Somewhere in the conversation, Angela mentioned that her husband had asked her to “take the lead” in the “spiritual training of our kids.”  Angela clearly found the suggestion that a wife “lead” anything akin to asking to be launched into space without a parachute.  Or flight control.   “That’s not biblical!” she insisted, brow furrowed, dark eye lashes fluttering.

“It’s not?” I queried.

“No!”

“How do you know?”

“The Bible says the man is The Leader.” Angela was emphatic.

“Where?” I asked, handing her my Bible and fanning the pages.  “Show me where the Bible says that leadership is male-exclusive or that ‘the man is The Leader.’”  Angela stared at me as if I just flew in from Mars.  So I asked, “Which of the spiritual gifts listed in I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 are gender-specific, including leadership?”

Angela insisted, “It’s in there somewhere.”

I gently suggested that the husband/man-as-leader, wife/woman-as-follower/subordinate model may not be as “biblical” as she thought.  This elicited another deer-in-the-headlights-look.  Taking my Bible, I opened it to Ephesians 5 and asked Angela to read the chapter en toto, beginning at verse one.

My child stopped arabesque-ing through Prokofiev’s Cinderella long enough to grab a few quick swigs of water while I pointed out verse 21 to Angela: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  (NIV).

“See where it says “Submit to one another before moving into verse 22?  The Greek grammar suggests that this ‘mutual submission’ is associated with the filling of the Spirit in verse 18 and that mutuality rather than hierarchy is God’s design.”

Bless her, Angela peered at me like a calf at a new gate.

After a moment she murmured, “I’ve never seen that before.”

While Simon LaGree ran the class through another round of leaps and twirls, I asked Angela to read Galatians 3 and offered a thumbnail sketch of what a husband-wife relationship based on mutual love, respect, deference and shared gifting might look like.

As we chatted over steaming mugs of green tea, I asked Angela how the Bible most often describes marriage, suggesting that “the two becoming one” and similar passages indicate unity, teamwork, partnership, mutuality, and what the Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 2:3, 4 (NIV):  “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.  Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”

By the end of Prokofiev’s second act, Angela didn’t seem to know whether to regard me as a kook or a Godsend.  But I saw a light flicker behind her eyes – just before she changed the subject.

It was enough for one day.

“Simon” dismissed the class, moms collected kids and shoes and Angela bid me a cheery “See ya later” and breezed out the door.  I smiled, waved, and wondered, Lord, what are you up to?

Bart (not his real name) was telling me about his role as “family priest.”  I told him why I disagreed.  Now, I like Bart.  He’s a well-spoken, gregarious fifty-something with ten kids and five grand kids.  We’ve worked together on various projects and ministry events, primarily at the local Christian camp.  Bart’s an engaging, amiable guy and although I like him personally, our paths diverge on the issue of gender roles like the Rift Valley splits East Africa. “Family priest” was a case in point.  (If you’re unfamiliar with this concept, Google “family priest.” That’s okay.  I’ll wait.)

What is a “priest”?  The basic definition is: “A person authorized to perform and administer religious rites as an intermediary between the people and God.”  This definition goes hand-in-glove with Sac·er·do·tal·ism, the belief that priests act as mediators between God and human beings.

There are variations on the “family priest” theme.  Advocates typically base their argument(s) in the Old Testament, citing Melchizidek, Eleazar and so on.  Without rehashing the concept en toto, it’s essentially rooted in the husband-as-head and authority view of gender roles based on a hierarchical ordering of relationships.  Entire books have been written on this subject.  In a nutshell, the “family priest” adherents that I’ve encountered advocate the following…

“There is no doubt about the priestly role of the wife in a family (specifically for the children), but the husband becomes the ‘Chief Priest’ (or High Priest as Christ was). The wife becomes the secondary authority over the children.”

Notice the word “secondary” in reference to the wife.  If theirs is a “secondary” priesthood as suggested above, doesn’t that make it limited “priesthood,” or not as fully functional as a man’s?  Why?  (Incidentally, the “family priest” concept is also found in Mormonism, Zen, and Hinduism.)

