going to be able to do this justice. It's 1:30a and I have someone waiting for me. I'll do what I can, more tomorrow (later today).

First, windblown, if you'd consider sharing something about your experience, I think all or at least most of us here could receive that simply as your experience. YMMV, as we say. "Intellectuals" can debate and bicker and challenge and get scary all day long if you're trying to state a general proposition as general truth, but no one can argue with you about what your experience has been. That's all you.

And at the same time, maybe the details aren't that big a deal. Your two verses say a lot. For someone who is not able to engage in philosophical debate, you have a funny way of showing it. :cool:

FWIW, what I've been thinking about all day is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and now it looks like you've beaten me to it. ;) What my experience has been is that "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up". I think wisdom says, "the more you know, the more you realize you don't know". Our culture says, "read this book and you'll have acquired the formula for ____", you'll be able to apply the technique, you'll be able to make legitimate claims and assessments.

I will not have time to develop what I see as the general problem with pop Christian self-help books. Another time, perhaps.

Disclaimer: I'm going to hold up TLS2 and steve as illustrations of the general points I want to make. They are not the only individuals I could have used; they are just the only ones that everyone here will recognize. I mean no criticism of them as individuals, express or implied. The defect is in the book. By presenting a way of measuring and keeping score, or trying to figure out "whether your love tank is as full as it should be", it distracts and disables us all. The medium is the message.

Exhibit A: TLS2 wants to know how she's going to be able to ensure that her love tank is full in a plural marriage. Full in the way she expects it to be full, now that she has read a book that tells her what she can legitimately demand. In my experience, this is a typically female 'mis'application of the book, which was supposed to be about figuring out how your partner needs to receive love so you can do a better job of meeting their needs.

Exhibit B: steve expects recognition for what he does according to his love language, regardless of whether he is actually filling anyone's love tank according to what that person has been taught to expect after reading the book. In my experience, this is a typically male 'mis'application of the book, which was supposed to be about figuring out how your partner needs to receive love so you can do a better job of meeting their needs.

Nothing in the teachings of Christ or the apostles persuades me that I should be concerned about what I get out of a relationship or concerned with justifying my actions or inactions within that relationship to get myself off the hook.

The actual substantive content of the book is simplistic and trite. We all need to communicate more openly and be more concerned with what our partners need from us (truly need, not what they think they want or what they read about in a magazine or book, but not what we decide they need, either), and we all need to commit ourselves to a process through which wives experience the love Paul talks about in Eph 5 and husbands experience that respect and cooperation. That is an organic process that is best served by keeping everyone's eyes on Christ and on each other. Deep, intimate knowledge of your spouse comes from time spent looking into their eyes, not time spent reading a book about how to keep their love tank full (which you will then ignore if you're more focused on your own needs or on justifying your own habits).

Last thought: windblown's cite of Rom 4:15 is spot on. Where we make up rules, we principally create transgression. In my experience with this teaching, an unnecessary and totally predictable amount of energy gets diverted toward figuring out who's doing it wrong. Plaintiff says she needs to receive love language 3; Defendant says his love language is 5, so he should get credit for giving that. Plaintiff says she's still unsatisfied because her love tank isn't as full as it should be of what she thinks it should be full of; Defendant says he's doing the best he can and she should appreciate what he's putting in there even if it's not what she asked for. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who wins? Who loses? Who is justified?

These are rhetorical questions. I don't care what your answers are; everybody's got an opinion. I care that we have to waste time talking about it. Where no law is, there is no transgression.

More later. Peace to all.
 
Just a little tidbit. When thinking about love and love languages. I have found it helpful to recognize when someone is endeavoring to express love and receive it as such. I believe we can all do this. If we couldn't, we would not be so touched by the drawings and homemade gifts that fall apart which our children give us. We don't worry when a child expresses their love for us about whether that was our preferred way to be loved, we see past that, straight to the giving and generous heart of the child. We feel loved because we know they are expressing love. Now take that and apply it to all adult relationships. Receive the love that is given to you.

Also, as Andrew said, apply the book to learn to better love the people God has given you to love.
 
Excellent comparison, GG. I've had a child make my day by giving me a rock they found. We open our hearts to receive what is given, and we experience gratitude. (Or I could let the child know that my "principal love language" is not "receiving gifts", and see how the child feels about that....)
 
See we're very much focusing on different parts of the concept, and I can 100% see why the points you're bringing up are bad, so I definitely retract my idea that everyone who's getting married should be familiar with the concept.

However, (debating!) much like many things in this world, firearms, medicinal herbs, the name of the Lord, it seems to be all about how you apply it whether it's good or bad.

Applied in a selfish way "I need you to love me like this", or used to figure out who is in the "wrong", then it definitely becomes an instrument of destruction. My thought though is that people who are going to use it in a selfish way were probably going to be kind of selfish anyway, but it could make for a convenient excuse or rationale.

