Created To Be His Help Meet - Chapter 14
Mrs. Pearl continues her discussion on reverence in Chapter 14, "Kings and Kingdoms."
Page 136:
God created Adam and commissioned him to take the position of leadership. Since then, every son of Adam has received the same mandate. Man was created to rule. It is his nature. But the only place most men will ever rule is their own little kingdom called home. At the least, every man's destiny is to be the leader of his household. To deny him this birthright is contrary to his nature and God's will. When a man is not in command of his little kingdom and is not shown the deference and reverence that goes with that position, his kingdom will not be ruled correctly, and the subjects of that kingdom will not experience the benevolence of a king who truly loves and cherishes them.
Mrs. Pearl compares a husband with the President of the United States. When he goes to speak somewhere, he gets treated with respect. (Usually LOL!) Not because of who he is as a man or what his policies are, but because of the office that he fills.
God made your husband the "president" of your family.
When I first read these statements, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong with them. I knew they were "off," but I couldn't figure out just how. So I asked my hubby.
And he said, "Well, she is using the wrong analogy. The Bible doesn't compare a husband leading his family with the way a government is set up."
A ha!!!
Ephesians 5:21-33:
Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
Wives, be subject (be submissive and adapt yourselves) to your own husbands as [a service] to the Lord.
For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the church, Himself the Savior of [His] body.
As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word,
That He might present the church to Himself in glorious splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such things [that she might be holy and faultless].
Even so husbands should love their wives as [being in a sense] their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.
For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and carefully protects and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,
Because we are members (parts) of His body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
This mystery is very great, but I speak concerning [the relation of] Christ and the church.
However, let each man of you [without exception] love his wife as [being in a sense] his very own self; and let the wife see that she respects and reverences her husband [that she notices him, regards him, honors him, prefers him, venerates, and esteems him; and that she defers to him, praises him, and loves and admires him exceedingly].
The Bible compares the relationship between a husband and wife to the relationship between Christ and His Church. And that is vastly different from the relationship between a President and his constituents. Mrs. Pearl's analogy is simply not Biblical.
Her statement that "Man was created to rule" is Biblical when taken just as that sentence. However, when we take it in context of her chapter, it is unbiblical. Mankind was created to rule over creation, but men were not created to rule over women.
Genesis 1:26-28:
God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth.
So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them.
And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it [using all its vast resources in the service of God and man]; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth.
Genesis 3:16b:
Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
Note that the husband ruling over the wife occurs AFTER the fall. Prior to the fall, God gave men and women the job of ruling (subduing, having dominion over, etc.) the rest of creation.
Mrs. Pearl shares an example of the "opposite of reverence." A man named "Charles" was sitting in a meeting with his wife.
Charles leaned back and draped his arm around his wife's shoulder. She immediately reacted with obvious irritation, shaking his hand off her shoulder, and leaning forward as if to get away from his embrace. Then she carefully fixed her hair where his arm had disturbed it.
What Mrs. Pearl says about it:
Her act was testimony to the state of her heart. She thought more of her hairdo than her husband's honor. She was rebelling against God in not reverencing her husband.
I seriously doubt that that was this woman's main problem. She sounds like she had selfishness issues PERIOD. If I were a betting woman, I'd bet she acted this way toward ANYONE, not just her husband. Though a lack of reverence toward her husband was involved, that was not how she was "rebelling against God." MAJOR stretch on Mrs. Pearl's part, I'm afraid.
I'm NOT saying that this wife's response was acceptable. It was just plain old RUDE. But Mrs. Pearl is using this as an example of a wife "not reverencing her husband," as though that were the only thing wrong with this picture, and that is where the stretch lies.
Page 139:
You cannot command your husband to love you, and you have no right to expect him to love you when you are unlovely. But God has provided a way for a woman to cause her husband to love and cherish her. God gave us ladies some keys to the avenues of a man's heart. God made it so that we can actually manipulate him into fulfilling his God-ordained duty.
::::eyes bugging out and jaw hitting the floor::::Yes, Mrs. Pearl is saying that if we just reverence our husbands enough, we can manipulate them into loving us. For one thing...MANIPULATE????????
For another thing...it is not a given, as she makes it out to be. I have known far too many women who have done exactly as Mrs. Pearl says to do, and their husband have either treated them harshly or they have just flat out left them.
Mrs. Pearl "proves" her points by sharing some examples of couples she has seen while people-watching. In couples in which the women were not touching their men, they weren't smiling either. But there were three women (THREE!!!) who were smiling and touching their men, and their men were just delighted in their women. Mrs. Pearl was quick to point out how ugly these women were as well, so obviously the men were not attracted to them for their beauty but for the way that they "reverenced" them.
A man will allow his woman many, many faults, as long as he knows that she thinks he is great. If she will just look into his face with adoration, if she is thankful to him for loving her, he will adore her. She can dress awful, be grossly overweight, have terrible hair, not cook so well, be a little lazy and dumb, and not be one bit pretty, but if she will just think and show that he is wonderful he will love her.
So not only is Mrs. Pearl basing her conclusions in part on these three couples, she is saying that if we just fawn over our men, they will love us.
She goes even further by saying
My husband tells young men looking for wives that there is really only one absolutely necessary trait that the girl they marry must possess - a grateful heart. He tells them that the girl they choose must be joyful and thankful that you love her. "The more she belives that she is fortunate that you chose her over others, the better the foundation for the true marriage of two souls. If she feels that YOU are lucky to get HER, then you had better run, because that woman is looking for her own help meet, and she thinks you are the one to fill the job. She will spend the rest of her life trying to change you."
*snip*
[To reverence a husband] is to believe that you are blessed for being loved by this wonderful man.
I honestly don't even know how to word my thoughts about that....
To be fair, this chapter did have some good in it. This sentence on page 137:
Reverence is not just how you act; it is how you feel and how you respond with words and with your body language.
But that's about it. ![]()

Anne wrote,
Wow- you’re really covering this book in depth! I like how you bring Bible passages into it too.
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 5:13 am
Corriejo wrote,
Kristen,
Thank you for continuing to review this book. It is a big job but it is an important one. You have really caught the unBiblical teachings in this chapter. Christ told His disciples that if they wanted to be great and be leaders that they were to become servants of all. He also told them that they were not to lead as the Gentiles (secular) do and lord their authority over others. When Mrs. Pearl compares a husband to a president or a king she misses the boat big time. That is the antithesis of what Christ said a leader was. A biblical leader is a servant. A biblical leader does the jobs (like washing dirty feet) so those under him don’t have to. That should be a leader’s attitude.
I also like how you caught the fact that the Bible tells man and woman to subdue and take dominion over God’s *creation*. They are not told to subdue and dominate people but the works of God’s hands.
Blessings,
Corrie
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 7:35 am
Dawn wrote,
Oh come on Kirstin, don’t hold back. Tell us your REAL thoughts on this chapter!


I agree with you on the president analogy. And the part about being gushy over a man will make him love you, despite all our other ickiness. I disagree. My dh’s greatest desire is to see ME content and happy, not that I think he’s the greatest thing since velcro! Granted, that means a LOT, and respect is a huge need for a man. I guess I just don’t get the “all or nothing” analogies, descriptions etc. that categorize so much of her words. If she just used words like “some, most, a lot, often” more often, she could say a lot of what she does and not be misapplying things so much.
Anywho, have you ever heard of the book, “Love and Respect” by Eggrichs? Maybe you could go through that one next and give me your critique. From what I’ve read of it so far, it is very good (and biblical).
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 8:04 am
Joelle wrote,
Someone gave my mom (Serena - she’s commented a couple other times) this book and when I was visiting her I read a few spots in it and was apalled. My mom read it to do a review of it, but she thinks you and spunky are doing such a great job she’ll just refer people to her blogs. I do think you are doing an excellent job reviewing the book and bringing out the good and the bad, and countering the bad with the correct biblical principle. Your husband sounds like a wise man - maybe you two should write a book!