The concept is discussed further in ‘Kenosis Communications’ as per the following (My comments appear in italics):

• The Jews had the office of the priests. Other Nations also did, cf. Egyptians and Midianites Why would Christian homes replicate a model embraced by pagan cultures?

• But before that every family had the function of the priest. – The Father or the Patriarch of the family.  (Where is this written?)

• Fathers were priests before the Levitical system.  (Why, oh why, would a NT Christian return to the Levitical system?  Check out Paul’s letter to the churches in Galatia.)

• Now each believer is a priest (1Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6), but the fathers, who know the Lord still have a priestly function to perform within the family.  How can this “but” be?  Either “each believer is a priest” or he/she is not.  In the passage from Peter cited, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light (I Peter 2:9, NIV), the “but you” is humeis de, meaning “but you, plural”  i.e., every New Testament believer.  “Royal priesthood” membership is based on saving faith, not gender.

• We need to remember that pastors are not priests. They oftentimes perform priestly functions, but they are not priests. All believers are now priests cf. priesthood of all believers … except women?  And by the way, who is “all”?  Either “all” means everyone, regardless of gender, or it doesn’t mean “all.”

I asked Bart about Hebrew 4:14:  Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.  … Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Hebrews 4:14, 16, NIV)

“So,” I queried, “according to your husband/father ‘high priest’ model, I Timothy 2:5 reads: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, man”?

Some questions

Some more questions I asked Bart:

-         What happened to Christ?  Did he abdicate his High Priest role to husbands/fathers, post-resurrection?

-         Semantic sidestepping aside, doesn’t the “family priest” notion advocate – either implicitly or explicitly – that women and children are somehow unable or incapable of approaching the Throne of Grace directly?  As in, a male intermediary is required?

-         Does this view demean women by implying that theirs is a second-class citizenship within the household of faith?

-         Doesn’t this place an impossibly heavy load on one person within the family?

-         Who intercedes for the husband?  If he is able to assume the “priestly function” for himself as a responsible adult, why not likewise the wife – or is she a lesser “adult”?

-         Doesn’t “family priest” set up the husband as a demi-god?

-         Is Christ’s sacrifice on the cross sufficient to ensure full, direct access to God to anyone who believes, regardless of gender?  Or is access to God limited for females?

It was a lively discussion.  I emphasized that I’m not advocating the diminishment of men, husbands, or fathers, nor am I suggesting that women or wives treat their male counterparts with disrespect or disdain.  What I am advocating is mutuality.  (Having spent more than forty years in the other camp, my husband and I did not embrace mutuality lightly or rashly.  It took years of intensive review, prayer, discussion and dialogue before we became convinced from the text that mutuality is the biblical model for marriage as set forth in the whole counsel of Scripture.)

I quoted a portion of Robert Frost’s The Master Speed to illustrate:

Two such as you with such a master speed
Cannot be parted nor be swept away
From one another once you are agreed
That life is only life forevermore
Together wing to wing and oar to oar.  (Emphasis added)

Bart and I  agreed to disagree on the question of “family priest.”  I smiled.  So did he.   In the meantime, I’m trusting the One who created male and female to reflect His glory together – wing to wing and oar to oar – to enlighten the eyes of Bart’s heart.

I could argue, however, with the gender stereotypes I saw in our class’s brief discussion of the love languages.  Skits tended to put women in traditional roles (whether the homemaker or the career woman with a second-shift), and the sorts of ideas thrown out by the class were also discussed in a stereotypical manner.  For example, a wife putting on sexy lingerie and having some fun with her husband somehow got put under “acts of service,” rather than more appropriate categories like “physical touch,” or even “quality time.”  Inspired by my frustration, I decided to survey the online love language quizzes for husbands and wives to see to what extent gender stereotypes just come with the territory.  When we think of caring for one another through words of affirmation, physical touch, gifts, quality time, and acts of service, do we need to make intentional efforts to avoid unhelpful assumptions about gender?

Between my class experience (at a moderate seminary!) and my perusal of the online quizzes, I think so.  It seems Chapman—in the quizzes, if not also in his books or various teaching materials—thinks certain love languages express themselves differently along gender lines, something that should be known by those potentially using his work in their churches or recommending it to friends.  As innocuous as we might assume the five love languages to be based on their decidedly less-than-revolutionary level of helpfulness, we must be aware that along with the good, the decent, and the obvious lurks a potentially more damaging element.