Note I'm not talking about TLS2 here, I think she has shown an obvious loving, submissive, and sacrificial heart in all her postings, it's just her misfortune that this debate happens to be on her thread! I reiterate that this needs to remain a safe place to bring up questions and concerns and not feel that those q&c's are going to be attacked.

Back to point. Now, for those people though who are searching for ways to better love someone, or seeking better understanding of those around them, then the love languages as a concept (again, not the book, I don't speak for the book) become a very useful tool for understanding and in the case of a husband, better loving a wife as their own body. Not that a wife should throw the book in a husbands face and say YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! But it gives us a tool in our toolbox.

Example. Massage is generally considered a good and enjoyable thing. Turns out, I don't actually like a deep tissue massage. More specifically, my body finds it unpleasant (now a back rub and shoulder massage is a different story). If I am loving my body, I don't go getting myself massages because that's what I've always heard works.

In the same way, culture tells us that every wife wants jewelry and flowers and candy. Now what happens if we have a loving and sacrificial wife that actually really doesn't give a whit about gifts? She's going to accept those gifts with a heart of thankfulness and appreciation and she will feel loved, and we may never know that she really doesn't care about the gifts themselves. Over time, we may get a nagging sense that our efforts aren't appreciated though because we are seeking to know our wives and can sense stuff. HOWEVER, wouldn't it have been more effective all around to actually spend the same amount of effort, and probably a lot less money, to speak directly to her heart in the first place in the way it best feels love?

If we can do that *right off the bat*, instead of having to take years to get around to figuring that out and "reinventing the wheel" when it comes to love languages, how is that bad?

I've been hesitant to bring it up, but I am actually courting a lady. It's going wonderfully, and we're all just tickled pink in a "but we're totally realists and know that just because everybody loves each other doesn't mean anything is a forgone conclusion or that there has to be a marriage to effectively love each other, etc etc" type of way. The only reason I bring it up now is because of the timing of this debate. We just recently discussed love languages.

That said, she and I had a wonderful time going over the love languages and got sooooo much out of it. Insights into each other and into ourselves. The focus was obviously on how best to love, not how best to be loved. First off, we found a "love language" quiz that was less terrible than most. Then we used the questions and occasionally the possible answers more as a basis for discussion than giving a rat's patooty what the quiz thought though. Like, the quizes are all about finding your "one love language" and don't give any real insights into, for instance, "what is it that's important about gifts", or "in what way are words important". We basically made a points matrix for each question and each love language got a points value for that question and much discussion. After about 3 or 4 hours of wonderfully enjoyable discussion we had much more insight into each other's hearts, and no feeling of "obligation" to do something a certain way. Heck, it wasn't until much later that we bothered to even get around to tallying up the final points values to get our "love languages" The knowledge that sometimes gifts is a "5" and sometimes gifts is a "1" depending on the situation, and why, is way more important.
 
Ha! Well, thankfully the good news is that she's been just as excited to discuss this sort of stuff as I have. I keep checking. And she's out of town for work right now. She sadly won't be back in Omaha till later next month.
 
UntoldGlory said:
Note I'm not talking about TLS2 here, I think she has shown an obvious loving, submissive, and sacrificial heart in all her postings, it's just her misfortune that this debate happens to be on her thread! I reiterate that this needs to remain a safe place to bring up questions and concerns and not feel that those q&c's are going to be attacked.
Click to expand...
Agreed. TLS2, I hope you don't feel attacked personally. All of my comments have been aimed at the book itself, and my illustrations above were designed to portray you and steve as the victims of what I see as a fault in the underlying philosophy of the book.

I'm content to table the whole thing at this point. Daniel has had some good results using the basic ideas of the book in a way that is profitable for him, and to the extent people can do that, great. The illustrations with TLS2 and steve were designed to show how the teaching of the book can perniciously get into one's head in a way that makes good people say things that come across as self-centered or self-justifying. Again, that's on the book's author, not on the people that read and try to apply what's in the book.

Let's come all the way back to TLS2's BQ2, and as much as possible move past TFLL.

Our culture puts a lot of pressure on us (and the younger you are, the worse it is) to find a sense of self-worth in the admiration and support ("love") of another person. So much pressure that we become conditioned to accept that idea without questioning it. Biblical marriage suggests that our self-worth should come from how we serve those we have been called to serve. In the case of men, that will be primarily Christ and those in particular to whom Christ directs our particular efforts. In the case of women, that will be primarily the husband as head of the family unit and the raising of the children of that household, and secondarily the greater community of which that family is a part.

So, TLS2, with no criticism at all (you have asked an EXCELLENT question that deserves a worthy response), my answer to your question is: You don't. You don't worry about what's in it for you, and you don't worry about how your husband is going to serve you. You focus on ways you can serve your husband, your community, and the world, and derive your self-worth from your relationship with God.