A friend gave me the Love & Respect book, it is absolutely wonderful! It helped me realize how I was failing my husband and it has really helped our marriage. I would highly recommend it.
I’m looking forward to your review of the next chapter!
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Joelle wrote,
I mean she will refer people to your blog and Spunky’s blog (sorry, brain got ahead of the fingers there).
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Barbara wrote,
eeeee-YIKES!!!!
that’s about all i can say…
so has Ms Debi conatacted you yet?
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Barbara wrote,
Hi, I have been reading your blog for a little while now. I’ve also noticed that there is another Barbara who comments frequently, so I hope this doesn’t confuse everyone.
I heard that you were critiquing CTBHHM, so I wanted to know some other women’s thoughts on this book, as I have heard both good and bad. I’m still not sure whether I want to waste our money on purchasing the book or not. There seems to be plenty that I don’t agree with, but then there are times, I agree with her and not with you.
This chapter is mind boggling! Since when is it right for any person to manipulate anyone? To manipulate means to get someone to do what you want. I would think that this is showing a selfish and me only attitude. Manipulating is definitely not displaying a servant’s heart.
“Mrs. Pearl was quick to point out how ugly these women were as well, so obviously the men were not attracted to them for their beauty but for the way that they “reverenced” them.”
Mrs. Pearl is now the official authority on what is beautiful and what is ugly?! According to who?! I thought beauty is in the eye of the beholder? What might appeal to one person does not always appeal to another. I think it was downright rude of Mrs. Pearl to say that these women were ugly and to ASSUME that their husbands did not marry them for their looks. I do think that reverencing our husband adds a beauty to a woman, but I would never say that is why a husband neccessarily married her. For Mrs. Pearl to make this bold of a statement is a HUGE assumption on her part. I thought we were all created in the likeness of God?
Oh well, good critique, Kirsten!
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 10:00 am
Allison wrote,
Man, this stuff is awful. Thanks for the great review, Keer. I don’t know how you even manage to keep reading it. And gracious, how many chapters *are* there?!
I’m about sick of the book and I haven’t even read it!
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Cynthia wrote,
re: manipulation
Our pastor preached a sermon on manipulation and likened it to witchcraft … as someone posted earlier, getting someone to do something that they don’t want to do.
Anyway, his comment has stuck with me to this day,
“what you manipulate to get, you have to manipulate to keep”
Thanks for the great review … I, too, am sending people to your blog and to Spunky’s blog to read your critiques as I refuse to purchase the book and add to the “sucess” of the sales of this book.
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Serena wrote,
What I was going to say has already been said by others here. I’m thrilled that my daughter, Joelle, has jumped in and could give a good review of the book on love and respect. I want to read it when I can get my hands on a copy.
I think you did a great job, Kirstin of uncovering the twist in this. My Messiah loves me and gave His life for me. He has never lorded His authority over me, but by His goodness leads me to repentance. I’m grateful for a man who exemplifies that in his life, in spite of his human imperfections. He truly is a servant to me and our children and I think my children have a greater ability to know what Yeshua is like because of it.
I, too, was appalled at the manipulation statement, also knowing that it is an aspect of witchcraft.
Thank you for your wise review of another chapter.
Love and shalom,
Serena
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
Anne,
“I like how you bring Bible passages into it too.”
Interesting how glaring the errors are in her teaching when we actually look at what the Bible SAYS, isn’t it?
Dawn,
“Anywho, have you ever heard of the book, “Love and Respect” by Eggrichs? Maybe you could go through that one next and give me your critique. From what I’ve read of it so far, it is very good (and biblical). ;)”
I’ve heard about it, but I haven’t read it yet. I’m wanting to read that Shanti Feldham (or whatever her name is ROFLOL - I probably messed up her name) book - my dh heard her on the radio and said that from what he heard, she has it right on. So many books, so little time!!!
Joelle,
Welcome! (I used to work with a girl named Joelle!) I’ve been enjoying your mom’s blogs too!
“Your husband sounds like a wise man - maybe you two should write a book! :)”
LOL!!!!!!! Well, he is a pretty smart guy.
Barbara,
“so has Ms Debi conatacted you yet? ;-)”
Oh you’re a funny one!!!
Barbara (2 LOL),
Welcome to you too!
Here is exactly how Mrs. Pearl words the part about the “ugly” women:
“Of the 25 or so couples who walked into the store together, only three of them were touching each other, and those three ladies were the only ones smiling out of the 25 I observed. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the prettiest, all three of these gals were 1s or 2s. One lady looked several (hard) years older than her young, tall, handsome husband. He had a delighted smile on his face as he watched her every move, possessively leading her by the arm. It was clear that she was enjoying telling him her tale. I could see it was a good story, because he threw his head back and laughed freely just as they walked through the door. He was enjoying his woman.
“Another couple passed by quietly, deliberately brushing up against each other, saying nothing, but the woman’s smile said everything. The third smiling couple took the award of the day. He was a muscled-up, gorgeous hunk, and she was almost past describing. She was wearing flannel PJ bottoms that were cut off just above the knees. The shortened pants had 5-inch purple flowers scattered over the white, almost see-through material. She was short, and at least 50 pounds overweight, with most of the extra weight bouncing in the skin-tight PJ shorts. Her hair was chopped off in an ugly cut and really greasy.”
I was just somewhat surprised that Mrs. Pearl would use a people-watching experience at Walmart as the basis of her advice. And like you, I thought it was tacky that she was calling these women ugly as though she were the authority on who is good-looking and who isn’t.
Allison,
This blog is the only thing that kept me plugging through it. I started blogging about it before I finished it, and as I read more of it, I thought, “Oh no, now I’ve committed myself!” LOL!!!
There are 24 or 25 or so chapters. You think it’s bad now…just you wait till chapter 23!
I keep reading about women who think that this book is just the best thing since sliced bread, it has transformed their marriage, etc. I’d like to know if they are just overlooking the twisting of Scripture and the things that contradict Scripture? Or am I in error for what I’m finding contradicts Scripture? I’m just having a hard time understanding how this book can be so wonderful to Christian sisters when it is so full of unbiblical statements. ::::scratching head::::
Link | July 28th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Anne wrote,
I agree about examples from people-watching at Walmart as being a poor basis for info.
Quote:
I could see it was a good story, because he threw his head back and laughed freely just as they walked through the door. He was enjoying his woman.
How do we know she wasn’t telling him a dirty joke that he just found hilarious?
That’s the thing that popped into my mind anyway! LOL
That’s the problem- we don’t know anything about the relationship between any of these people. If someone saw me at a bad moment with my husband, they definitely would not get an accurate picture of what our relationship is like.
I think many women like this book because many of us do need a good kick in the pants now and then. And it sounds like Debi provides that. My problem is with the way it is done and the extra unbiblical, unbalanced yucky stuff.
Link | July 29th, 2005 at 11:25 am
vgarr wrote,
Might just be me, and maybe a bit overly simplistic, but a man is COMMANDED to love his wife.
He is NOT commanded to love her “If she reverences you first.” Nope,he is just flat out commanded to love his wife.
“As Christ loves the church.” Paul tells us, “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” So we weren’t reverencing Him and yet He loved us.
Women are also commanded to respect their husbands. Again it does not matter if they “deserve” it or not. We are commanded.
Link | July 29th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Spunky wrote,
Anne you are so right. We don’t know anything about these people. And Debi jumps to all sorts of conclusions with only part of a story or none at all. Her use of letters in such a way should also be unnerving. She accuses women of blasphemy only on the basis of a letter.
Surprisingly, in a newsletter from May of 1999 Debi used to recognize this as a problem she stated, From many years of counseling I have learned to never take at face value the interpretation of just one member of a controversy. And with no more than the contents of just one letter, it is difficult to be certain in my interpretation of the situation.
What has happened to that led her to write a book on the basis of such letters?
Link | July 30th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Corriejo wrote,
“Anne you are so right. We don’t know anything about these people. And Debi jumps to all sorts of conclusions with only part of a story or none at all. Her use of letters in such a way should also be unnerving. She accuses women of blasphemy only on the basis of a letter.”