“So, did Jerry (pseudonym) come on to you?” I asked.  “Did he make sexually suggestive comments?  Harass you?  Was he abusive?  Did Jerry harm or threaten you physically?  Create a hostile work environment?”

Nan answered negative to all of the above.  “Okay girlfriend,” I set my glass down and leaned back in the wicker chair on Nan’s wrap-around porch.  Twin almond eyes peered at me over Nan’s tea cup.  “Then what exactly did your husband not protect you from?”

It seems that Jerry was “harsh” and “overly critical” and “rude.”

I couldn’t argue.  I know Jerry.  What struck me about Nan’s pronouncement wasn’t the fact that she’d had one too many run-ins with Jerry – and eventually quit – but her assumption that Blaine was somehow not performing his husbandly duties by not “protecting” her.  I wordlessly wondered, “Why is it Blaine’s job to protect you?  Why don’t you learn how to protect yourself?  How can your husband be everywhere, all the time, running to your rescue?  Where does his responsibility end and yours begin?”

I know Blaine. He’s kind, thoughtful, generous and attentive.  But he doesn’t have that omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent thing down quite yet, and I wonder if it’s reasonable for Nan to expect otherwise.  And by the way, who protects Blaine?

Before anyone clucks their tongue too loudly, let me point out that Nan’s “his and her” views of gender roles are based on what she perceives to be the “biblical model for marriage.”  The husband is leader, provider and protector; she’s subordinate, passive and…. helpless?  The picture is that of a damsel in distress, fluttering her hankie at passersby while hoping Prince Charming rides to her rescue on a white charger and sweeps her off into the sunset.

What about popping the hood, checking the oil, or phoning AAA yourself?  What about a marriage based on mutuality, where he watches your back and you watch his?  What about a partnership between equals?  What about Nan developing her own coping mechanisms (and some thicker skin?) instead of expecting Blaine to rush in where angels fear to tread, and then shellacking him when he doesn’t?

A fading sun poured ginger, cinnamon and tangerine over the Olympic foothills as I wondered, “Is Nan’s ‘he didn’t protect me’ a valid complaint, or is it means of manipulating Blaine into fighting her battles for her so she doesn’t have to learn to do so herself?  And is that really The Biblical Model?”

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9:7 TNIV).

Some hierarchical teachers stress that submission is a choice and cannot be forced. When a husband is careful to never force or coerce his wife to submit, the assumption seems to be made that the wife’s submission is completely voluntary. Yet many hierarchical teachings also tell a wife that God wants her to willingly and joyfully submit to her husband’s final decision anytime they are unable to agree on something—unless he is asking her to sin. These teachers go on to explain that sometimes a husband might choose to defer to his wife’s decision and other times he might not. He has the freedom to choose. She does not. These teachers emphasize that God wants wives to give up this freedom of choice for the health of their marriage.

But how healthy is this?

Say that a couple has been discussing an important decision that will affect them both, and it has become clear that they don’t agree. Under these hierarchical teachings, the wife has been led to believe that it is her role, responsibility or obligation to submit to her husband on the matter. And remember, she has been instructed that her submission must be willing and joyful. So if the wife were to say, “Honey, I don’t agree with you, but I’m choosing to submit to what you believe is best for us because I don’t want to disobey God,” would her submission really meet the criteria of being both willing and joyful?

Speaking those words out loud could make it sound like she isn’t completely behind him and backing his decision. Instead, they could convey that since she is acting under a sense of compulsion, her submission is being given reluctantly rather than willingly. She might be thinking, I’m really only doing this because I have to so that I don’t sin against God. Whether she wants to defer to him or not, she really doesn’t have a choice—not if she has been led to believe that to “choose” otherwise would be a sin. Without the freedom to admit that she still does not agree, she has to veil what she is really thinking in order for consensus and harmony to be reached. And, even if she doesn’t like the final decision, these teachers expect her to act like she is joyful about it.

So how does this help their marriage when communication lines have been impaired and healthy conflict resolution has been averted? How can her submission remain completely voluntary when choosing not to submit becomes equated with sin and with missing out on God’s best plan for their marriage?