I hold it to be self-evident that this is biblical teaching in the area of marriage, but our churches and our culture have become corrupt, and have bought into a romantic, inwardly-focused ideal that is not biblical. They still use bible language, though, to convey unbiblical concepts. So realizing the difference between our culturally-implanted ideals and straight bible-based understanding is mission critical to success in Christian plural marriage.

That's my $.02. I'll ask Ginny to jump back in here with more thoughts in light of the way the thread has evolved, but if you go back and re-read her initial post on this thread, you can see the way she's trying to work within your framing of the question to give an answer that's pretty congruent with what I just said.
 
I have never read the love languages book, however I do understand the general concept. I think there's a pretty big point being missed. Firstly, I don't think it's something to be relied upon fully, but is one thing in a whole lot of information about your spouse (or potential) that is helpful to understand. Secondly, it's not good to just focus on one thing. We all have multiple needs and sometimes our needs change with our circumstances.
Example, if we're going with the love languages then mine is gifts. However in the stage of life I'm in right now what is more important to me is acts of service. I would love Samuel to buy me a bunch of flowers, but if it comes in place of him helping out by doing the dishes or taking the kids for an hour, or fixing the washing machine tap then I'd rather not have it.
Samuel's is physical touch, and sometimes at the end of the day I am touched out (6 kids climbing over me all day will do that), so instead we will spend quality time together, which we also need.
If you're focusing only on one thing you're going to miss a lot. I don't feel that my love tank is any less full because I don't get a certain amount of gifts. I hope Samuel feels the same.
I also think it relates to children and can be helpful for tailoring the time you spend with kids so it's more effective. For example, one of our children is physical touch and he'd like to spend time with us by sitting on the couch and cuddling and reading a book. For another it's words of affirmation so he'd like to talk (and talk and talk....) in a really positive way. When you have limited time with each child it's important to know the best way to relate to them. But I have learnt what relates best to them by watching them and learning as their mother. It's not from reading a book. It's not from doing any online quizzes. It's about being observant and relating to your loved one.
 
FollowingHim2 said:
But I have learnt what relates best to them by watching them and learning as their mother. It's not from reading a book. It's not from doing any online quizzes. It's about being observant and relating to your loved one.
Click to expand...
Yahtzee!
 
Well it will surprise no one that I have come up with a slightly insulting take on this while talking to Moriah about it today. I have decided that the love languages are for men and women shouldn't even know about them.

Men, being somewhat rational creatures whose emotional range is firmly centered between angry, hungry and fine, need processes and concrete action plans they can institute to help them fulfill the command to love their wives. It's not that we don't love our wives. It's not that it's hard to tell them. It's just easier for us if there is a procedure and a way to stay focused on it.

Women on the other hand, are not commanded to love their husbands and if they want to love their husbands then it can come much more readily to them. It's pretty easy to triangulate on angry, hungry and fine.

However, the love languages do invite a woman to examine whether she is being loved correctly and to judge her husband and his efforts, danger Will Robinson, danger! It can also lead some women to consider their husband's efforts to be less than genuine because she knows the play book before he makes the call. All in all the whole concept does nothing for women while offering many pitfalls and possibly pratfalls.

On top of that, husbands were never commanded to make their wives feel loved. They were commanded to love them. Sometimes love doesn't feel very loving. Andrew doesn't like brussel sprouts but it would be loving for someone to make him eat his vegetables.

I am always struck by the verse commanding husbands to love their wives as "Christ loved the church" because on the surface Christ didn't appear very loving to the church He actually knew. All of the disciples were martyred save John. The early church was persecuted on all sides. He required them to take their families to horrible death in the Coliseum rather than burn a pinch of incense to an emperor that NO ONE really believed was a God, except for maybe the emperor .

It seems to me, and of course that is the ultimate and unassailable proof of last resort, that we have to make very sure that we're using God's definition of love and not the culture's. We know God is loving. We know He loved His Son. Look what He required of His Son. We know Christ loves the church. But He isn't feeding us grapes on a bed of pillows while we chat on Facebook with our girlfriends. His yoke may be easy and his burden light, but that means there is a yoke and a burden.

Ask anyone who has ever been on a forced march, there is no burden that feels light after so much as half a mile.

So love yes, but it has to be real love, not modern "I feel squishy" love.

Maybe we should call it the Five Affections for Men to Use as They See Fit. That might be more accurate.
 
ZecAustin said:
Women on the other hand, are not commanded to love their husbands
Click to expand...

Titus 2:4 kind of fits the bill for me, although I admit that the love is not agape, but a variant of phileo, which actually IS the squishy kind of love. So maybe the love languages are for wimmins to ply their squishy trade on their husbands... while the men folk may safely ignore them while concentrating on being self sacrificial in really unpleasant ways?

Except
ZecAustin said:
husbands were never commanded to make their wives feel loved.
Click to expand...

I mean... it's not a commandment per se... but 1COR7:33 makes it sound presumptive that a married man would necessarily be interested in pleasing his wife. Which I would humbly submit may include trying to make them feel loved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top