Hi Spunky,
I said something to this affect on Molly’s blog but it didn’t go over too well.
I agree with you and I have had the same concerns. I read some of those letters and the things that Debi told those women and I was wondering how she said the things she did to those women based on what they wrote. There is no way that she could get all that out of the letters.
Also, the “Bad Bob” and “Lydia” story is a composite, supposedly, of a lot of different people. I am also concerned about people like Sunny and where she is now? Is she okay? Is that a valid question? I thought so.
I am very skeptical at the fantastic claims that are made in that book. I am skeptical because of her responses, the way she can just go to Walmart and sit outside and know what is going on in people’s minds and hearts and the way she mishandles scriptures.
I am not angry or looking for a fight. I am alarmed and very concerned at how people defend this book based on emotions and not fact. I am concerned that this is being taught as THE thing that will cause marriages to be glorious and heavenly, as if scripture alone is not good enough for us who choose not to follow Debi’s teachings.
I have only spoken of the substance of this book. I have tried very hard to stick to the teachings of this book and I have not ascribed motives to those who disagree with me. It saddens me that so many reflexively will do that to me when I am sincerely only want to sift the dust away and arrive at the truth.
Corrie
Link | July 30th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
I’ve had the same experience, Corrie. People haven’t been able to point to Scripture to show me where I’m in error with anything I’ve said, but they are quick to say that I’m going against “God’s Word” by disagreeing with what Mrs. Pearl has said.
OR they tell me how much it has changed their marriage, so obviously this book is wonderful. Then sometimes they will accuse me of not wanting to try to put the principles into practice. And there again, it’s not so much the BASIC PRINCIPLES that she sets forth, it’s all the OTHER stuff in the book!!!
You’re definitely not alone!
Link | July 30th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Serena wrote,
What is sad about all this is I’ve been in those situations with “churches” and it has come down to being spiritual abuse. That is why I am really cautious as far as “religion” is concerned. I have learned a lot about it and really want nothing to do with it. I know my Redeemer and love His Word. I know that coming to Him and learning from Him and obeying His voice is what is important. We cannot give someone else “pat” answers for the tough things of life. We have to point them to the only One who can lead them in their situation. I have been redeemed now for over 31 years and have been in all kinds of fellowships and situations. There are no “magic formulas” or any one preferred way of doing things. In some situations there just is not an easy answer. That is how “love covers a multitude of sins.” We encourage one another to go to the only One who can give us the answer for our situation. We search the scripture (asking Him to give us the answers the whole time) to find out the depths of what He has for us. I have been learning for years now that many things I have been taught over the years are not really what Father is teaching us in His Word. They are what men teach and, sorry to say, a lot of times they twist the scriptures to say what they want them to say. They also manipulate people with emotional appeals and illustrations. Again, I say - There are NO magic formulas! We have to have a relationship with the Author of the book, not the book itself.
Love and shalom,
Serena
Link | July 30th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Corriejo wrote,
Hi Keer,
You are right about the basic principles NOT being a problem. I totally agree that the Bible teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands and that they are to show them proper respect. I do not deny that I need improvement. I certainly have NOT arrived. I want to be obedient to God and to His word. And I fall far short of the mark on many occasions. I am the first one to admit that I am not perfect.
The Pearls do have some good things to say. I was just reading over at their website and Mike Pearl’s article entitled “Bottoms” (I think that was the title) showed his tender side towards children. I was touched. I also like what Debi has to say about breastfeeding. She wrote an article (I don’t have it anymore) that gave some very sound advice. I like Mr. Pearl’s article on eating meat; I thought it was hilarious. I also like what he has to say on courtship. Again, I enjoyed his sense of humor. There are other things that have been good reminders to me that have come from the Pearls and their writings. I have no problem admitting that I agree with them and I don’t take issue with all they teach.
The principles are good but the application in CTBHHM are not so good. I am also having a hard time with how she applies scripture. I found yet another problem on pg 170 concerning Ruth and Naomi. When the scripture says that Ruth gave Obed to Naomi and Naomi became a nurse unto it, it does not mean that Naomi relactated (which, in a post-menopausal woman would be a very LONG process if it even was successful) and breastfed Obed. It meant that she cared for the child; that she looked after the child. The word “aman” (this is the HEbrew word in Ruth 4:16) means to support or care for. Australians use the use the word “nurse” in this way. “Will you nurse the baby for me while I make dinner?” They are not asking the person to breastfeed but asking them to hold the baby and care for them. Some commentators also take that scripture to mean she took care of the child AFTER the child was weaned from its mother. The Hebrew word “yawnak” is used in the OT when it speaks of breastfeeding a baby.
Debi tells her readers that hormones respond to stimuli (this is concerning the s*x talk) and she uses Naomi to “prove” her theory. But, Naomi doesn’t prove her theory at all. She tells her readers that Ruth gave the baby to Naomi to breastfeed. That would have been dangerous! It takes weeks, even months, for a woman to be able to relactate after all those years. But, scripture does not say that Naomi breastfed that baby. It says that she cared for the baby. Two different Hebrew words, two VERY different meanings. It would have been very EASY for someone to check this out before this went to print. It took me all of about 3 minutes to check this out.
I am sure that hormones respond to stimuli but we have to be careful that we don’t insert our own ideas into scripture to prove our theories.
I am concerned that women are not reading this book with a discerning eye. Things like this should pop out to us right away if we are students of the word. We women canNOT let our emotions get in the way of logical reasoning and sound doctrine.
Testing ALL things is good. It doesn’t at all mean that you are angry or rebellious or looking to fight.
Mrs. Pearl certainly isn’t afraid to tell it like it is but when critics of this book do the very same thing (but, imho, much nicer than Mrs. Pearl without the name calling) they are labeled as being nasty. :-/
I would never refer to someone as “ugly” or a “stupid woman” or a “silly woman”. But if I did, I am sure that people would call me on that and accuse me of all sorts of things. Mrs. Pearl can get away with all sorts of things that most of us would be totally discredited if we tried talking like that. She can call a “spade” a “spade” but when her critics call a spade a spade it isn’t accepted in the same light.
It isn’t easy disagreeing with the teachings of the Pearls or the Ezzos or Gothard or whoever else you want to insert. It is much easier just going with the latest and greatest fad to sweep through the home schooling movement. I know, I used to just swallow things without checking them against scripture. And I used to get highly irate with those who disagreed with my beloved teachers. I sometimes think ignorance is bliss but then I would be missing out on all these opportunities to search the scriptures to see what is being taught is truly accurate.
Acts 17:11
Your reviews are not in vain. There are many more women out there who have the same concerns about what they are being taught but are too timid to say anything. You are helping these women greatly.
Link | July 30th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
LOL Corrie you’re getting ahead of me, talking about Naomi!
“Your reviews are not in vain.”
Thank you! I needed that!
Link | July 30th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Anne wrote,
WOW Corriejo! What a great, great comment up there! I’m on the same “side” on the Pearl’s, Ezzo’s etc. as you and Keer. I avoid them now. But I didn’t always. I was part of that group that got swept up in the latest resource (like you stated).
And then when it didn’t “work” for me and even had negative effects on my parenting and marriage and self-image, I thought *I* was the failure. I wasn’t good enough to do it right. *I* wasn’t joyful enough, consistent enough, whatever.
That’s why these well-thought out and Bible-supported reviews and comments are so important. They are what helped me start to figure out *why* this stuff didn’t work for me and my situation and that it wasn’t *ALL* my fault.
So I’m thankful for Keer, Spunky, Catez, Corrie, Serena and others who share in this calm and reasoned way. No attacks, reactionary hype, accusations, etc. against the Pearl’s and their stuff. I don’t like reading those kind of “critiques” either and don’t find them credible.
So thanks for sharing and being used by God to help those like me who haven’t always been perfectly discerning, bought into this stuff and found mostly failure and self-condemnation as a result.