Acting under compulsion is not the same thing as submitting willingly. When “no” is not a permissible option—without sinning—then a “yes” cannot be authentically and freely given. Thus, this lack of freedom can lead to wives giving resentfully. Could this be one of the reasons why God loves a cheerful giver? I believe that the hierarchical model sets up wives for failure. Basically, they are told that they must give willingly and joyfully or they are sinning.

If a wife is denied the free choice to submit to her husband, then her compliance isn’t submission—it’s obedience. The Bible exhorts wives to submit to their husbands—not to obey them. Submission isn’t just for wives; it’s also for husbands (Eph. 5:21). One could just as easily argue from Scripture that it is the husband who should defer to his wife when they are at an impasse. After all, husbands are instructed to lay down their lives for their wives (Eph. 5:25).

In conclusion, I think that giving each spouse an equal say in decision making allows both spouses to submit freely from the heart and allows for more truthful communication and self-disclosure that leads to healthier and more intimate marriages.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Which marriage model (mutuality or hierarchy) do you think best strengthens intimacy, communication and conflict resolution? Why? 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I’d like to thank Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend for their book Boundaries, which helped me to see that giving (submitting) under compulsion can lead to resentment in marriage and that gender hierarchy teachings manipulate wives into offering this type of submission to their husbands.

My own experience was one of intolerance and abuse in my home until the death of my husband. The Bible tells us that God heals the brokenhearted, and of course I prayed for healing. But healing doesn’t always come with someone’s emphatic prayer or a little dab of oil on your forehead. For me, the single most significant turning point was one morning when our pastor spoke on the marriage relationship, describing how it is for companionship and care and protection of one another. A great sorrow swept over me and I thought, “Oh, just look at what I’ve missed, what I’m now never going to have!” And God spoke in my heart, as clearly as if He had said it out loud, “You have been so hurt and disappointed that you have forgotten how strong and sufficient I was for you in the 37 years you were single.” That changed my outlook completely, because from that day until now I have tried to turn my attention to new ways of remembering how faithful God was to me for so many years . I choose to turn the pain into something positive. This is a very real thing to me, not just another slick way of learning to cope. I choose to think this way. It is an intentional decision.

When I recall, “We were sitting in this very restaurant when Dennis [not his real name] got angry and stomped out.” Then I say, “But oh, Lord, I am grateful that You are so patient. You have never threatened to leave me.”

“Here were all these lies, a whole web of deceit in Dennis’s life. But God, You are the Faithful One! You are always reliable, perfect in your trustworthiness.”

“So much scorn was heaped on me. But You, Lord, have always treated me with respect. You have led me through difficult circumstances sometimes, but You have never tried to humiliate me.”

And so on through every painful memory. “Lord, You are the perfect Giver. Thank You for giving to me everything pertaining to life and godliness, not for what You might get in return, but out of Your love for me!”

“God, You are not one who wields the control that bars my humanity. You are in control because You are God, but You don’t rule Your obedient child with a harsh rod. Thank You!

“I thank You for Your love that is pure, untainted by unrighteous motives. You have nothing to prove about Yourself. And you have no need to make me prove something!”

“God, You are not fickle and changing. With You there is no shadow of turning. Thank You that I never have to question your continued love and loyalty.”

“Lord, Your words are sweet when You speak to me! Even when You correct me, I feel Your love lifting me to a better place.”

“God, I love Your sense of humor! It is so gentle. You don’t laugh when people are put down and you never make light of life’s issues. Thank You!

“Lord, You did not choose comfort, but the way of the Cross. I am so grateful that You did not choose ease but sacrifice.”’

“God, You know who You are, the great I AM. You know who I am. And You are letting me learn who we are! Thank You, thank You!”

This has changed not only my response to sad memories, but it has also given me a better understanding of God the Father and a closer relationship with Him. The Scripture even talks about Him being the husband of the forsaken, and that is a beautiful thought to hold onto if one has been hurt and disappointed. While I thought God’s intention was for my marriage to be for my joy and blessing, I think it’s entirely possible that the deeper understanding and relationship with God that I now enjoy is what He most desired. I thought that Dennis and I would have this beautiful marriage and grow old together. This was supposed to be the best part of our lives. I think that is what could have and should have happened, so my experience has been one of terrible disappointment. There is sorrow for myself, of course, but for God too, that He didn’t get to see His plan worked out as He intended. God is God, but I think He still does not always get what He most wishes because He lets us make choices. Sadly, we sometimes do not co-operate with Him in what is one of life’s greatest shared adventures!

Here is a ten-letter word, with terrible meaning for many people:   SUBMISSION

Did you think of any particular group of people when you read the above? Slaves? Probably not. Children? Maybe. Women, especially wives? Many women would answer, “Yes, without question.” But  you perhaps didn’t think of wives at all; you wouldn’t have any reason to unless you had experienced the negative results of cultural and/or religious subordination of women. Especially in very conservative religious groups, there is concentrated teaching on the subjection of women to their husbands.

The Scripture passage often quoted for this view is an abbreviated version of I Peter 3:1, which says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” The shortened form we most often hear is only, “Wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Clearly, this is not all that the Scripture means to say. With the words, “in the same way,” Peter is referring back to verses in chapter 2. He speaks of suffering, reminding us that one can bear up under unjust suffering when he/she is God-conscious. He warns us, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (I Peter 2:21-23) So what Peter is really saying is, “Women, be like Jesus.”

We sometimes forget to continue reading verses further down on the page: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” (I Peter 3:7) There are many ways in which women are not weaker at all, although it is true that females often lack the size, the muscular strength, and the vocal power of males. Men are called upon to treat those differences with respect. What Peter is really saying is, “Fellows, be like Jesus.” By ignoring the gracious gift of God’s life in both husband and wife, the man puts himself in grave danger:   His prayers will be ineffectual.

Submission was not intended to create a master-servant relationship nor even a formal authority figure; it was not meant for the control of one person over another. Submission to each other was urged in order for there to be harmony. “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.”  (I Peter 3:8, 9)  Have men and women alike forgotten the calling we have to live in harmony and be a blessing to one another?

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

In the most recent edition of Mutuality, we wrote an article titled “When We Said ‘I Do,’” which discussed how we tried to tell an egalitarian story with our wedding.  From the making of mutual decisions while planning the ceremony, to the symbol of equality we provided by having both sets of parents walk us down the aisle, to the promise we each made to love, respect, and submit to the other in our vows, we tried to put our beliefs about the equality of women and men on display.  However, as we noted in the article, often we followed more traditional ways of doing things.  Sometimes we wanted to – but often we knew of no other option.

Thus, in the spirit of encouraging conversation, we wanted to discuss a few of the more firmly-entrenched traditions we followed, and ask for feedback about how others might choose differently. We aren’t saying we regret our choices, or criticizing people who choose these paths. We simply want to provide a forum to discuss new ideas, options, and resources for those who want them.

The Proposal

Traditionally, the man enjoys the privilege (or bears the burden, depending on his viewpoint) of planning the proposal – often without any input from the woman at all.  This places sole responsibility for the leading of the relationship with the man while requiring the woman to sit and wait patiently (or not so patiently, depending on her viewpoint), for the man to make one of the biggest decisions of their relationship on his own.  If a couple were so inclined, what would it look like for both him and her to be involved in this decision?  Would it be possible for a couple to sit down together and collectively make the decision to move forward into engagement? Would this method ruin the “surprise” factor of a proposal, and if so, is it a sacrifice worth making?

Talking to Parents

Many men approach the woman’s father (and sometimes both parents) to ask permission to propose. This custom developed because people viewed the daughter as property. The man’s parents and the woman herself are left out of the conversation.  How could the woman and the man honor all of their parents at this stage of the relationship? What would it look like to get away from the stereotype that requires a woman to get her father’s permission to get married, while a man needs none?

Engagement Ring(s)

As in a traditional engagement, Ryan purchased an engagement ring which he presented to me (Anna) when he asked me to marry him. My acceptance and wearing of the ring indicated my commitment to future marriage, which was visible to all. So why, I now wonder, do men not also wear a sign of their commitment? I’ve done some research and found evidence of the growing popularity of male engagement rings, along with other tokens of commitment such as watches. I find giving Ryan gifts highly enjoyable and if I could go back I would have presented Ryan with an engagement ring of sorts, whether at the time of his proposal to me, or another time. What do you think of the tradition of only the woman receiving a sign of the future marriage? What are your thoughts of men wearing a ring? How could a couple better show their mutual commitment to one another?