Link | July 31st, 2005 at 7:47 am
Anonymous wrote,
I am late joining this discussion, and I am just now reading chapter 8, but I have serious issues with many of the things Mrs. Pearl says. Many of the things she says, I think are unbiblical and reflect poor theology, and I’m wondering why so many people think this is a wonderful book. I am wondering if anyone has read the book Reforming Marriage by Douglas Wilson, which I think is excellent. He comes at things from such a different perspective, and says that the husband carries all the responsibility for the marriage. Mrs. Pearl seems to blame everything on the wife.
Cindy
Link | August 1st, 2005 at 6:38 am
Corriejo wrote,
Cindy,
Yes, I have read Wilson’s book on Marriage and I think it is by FAR better a book on marriage than Mrs. Pearl’s book. When you divorce *a* scripture from its context and surrounding verses and verses that they are coupled with, you get a distorted theology. Doug Wilson speaks of the verses in their context and does not elevate marriage above what is right. He makes a good comment in his book that many elevate marriage even above God’s word! As if divorce is the worst sin that could happen. He talks about how a spouse walks out/abandons another spouse and how some teach that the abandoned spouse can never remarry. Scripture doesn’t support this at all but many teach it as if scripture does support this. He likens this to a person whose home was robbed and the TV was stolen. The police man comes and tells him that his TV was stolen and will probably never come back and then forbids him (the innocent party) of every getting another TV.
No, a spouse is not like a TV but you get his gist, right? LOL
Here is a GREAT article on how some people use the bible wrongly. They use it as a “magic” book or as a “grocery” list and there is danger when people approach it this way as we have seen in Debi Pearl’s book.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/theologia/index.html
Go down to the article written on Feb. 12, 2005 entitled “Magic Books, Grocery Lists and Silent Messiahs: How rightly approaching the Bible shapes the entire Christian Life.”
I do believe Mrs. Pearl approaches the Bible with the “magic” and “grocery list” mentality and that is why there are problems with her applications on this topic of marriage.
Link | August 1st, 2005 at 11:58 am
Anonymous wrote,
Yes, Mrs. Pearl constantly pulls verses out of context, I think. A good example is the entire 2nd chapter, on the merry heart. While the verse itself is true, the verse is not saying what Mrs. Pearl says it is saying. In the first 8 chapters of the book, there seems to be a strong thread of fear, that if I don’t do all the right wife things, my man may leave me and I will be all alone. If I didn’t know better, I would have been very frightened after reading chapter 7. But our motivation in marriage really shouldn’t be to “keep our man,” it should be to glorify God by obeying Him, and that includes in our marriage. I think Mrs. Pearl has an odd approach to marriage.
Link | August 1st, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Anonymous wrote,
I’m sorry, the previous comment (by anonymous) is by me.
Cindy (I don’t know how to get my name on here - call me Cindy Dummy)
Link | August 1st, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Albert wrote,
My wife has read the book and I have seen drastic positive changes in our marriage. She and others have been passing out copies of the book like hot cakes. I decided to do a little research on the source of these women’s positive attitudes and was supprised to find such negative attitudes on this site.
May I make an observation. Based on most comments, I think you are not finding scriptural errors in Mrs. Pearls book, but rather differences of perspective at best. For example, there seems to be strong reaction to Mrs. Pearls use of “manipulation”. Manipulation is called witchcraft. However, another perspective is that the literal definition of manipulative has either a negative or positive connotation depending on the motive. To manipulate is “to treat or operate with the hands” or “to manage or utilize skillfully” or “to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means”.
It seems that you have chosen to interpret her meaning only by the negative use of the word (unfair or insidious) rather than artful. Which is my perspective. There are numerous examples in scripture. However, Esther is the most famous who manipulated her husband for the salvation of her people.
I don’t see why you all spend so much time ragging someone who is being used of God to bless so many marriages.
Link | August 2nd, 2005 at 9:24 am
razorbackmama wrote,
Albert,
(If you happen to come back)
I’m not sure if you have read just chapter 14’s review or all of them, but if you haven’t read them all, you should, so that you can get a better perspective of where I (and some of the commenters) am coming from. Could you share some examples in which I simply have a “difference in perspective”? I did not liken manipulation to witchcraft in my blogpost since I had never heard of that comparison. But even still, manipulation is not something that should be used in a marriage.
If Mrs. Pearl is using manipulation in the sense of “to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means,” that is STILL a far cry from what she should be doing Biblically, and it contradicts the rest of her book (that we are not supposed to be attempting to control our husbands). “Artful” or not, manipulation is NOT a good thing when it comes to a marriage.
And wow, I’d love to know just HOW Esther “manipulated” King Xerxes…that’s a new one for me!
I’m not “ragging someone.” I am weighing a book that claims to be “God’s plan” for wives and “how to” have a heavenly marriage against Scripture. I realize fully that this book is helping some women, and I do not dispute that in the least. But “this book helped me” is not Scriptural support.
I’m not doubting the testimony of some women. I’m holding this book up to Scripture, and while I know that no book will be able to stand, this book has SEVERE problems, and Mrs. Pearl has taken many verses and twisted them to fit her viewpoint and then calls it “God’s Way.”
Have you read the book for yourself and weighed it against what the Bible says? I’m more than willing to retract something I’ve said if someone points out where I’m in error. But so far any “proof” I’ve been given about how good this book is is “it helped me” or “it changed my marriage.” So far no one has been able to provide a Scriptural basis for their arguments with what I have said in my posts.
Albert, I’m thrilled that this book has helped your marriage. But please read all of my posts about this book, and especially read Spunky’s posts on her blog (I’ve linked to them in my other posts), and know that there are some serious flaws in this book from a Biblical perspective.
Link | August 2nd, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Corriejo wrote,
“May I make an observation. Based on most comments, I think you are not finding scriptural errors in Mrs. Pearls book, but rather differences of perspective at best. ”
Hi Albert,
I am glad that you have seen positive changes in your marriage on your wife’s part.
Do you know of any books that can change husbands and manipulate…errr….cause them to have positive changes towards their wife? I would like to know if there is a counterpart to Debi Pearl’s book? Since they are being passed out like hotcakes and the wives are changing it must be very humbling to all those husbands and they must be wanting to do their part. Especially because they are the “head” and they know that their wives are responsible for the tone and direction of the marriage.
In scripture you never see the instructions to the wife divorced from the instructions to the husband. I think that is for a reason. Too much opportunity for abuse when you take scriptures out of their contexts.
Do you really believe that anyone who disagree’s with Debi’s book is just doing it because of a difference in perspective? I have spent a lot of time showing exactly from scripture where Mrs. Pearl’s book goes south of sound doctrine. Spunky, Keer and many others that have posted in these blogs have done the same thing. To think that so many of has went into the scriptures at length to show her error and then to have it summed up as “differences in perspective at best”……Hmmm?
What do you think about the advice given to the woman who was almost murdered with a butcher knife? What do you think of a man, who calls himself a “leader”, going places expecting to be served? Have you read the book and looked at the scriptures used to see if they are being rightly used? Do you agree with Mrs. Pearl that a husband’s behavior has no effect on his wife? Is this what the Bible teaches? His love is impotent? Is Christ’s love towards His Bride impotent? Well, Mrs. Pearl says that a husband’s love rarely will turn around a wife. This is unbiblical. Why would God make such an impotent head and give him such impotent instructions?
Mrs. Pearl says nothing new. Non-christians have been teaching this sort of thing for years and it has some short-term nice payoffs for the husband. But, I do not believe it to be a long term fix at all. Fascinating Womanhood is another book showing how you can keep your man. It is written by a Mormon and is based on their skewed doctrines. You see, women only go to heaven if their husbands want them there. So, FW goes into how a woman can go to great lengths to keep her husband. Is keeping one’s husband the goal in a marriage? Is secular reasoning, worldly wisdom good application for keeping one’s husband? Is that the goal of submission?
Is the husband as the head responsible for the direction and tone of the marriage? Or is he merely a figurehead that sits in his chair while the wife does the yard work and brings him fresh squeezed lemonade?