This list is by no means exhaustive. What other subtle signs of hierarchy do couples face? How could a couple put a belief in equality into practice in those areas?

This past fall, when we first learned John and Stasi Eldredge had written Love and War, a book on marriage, our initial reaction was negative, to say the least. Don’t get us wrong, we find the Eldredges’ desire to help people improve their marriages admirable. But having just finished re-reading large portions of Wild at Heart and Captivating, their books on men and women, respectively, we instinctively worried about the advice they would give. The Eldredges often claim God created men and women as almost complete opposites, and as a couple firmly committed to the idea that women and men have more similarities in their humanity than they do differences in their gender, we weren’t clamoring to see this type of approach applied to marriage.

The book, however, exceeded our expectations. At times, we actually found ourselves wanting to like it. Unfortunately, at its conclusion, the negatives still outweighed the positives.

Focusing largely on their own experiences, the Eldredges begin by asserting marriage is “fabulously hard” (p. 13). In fact, given that (1) men and women are complete opposites, (2) we are all broken people, and (3) Satan hates marriage, they say it is a “miracle of the first order” that any marriage makes it all (p. 14). However, despite these difficulties, marriage plays a crucial role in God’s story. We live in a world at war, they write, and God gives us marriage to provide us with companionship, and as a picture of his love. Thus, although marriage is excruciatingly hard, God is on our side.

With all this in mind the Eldredges proceed to discuss a number of important, marriage-related issues. From communication, to sex, to having a shared mission in one’s marriage, they offer input and advice, much of it helpful. For example, they explain how people’s brokenness contributes to problems with their spouse, and they encourage people to embrace the resulting conflict as a way of seeking transformation. Additionally, their discussion of the need for both spouses to seek fulfillment in Christ, rather than each other, was commendable. Much of their advice even borders on being pro-egalitarian; they advise a process of mutual decision-making and encourage couples to exercise authority together in matters of spiritual warfare.

However, despite its good points, we reluctantly found ourselves increasingly frustrated with the authors. Their extreme negativity about marriage was exhausting; a few of the more choice examples include comparing the exchanging of wedding vows to the special forces “vowing their lives to one another as they embark on a perilous mission in dark lands, the outcome of which remains quite uncertain,” (p. 4), and claiming “if you cannot admit the disappointment of your marriage, you have made an idol out of it,” (p. 67). They also resort to stereotypes, often attributing marital difficulties to irreconcilable differences between the genders. Sadly, by persuading men and women they are complete opposites and that marriage is almost impossible, they may well convince them their marriage is irreparable, the exact problem the authors are trying to correct.

The authors also treat Scripture carelessly, taking it out of context and providing incomplete quotations, without indicating they have done so. They use pop culture even more heavily than they use the Bible, reporting that human-made movies and stories prove how God intended the world to be. Also, throughout the book the Eldredges often muffle their own meaning with indirect, unstructured, and hard to follow writing. They are overly repetitive both with unclear and weakly constructed analogies and by restating nearly all of Wild at Heart and Captivating.

When we finished with the book, we were left wondering why our marriage is not as hard as the authors say it should be. We have never contemplated divorce, wondered whether we made a mistake in getting married, or threw our hands up in resignation to the fact that marriage is just so hard. While it is true we have only been married for roughly two years, according to the authors, we should have found ourselves wildly disappointed with our marriage by now, or even contemplating divorce, as they were at this point. Yet, while marriage is sometimes difficult, the overwhelming majority of the time we have found it to be better than we ever imagined.

So why do the authors insist marriage is so difficult? Has this been true of your marriage…or are we abnormal in experiencing a joyful and fulfilling marriage? (We doubt the latter is the case.) Why is everyone – Christians included – so down on marriage? Is this a self-fulfilling prophecy (the old ball and chain, etc.)? What causes divorce rates to hover at 50% both within the church and outside it? What are we missing?