Do you agree with Mrs. Pearl’s definition of a woman’s role in the marriage? Good food, helping him move logs, being quiet and giving him good s*x (she has a little dialogue between Adam and Eve that is quite revealing about the mindset of men; I think it is an insult to a man and I know that many men do not look at their wives in this way)? Is that what a help meet is according to the Bible? Isn’t it much more than that? Mrs. Pearl has to raise her hand and she can only do that occasionaly when she wants to tell her husband her opinion about something he has done or said. Is this the makings of a good marriage?
Mrs. Pearl puts out her *opinions* and then slaps some verses from the Bible on them and then makes it seem that a woman is rebellious if she doesn’t do it her way.
Corrie
Link | August 2nd, 2005 at 6:35 pm
molly wrote,
I agree with Albert!
lol!
Keer,
I really disagree with you (re. this book) in so many areas that it’s hard to figure out where to start! *grin*
Making such a big deal out of the President Analogy, for example… ANY and EVERY analogy can only be taken so far. So to suggest she’s being unBiblical for doing so is silly. She was just comparing him with that to make a point, not saying it fits every and each marital situation.
As for the “mankind ruling” thing, I think that still applies today. So…I disagree with your assertions in that entire area.
I think Eve was under Adam’s authority even before the curse. It was during the curse where we saw how sin was going to mightily screw up that authority relationship (she would want to usurp him, he would want to oppress her, etc)…
But nowhere do I think the command for manKIND (both man and wife) to subdue the earth is taken back. Still on to this day, I think…
Ooops–I’ve got a baby crying. That’s all for me!
Blessings,
Molly
Link | August 2nd, 2005 at 10:03 pm
Anonymous wrote,
Kirstin,
I answered you further on the ChoosingHome.com forum.
See ya there!
:o)
Molly
Link | August 2nd, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Albert wrote,
Kirstin,
I was trying to use your reaction to the word “manipulate” as an example of your perspective. I obviously failed. You state that “manipulation is not something that should be used in a marriage.” May I restate your ascertion from a different perspective: “‘to manage or utilize skillfully’ is not something that should be used in a marriage”. Would you agree that the best marriages are accomplished by two people managing and maintaining the relationship. I think you are being too limited in your definitions.
Dare I give an example. Often I will respond to the inquiry, “How are you doing today” with “I am very gay today.” Some would say I should never describe myself as gay. I disagree.
I read all of the review chapters and most of the posts within the review. I did not read but a few select chapters from Debi’s book. Most of the issues you raise I consider to be perspective issues.
May I use the Chapter 5 review as an example. The posts seem to suggest that Debi Pearl believes that a help meet is one “who is there to help meet all my husband’s desires and dreams.” In fact, that is what Debi wrote. But the problems raised do not take into account that Debi obviously does not imply even your husbands evil and illegal desires and dreams. Debi is talking about deference.
Do I believe everything the Pearls say, I doubt it. For example, I believe God Created Man and Woman within literal 6 days. If the Pearls believe otherwise I disagree with them. But could the Pearls be right and I wrong? Yes. They have a certain perspective on the question, I have mine.
My point was: if there are slight differences here and there, and it seems to be blessing those who read it, why describe the book as “horrid” and spend the time tearing it down? If on the otherhand, you see destructive attitudes being introduced into the body of Christ then the book should be exposed. I see only the positive fruit.
Finally, you wrote “I’m more than willing to retract something I’ve said if someone points out where I’m in error. ” You said the book was horrid in one of your posts. How can someone prove to you that you are wrong? I am not saying your comments are not correct, I am saying you are doing your analysis from the wrong perspective.
My post was simply due to sadness that I felt the negativity from the collective posts and I did not see the grace and love of Christ in these posts.
Link | August 3rd, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Albert wrote,
Corrie,
There are several movements challenging men to be better husbands. Promise Keepers is one organization devoted to that. However, the best course that helped me realize that I needed to be more sensitive to my wife was a 13 week teaching course, Married for Life. It transformed our marriage because once I began focusing on my role to love my wife, I began to see my selfishness. Later we taught the Biblically based principles for many years as we grew in our marriage and helped others apply scripture to their lives.
“Do you really believe that anyone who disagree’s with Debi’s book is just doing it because of a difference in perspective?”
No, I was only making a statement about most of the posts that I have read at this sight. Was man created to rule is a perspective question? perspective is defined as “viewing things in their true relations or relative importance”. Perspective is choosing which looking glass to look through. 1 Timothy 3:4 is a biblical truth. I do not see where the Pearls are denying biblical truth.
No I do not believe we men are responsible for, but rather play a part, in the general health of our marriage and family. Ditto wives. It is the part we play in a healthy marriage and family that qualifies us to skillfully manage the affairs of the Church.
Your question about Debi’s definition of a wife’s role is exactly what I mean by perspective. You choose to think Debi thinks the wife’s role is “Good food, helping him move logs, being quiet and giving him good s*x…” I think Debi understands better than that. However, you have motivated me to read Debi’s entire book for myself. I will read it critically but giving grace towards the writer.
Link | August 3rd, 2005 at 1:35 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
Molly,
“Making such a big deal out of the President Analogy, for example… ANY and EVERY analogy can only be taken so far. So to suggest she’s being unBiblical for doing so is silly. She was just comparing him with that to make a point, not saying it fits every and each marital situation.”
I didn’t say that it would fit every and each situation. But the relationship modeled in her President analogy is not what is modeled in the Bible. THAT is what I was trying to point out.
“As for the “mankind ruling” thing, I think that still applies today. So…I disagree with your assertions in that entire area.
I think Eve was under Adam’s authority even before the curse. It was during the curse where we saw how sin was going to mightily screw up that authority relationship (she would want to usurp him, he would want to oppress her, etc)…
But nowhere do I think the command for manKIND (both man and wife) to subdue the earth is taken back. Still on to this day, I think… :)”
I’m not sure where you got that I don’t think that the command for mankind to subdue the earth has been taken back???? My point was that while Adam, yes, was in authority over Eve, prior to the fall he didn’t RULE OVER her (in the sense of a king rules over a kingdom). It wasn’t until after the fall that men started to “rule over” women.
Albert,
“May I restate your ascertion from a different perspective: ‘”to manage or utilize skillfully” is not something that should be used in a marriage’. Would you agree that the best marriages are accomplished by two people managing and maintaining the relationship.”
“Managing and maintaining the relationship,” when doing by both parties in a relationship, is not manipulation. Manipulation (as used by Mrs. Pearl) is a one-sided “management.” She is saying that even if our husbands don’t love us, if we treat them right, then we can manipulate them into loving us.
“But the problems raised do not take into account that Debi obviously does not imply even your husbands evil and illegal desires and dreams.”
You are correct, and chapter 23 addresses some situations in which we are not required to obey our husbands.
“My point was: if there are slight differences here and there, and it seems to be blessing those who read it, why describe the book as ‘horrid’ and spend the time tearing it down?”
Because I have been in the shoes of women who might be harmed by this book. I have read books like this without discernment, and it has done damage to my marriage. Some women are able to read this book with discernment, take the good, leave the bad, and not have a problem. But some women cannot and will think that since Mrs. Pearl wrote it and called these things “God’s will for marriage,” then they obviously ARE God’s will for marriage!
I actually agree with lots in this book (as my blogposts indicate). Most people seem to skip those parts and focus on the parts that I question.
“How can someone prove to you that you are wrong? I am not saying your comments are not correct, I am saying you are doing your analysis from the wrong perspective.”
God’s Word isn’t something we can use our “perspective” with. When weighing a book against the Word of God, we can’t involve our experience and perspective in that analysis. I have tried to indicate when I’ve had simply a difference of opinion with Mrs. Pearl, or when my experience has been different. But when we evaluate something against the Bible, we must take the Scriptures in context and compare what that other writing is saying. That is what I have tried to do.
“My post was simply due to sadness that I felt the negativity from the collective posts and I did not see the grace and love of Christ in these posts.”
I apologize if I have not been gracious in some areas, and I will try harder to make grace more obvious. But please know that it’s possible to show grace and love toward a sister in Christ without agreeing with her teaching. Just because parts of my blogposts are negative toward Mrs. Pearl’s book dosn’t mean that I am not showing her grace. I’m simply calling into question her teaching.
“1 Timothy 3:4 is a biblical truth.”
I couldn’t tell what you were referring to by your post, but just in case, 1 Tim. 3:4 is referring to ruling over one’s children…not his wife.
“However, you have motivated me to read Debi’s entire book for myself.”
I’m glad you are willing to do this.
“I will read it critically but giving grace towards the writer.”
I personally went into this book expecting something life-changing, since that is what I heard it was like. I was even involved in an online study group. “Giving grace” doesn’t mean that you have to agree with everything someone says, especially when the person is twisting Scripture to fit what she says.
Link | August 3rd, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Corriejo wrote,
Hi Albert,
Thank you for your reply. I will check out the Married for Life curriculum. It is always good to have something that I can recommend to couples that are struggling.
“Was man created to rule is a perspective question? perspective is defined as “viewing things in their true relations or relative importance”. ”
I don’t know, was man created to rule? (VBG) I don’t know of any specific scripture that says man was created to rule. I do know that mankind- male and female- were given the mandate to subdue and have dominion over the works of God’s hands. Mankind was not given the mandate to rule over people but were told to rule over the animals and the land.
That being said, there is biblical authority. That authority is not to look like secular authority. Biblical authority is actually opposite of secular authority. It looks totally different and is a different animal. Secular authority is given to wield the sword and punish evil doers. Biblical authority is given the mandate to serve those, think of others better than themselves and love those around them sacrificially. I don’t know if I would use the word “rule” when speaking of husbands. When it was pronounced by God that a husband would rule over his wife and the wife would try and dominate him, that was a result of *sin*. When we see wives trying to dominate and husbands trying to rule over their wives, I think you see sinful things.
A husband should love his wife and the wife responds to that love by submitting to him. That is what marriage should look like.
Yes, I believe men are the only ones allowed to be authorities in our churches but then again, that authority is not defined as “ruling” but as leading and guiding and feeding. It is defined as sacrificial service.
When one rules, I think of a despot or an autocrat (a person with unlimited authority) And as we have seen throughout history, those who rule come in both s*xes.
You say: “1 Timothy 3:4 is a biblical truth.”
1 Tim 3:4 “He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity”
Yes, a man is called to manage his own household and the verse specifically speaks about keeping his children under control. BTW, the Bible NEVER separates the mother’s authority over the child from the father’s authority over the child. It tells childre to obey their PARENTS. In Proverbs it tells children to obey their mother’s laws and their father’s instructions. I don’t see a father having a “one up” on the mother when it comes to authority over the children of said union.
It is unfortunate that the KJV uses the word “rulers” in this verse because the defintion is more of one who protects, guards, cares for, gives attention to, to give aid, etc. Yes, it also carries with it the connotation of presiding over but women preside over their households as well. They are co-heirs together in the grace of life. In 1 Cor. 1 it talks about representatives from Chloe’s (female) household telling Paul a report about the church at Corinth. Females presided over households as well as men.
In Titus 2:4 it says that women are to be keepers at home. The Greek means “guardians of the house”. The word means to keep or guard the house. To manage it and all of its affairs.
Athena, the Greek goddess, was the “oikouros” or guardian of the home in ancient Greek beliefs. She was the protectress serpant. The word doesn’t imply a mere “staying or keeping” at home. It implies protecting one’s home, guarding it. That Greek word implies aggressiveness and power, does it not? Not just a mere wimpy staying at home.
In 1 Tim. 2:12 it says this:
12* Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
It certainly seems that in these two verses in Timothy it is specifically speaking of the children and the household. Any mention of the wife is made separately (ie., must be the husband of one wife). Why would it mention children specifically as “ruling their children” in both verses and mention household but it does not mention the wife as being ruled? If households included the wife then why mention the children specifically? Wouldn’t that mean that children are also part of the household, too? Why mention children at all when the household includes wife and children? Obviously, wives are not children nor are they household servants/slaves or finances. Obviously elders/deacons were to be managing their households (the affairs of the home, the servants, finances, etc) and keeping their kids under control. It does not say that a man is to rule over or even manage his wife.
I am not denying that a husband is the head of the wife. I just want to make sure we define that biblically using scripture and not man’s wisdom or lack thereof.
“No I do not believe we men are responsible for, but rather play a part, in the general health of our marriage and family. ”
Oh, but Mrs. Pearl says that you do not have the kind of power of influence in your wife’s life that she has in your life. She tells us that your good behavior has no effect on your wife except in RARE circumstances. Your love is impotent when it comes to changing your wife. But, your wife is capable of manipulating and changing you by her behavior towards you.
“Your question about Debi’s definition of a wife’s role is exactly what I mean by perspective. You choose to think Debi thinks the wife’s role is “Good food, helping him move logs, being quiet and giving him good s*x…” I think Debi understands better than that. However, you have motivated me to read Debi’s entire book for myself. I will read it critically but giving grace towards the writer.”
I didn’t choose to think anything. This is exactly how she sums up a help meet. Just read top of pg. 163 for starters. Adam exclaims what a good help meet Eve is when she helps him move logs (helps him in his work), cooks dinner every evening, takes care of the little ones, praises his work, asks him for his direction in everything and then at the end of the day,
Eve asks Adam, “What would you like now?” and Adam answers her, “Take your clothes off real slow so I can watch…..Yeah, you’re a fine help meet.”
I am trying to give grace, I really am, but my husband just read it and he told me to throw the book away. He told me that it was degrading for women to be viewed like this, as s*x objects and servants.
I would like to know where on pg. 163 does Mrs. Pearl even hint at intimacy and being a co-heir/regent with Adam? Eve is portrayed as his personal assistant and his strip tease dancer. Does Christ view His Bride as Adam viewed Eve in her scenario? I don’t think so.
It should be that Adam asks Eve how can he serve her. Adam should offer to take the little ones out for a while so Eve can soak in the hot springs. Adam should offer Eve a drink of cool water as she sits in the shade while she keeps him company while he works on the logs. Adam should not view his wife so he can get pleasure out of her but he should be concerned about how he can GIVE pleasure TO her.
Remember, Christ loved us FIRST and gave Himself for us BEFORE we came to love Him.
Do you find that she did a good job of summing up the essence of a marriage and the role of a help meet in this exchange between Adam and Eve?
I know this gets long but it is important to examine the scripture, is it not? So far, people are just sloughing off the very real concerns many have about this book concerning its misuse of scripture.
I would like to see the points refuted using scripture instead of having our motives examined and impugned.
I REFUSE to get all emotionally tied to a book. That is why I leave my emotions out of my reading of this book as much as it is possible. The only book I am emotionally tied to and will defend to the death is the Bible.
Link | August 3rd, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Corrie wrote,
I decided to start my own blog so I wouldn’t take up so much space on other people’s blogs.
http://pineapplepundit.blogspot.com/
Link | August 4th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Serena wrote,
Corrie,
That is excellently written! One of the biggest things I have trouble with about that book and the strong authority doctrine churches is the concept of “ruling over.” Last I knew, my Messiah told us we were not to “rule over” as the Nations do but that we were to be a servant. My Redeemer does not control me but works in me by love. That is what He instructs husbands. I’ve been in that movement and all it brought was destruction to my family and a whole lot more. The same kind of tactics were used on anyone who dared to disagree. Thankfully, that fellowship folded, but not before it did damage to a lot of lives. It is not our Father’s way, I have learned!
Love and shalom,
Serena
Link | August 4th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
Anonymous wrote,
The more I read in this book, the more shocked I am. I am very grateful to Kirsten and Spunky, who are doing a very good job pointing out the erroneous things that Mrs. Pearl says. I cannot find any other evaluation that is not totally positive about this book, and most people consequently think it is wonderful. I honestly sometimes think that Mrs. Pearl is telling women to worship their marriages, and maybe even their husbands. For example, what does this mean: “The degree to which you reverence your husband is the degree to which you reverence your Creator.” (p. 22)? What does that mean, exactly, unless your husband is in the place of God? And why does she always use the word “reverence” instead of “respect?” I know, “reverence” is in the KJV, but I think it could be confusing the way she uses it. And she seems to have only a romantic understanding of the word “love.” In discussing Christ’s love for the church, she says that Jesus wants us for a “playmate!” Is that weird, or what?
Cindy
Link | August 4th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Albert wrote,
Corrie,
Thanks for motivating me to read the book. I am through chapter 5 and find the book to be every bit as wonderful as my wife and others do.
I agree with most of your summary of scriptural principles, but I still contend that you and others are looking at the book from a particular bias which fuels your concerns. In addition, I and others have our own biases and therefore may not be as sensitive as we should be. Maybe I am wrong and I should be more concerned.
‘It is unfortunate that the KJV uses the word “rulers” in this verse’.
Why is it unfortunate? You have a bias against the word ‘rule’ and attribute a meaning that Paul does not intend from the context.
“Do you find that she did a good job of summing up the essence of a marriage and the role of a help meet in this exchange between Adam and Eve?”
Again, that is the wrong question? I read the passage in the book. She is giving an trying to illustrate an aspect of marriage not the essence of marriage. Debi specifically says that she deliberately concentrates on the wifes role.
I can understand how some would say that even scripture removed from other balancing scripture will produce heresy. But that is not the case here.
Debi Pearl is delicately addressing an issue that is a problem in many marriages. Paul in 1 Cor. 7 addresses the issue of not defrauding your mate. Paul
addresses these physical drives. Debi does in her own way of writing.
BTW, your husband took a different perspective than me by being offended that Eve was being viewed as an object. Adam’s portrayal would be most offensive to me. Is this what women think we men only think about? Is this how crude Debi thinks I am? But since I understand what Debi is trying to communicate, I overlook any possible offense.
“So far, people are just sloughing off the very real concerns many have about this book concerning its misuse of scripture.”
Based on the posts and the reaction to what I have tried to say about perspective, I think I have a better understanding of your concerns. I agree with most of what you believe about marriage and scripture. However, I think I and maybe others have determined that your concerns about Debi’s books are not compelling.
“It should be that Adam asks Eve how can he serve her. Adam should offer to take the little ones out for a while so Eve can soak in the hot springs.”
Amen. This is what Jesus taught and this is what you have correctly articulated.
Albert
Link | August 5th, 2005 at 7:08 am
Anonymous wrote,
I am wondering how did Mrs. Pearl know that these couples she watched were even married?
My sister and husband looked to the world like the happiest couple alive, they had fun together, she played with him, looked adoring etc. In the end he went to jail for molesting their daughter and the marriage ended in a divorce. She attempted those things that Debi Pearl said to do about s*x as hard as she could, she ended up being abused…well, at 16, how much can you know?
I myself tried every single thing to make my husband happy, I have done all the things she has said. Do you know when we started to finally have a better marriage? When I quietly and submissively let him know he could not treat me a certain way. I used to have to be scared to go home becasue what if I didn’t do something right and I was going to cause my husband to stumble, it was going to be my fault when he committed adultery etc. etc.
This is not biblical marriage. God’s plan for marriage is the husband is the head and wife is helpmate, but being a helpmate is like being second in command. It does not mean you cease to be worthy of being a person! It does not mean you deserve to get your hair pulled or beaten. It does not mean it is okay for him to throw dinner away because something was not quite right.
We are commanded as wives to be a certain way and I think we are not given permission in any way to lord it over our husbands, but neither are they.
I think there are many good things in this book, yet, many people take what they say as gospel, which is why I think there is a need for the deep critiques to prevent the men who would read this and lord it over his wife.
Link | August 5th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Anonymous wrote,
I don’t think the Pearls understand Christian marriage. In a Christian marriage, the husband is to imitate Christ, who gave Himself for His bride, and loves her sacrificially. If the husband makes no attempt to do this, then it is not a Christian marriage - it is a sub-Christian marriage or something. Christian marriage is not about having to earn your husband’s love or manipulating him to do what he is supposed to do. A man who behaves like that does not understand the gospel. In Mrs. Pearl’s chapter about the great mystery, she says absolutely nothing about Christ’s sacrificial love for His church, about how He gave His life for His bride. Instead, she said shocking things about what “Jesus wants” - “a playmate?” But Christ died for us while we were yet sinners! I realize that many women are married to non-Christians, some of whom are very difficult men to be married to. And that we wives have Biblical duties, regardless of how our husbands behave. But I think this book should have been called, “How to Be Married to a Difficult Man.” And speaking of difficult men, according to the Pearls’ website, Michael Pearl seems to believe that we can reach a place where we don’t sin anymore, and he calls Calvinism a “destructive heresy.” So I have serious questions about their theology, which could explain some of the weird things in the book.
Cindy
Link | August 5th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Albert wrote,
Cindy,
I must admit that I am sorry I listened to my wife and posted my thoughts. This is depressing. I think I understand what you are trying to say.
You don’t see the balance in what Debi Pearl says in her book. She doesn’t accurately depict the biblical view of a Christian Marriage. In a Christian marriage the husband is called to love and cherish his wife. He is called to serve her and to think of her needs above his own. Love is not demanding but giving. The bible says that husbands are to love their wives just as Christ loved the Church. Agape love that lays down his life for the church.
I Christian husband who has to be manipulated into loving his wife does not understand the gospel.
Debi’s book seems to suggest that women should be full of fear that their men will leave them. So to solve that she twists scripture to mean that rather than be co-heirs and laborers wives should reverence (ie place their husbans in the place of God) and cater to every wish and desire of her husband. But God does not want wives to do every evil thing that her husband conceives of. So clearly Debi is wrong.
Debi further implies that somehow the wife if she would just learn how to manipulate her man and learn to be her man’s play thing that she will be able to keep her man.
Debi bases her opinions on these weird observations of people and couples that she observes at Walmart and Church and makes all these assumptions. She calls people mean and ugly and lazy based on her own warped views and then tries to use scripture to justify her views.
Her one sided book will convince many women to accept men who lord over them and mistreat them. And also convince men that it is okay to have such an unbiblical view.
Is this basically what you are saying?
Link | August 5th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Anonymous wrote,
Albert,
Yes, I think you said it very well.
Cindy
Link | August 5th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Anonymous wrote,
Albert,
By the way, the anonymous post previous to mine without the name at the bottom is not mine. However, I do agree with her assessment of the Walmart observations.
Cindy
Link | August 5th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
Albert,
You have done a good job of summarizing the problems in this book. (And have taken up a LOT less space LOL!!!!!)
Are these your views yourself after reading the book, or were you just trying to summarize our concerns, to get a “feel” for where we’re coming from. (You know, the “I hear you saying this…” method to try to make sure you’re hearing someone correctly.)
If these are your views, I think you and my dh would get along very well because that’s pretty much what he has gotten as well.
What did your wife say when you told her your thoughts?
Link | August 5th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Corrie wrote,
“‘It is unfortunate that the KJV uses the word “rulers” in this verse’.
Why is it unfortunate? You have a bias against the word ‘rule’ and attribute a meaning that Paul does not intend from the context.”
Hi Albert,
Thank you for taking the time to read the book.
I have to disagree with you here. I don’t have a bias against the word “rule” if it is understood the way Paul used it in its context. I have a problem with the way some people translate that word to mean and how they rip it out of its context and form a whole man-made doctrine out of their misinterpretation of that word. As I tried to demonstrate, Paul did not say that husbands were to rule their wives. It was their children and households that they were to rule or manage.
Link | August 5th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
Corrie wrote,
Cindy,
“And speaking of difficult men, according to the Pearls’ website, Michael Pearl seems to believe that we can reach a place where we don’t sin anymore, and he calls Calvinism a “destructive heresy.” So I have serious questions about their theology, which could explain some of the weird things in the book.”
Well said! I have some serious concerns about their theology and it is confusing when people embrace the Reformed doctrines and yet promote their teachings.
As Keer already pointed out, they also believe in the Gap theory. That is why Mrs. Pearl made it seem as if Adam was naming the animals and doing his job all by himself for a long time before Eve was created.
Eve was created on the same day as Adam and the animals. Adam probably spent a little while naming the animals until His little assignment finally got his attention. God was trying to show him his need by seeing that there was something missing. Mrs. Pearl tells her readers that Adam didn’t need Eve! But, that is opposite of what God’s word says. Adam needed Eve and an hour or two of naming the animals finally caused him to realize his deep need. That is why God sent him a helper suitable. That same word “helper” is the exact name that God uses for Himself in the OT. God was Israel’s “helper”. It didn’t mean that God was their personal assistent, gopher, chief cook and bottle washer. It meant that God helped them and made up all of their inadequacies. It meant that they couldn’t do their jobs withOUT God, their HELPER.
Eve was Adam’s counterpart, his equal, and one who stood opposite of him. That word “helper suitable” has been reduced to some sort of errand girl and supplier of s*xual satisfaction.
I am really surprised that some just gloss right over these glaring examples of the misuse of scripture. Doctrinally, I believe the Pearls to have some concerning errors.
Link | August 5th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Albert wrote,
Razorbackmama,
I was trying to summarize my understanding of the general concerns. Using ‘the “I hear you saying this…” method to try to make sure you’re hearing someone correctly.)’ I agree with some of what I am hearing but not most.
But, I am only through Chapter 7 and will read critically but with grace.
My wife thinks the book is wonderful and had a harsh reaction to the negative comments about what Debi is trying to say. She did (could) not read all the posts like I have. I am truly trying to understand.
My wife is a lawyer by training, who ’sacrificed’ her career to have more blessings, 8 in all, and homeschool them. I say that to say she is very logical and able to think critically. She also tends to be more dogmatic than I am.
Link | August 8th, 2005 at 6:08 am
Albert wrote,
Corrie,
Thank you for motivating me to read the book.
We all have biases and must work hard to overcome them. I assumed your bias against ‘rulers’ because you posted: ‘When one rules, I think of a despot or an autocrat (a person with unlimited authority).’ Therefore, your analysis will take into account how you think of ruling. BTW, a Christian parent doesn’t even lord over his children or slave
I have a bias in that I am a senior manager. My bias is that I readily think of ruling as managing. That is all I meant by bias. My other bias is that I’m a mathematician. So I get hung up on definitions.
Link | August 8th, 2005 at 6:20 am
razorbackmama wrote,
“I am really surprised that some just gloss right over these glaring examples of the misuse of scripture. Doctrinally, I believe the Pearls to have some concerning errors.”
From what I’m gathering, I too am finding that they have a strange theology. I haven’t been able to pin down their doctrinal beliefs though. I couldn’t find it on their website. And while I know that I can still disagree on the finer points of doctrine and glean a lot from someone (I don’t think I agree with every bit of Nancy Leigh Demoss’s doctrine, for example), when some of the BASICS are troubling to me…why would I want to follow their peripheral advice (especially when it is regarding Biblical matters)???
Albert,
“I was trying to summarize my understanding of the general concerns.”
Thanks for clarifying.
“will read critically but with grace.”
You keep saying this. Have I not been reading with grace? I started out this book expecting it to be fantastic. So it’s not as though I have been just looking for every little thing I can find, to say how bad it is. But when Mrs. Pearl’s application and explanation of Scripture makes me say, “HUH????????” and then when I search the Scriptures myself and realize that she has twisted the passage to say something different than it says…THAT is what is troublesome to me and is the reason I started reviewing it on my blog.
It goes beyond a difference in perspective.
“My wife thinks the book is wonderful and had a harsh reaction to the negative comments about what Debi is trying to say.”
She is not alone.
Of course I can’t speak for your wife, but from the other people who have reacted to blogs like mine and Spunky’s, only one person has tried to come at it from a Biblical perspective. Everyone else’s response has been, “It has worked for me, so it must be right.” Emotionalism ABOUNDS. But SCRIPTURALLY those arguments don’t hold water.
FWIW, my dh is a manager too. And he has found that with the people he manages, the more he serves and helps them, the better they do at their job. So he has approached this book from that perspective. However, the descriptions that Mrs. Pearl gives of a “ruler” are different. Her descriptions are more of the worldly type of ruling rather than a Christ-like rule. It’s not so much the word “rule” as it is Mrs. Pearl’s application and description of what ruling is.
Link | August 8th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Anonymous wrote,
And in the same vein, I think we have to ask, whenever we are dealing with Biblical issues, not, “Does it work?” but rather, “Is it true?” Truth is the ultimate issue, and we MUST be discerning.
Cindy
Link | August 8th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
EXACTLY Cindy! Especially since this book is claiming to present what a wife’s role is Biblically. It would be entirely different if this were Dr. Laura’s book, which does not make the same claim.
Link | August 8th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Anonymous wrote,
I don’t think a sampling of observations at one Walmart is a good source of data to reflect the population.
I, for one, do not darken the door of Walmart…blech.
Link | August 9th, 2005 at 5:01 am
Albert wrote,
razorbackmama,
FWIW, my dh is a manager too. And he has found that with the people he manages, the more he serves and helps them, the better they do at their job.
Your husband and I agree totally. I find that putting these biblical principles to action increases morale and makes managing enjoyable. It all begins with the character of Christ who humbled himself, meekly and lowly. Teaching that his kingdom economy begins with serving others, giving of ourselves, etc.
You keep saying this. Have I not been reading with grace?
I think your posts are good and insightful. Because of this blog, I have come to admit that to give advice to women without the balancing scripture for husbands is one glaring problem with the book. Likewise, if I undertake a critical reading or discussion, I have to remind MYSELF to balance with grace. I was not intending it to be an accusation against you or any other posts.
Link | August 9th, 2005 at 7:47 am
razorbackmama wrote,
“Your husband and I agree totally. I find that putting these biblical principles to action increases morale and makes managing enjoyable. It all begins with the character of Christ who humbled himself, meekly and lowly. Teaching that his kingdom economy begins with serving others, giving of ourselves, etc.”
That’s EXACTLY how my husband manages his employees. He really does a great job. I’m so proud of the work that he does.
He’s quite easy-going, and yet if something comes up he stands firm. LOL when he got promoted to the position he’s in now, his former supervisors said about him, “Though he’s young, he’s eager to delve into things.” 

Anyhoo…I could talk about my man all day, but I’ll spare y’all.
“I think your posts are good and insightful. Because of this blog, I have come to admit that to give advice to women without the balancing scripture for husbands is one glaring problem with the book. Likewise, if I undertake a critical reading or discussion, I have to remind MYSELF to balance with grace. I was not intending it to be an accusation against you or any other posts.”
Thanks for the clarification.
Link | August 9th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Revka wrote,
Well, I have this book, and I can tell you that it has been a big help to me. For those who complain that the men seem to be relieved of any responsibility in marriage, that is because this book is not written to them about their role in marriage. It is written to women and is about their responsibilities asset forth in the Bible. Those who complain about submission and subordination must not have read in Titus 2:4-5 where it tells the older women to teach the younger women to obey their husbands. The subordination of the wife to the husband has nothing to do with worth. It is simply a necessary part of any chain of command. Jesus subordinated His will to His Father’s in the Garden of Gethsemane as well as throughout His whole life. Who am I to decide that I am too good to be subordinate to my dear husband when we are supposed to be a picture of Christ and the church? Christ is obviously the Head of the church. That only leaves the conclusion that my husband is the head of my home. Yes, he should be loving and considerate as the final authority, but even if he is not, I am not relieved of my responsiblity God has given me. In no life situation have I seen it work to have 2 “final authorities”.
Link | July 7th, 2006 at 6:22 am