ONE OF THE THINGS WE’RE PASSIONATE ABOUT ON THIS BLOG IS MAKING SURE THE SELF-HELP AND RELATIONSHIP ADVICE IN THE EVANGELICAL WORLD IS HEALTHY.
Over the last few years, our team has surveyed over 32,000 people, measuring how certain teachings common in the evangelical world about marriage and sex affect marital and sexual satisfaction.
And the results have not been pretty.
We’re asking the church to stop spreading harmful messages, and make sure that what is said is actually healthy. Because it is actually possible to write books that do not harm!
As we’ve confronted harmful messages, we’ve written two big books–The Great Sex Rescue and She Deserves Better.
We’ve also published a series of downloadable one-sheets on evangelical books that still sell well, but have been shown to contain harmful messages.
This is our most recent entry– The Excellent Wife by Martha Pearce (the page numbers cited are from the Revised Edition).
Honestly, of all the books I’ve looked at, this one has left me the most bereft. It is agonizing how much Martha Peace tells abused women that the answer is to submit more–and to discount their own feelings. This is a dangerous book, and I’m begging people to take a look at what we’ve noted below, and stop recommending and using this book.
SYNOPSIS of The Excellent Wife by Martha Peace
A woman is an excellent wife by offering godly submission to her husband always.
The Excellent Wife is frequently used in biblical counseling circles and fundamentalist churches to teach women about their role of submission.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES with The Excellent Wife
- Equates obeying a husband with obeying God, making the husband an idol.
- Fails to offer adequate recourse for women in abusive marriages, saying divorce is not an option.
- Dismisses the importance of mental health care as a tool in faithful living, as if prayer, bible study, and pastoral counseling are at odds with therapy and medication.
- Declares important human needs, like wanting to be treated kindly and not yelled at, are “idolatrous desires.”
The Excellent wife SETS UP HUSBAND AS AN IDOL
- Positions the husband as a mediator, saying a wife is to obey her husband, not God (56), and that she is to glorify her husband, not God (49, 51), contravening 1 Timothy 2:5.
- Insists a wife “obey” her husband in everything, including the length of her hair, finances, what to have for supper, or how to discipline the kids. No caveat for abuse (especially of children) is given (140).
- Subordinates God to the husband, since the main thesis of the book is that whatever a husband wants a wife to do is now what God wants the wife to do. Her following her husband is how she follows God.
- Asserts that the wife receives sanctification, in part, by placing herself under her husband’s authority (15).
The Excellent Wife HAS A WARPED VIEW OF A WOMAN’s ROLE
- States that women are “more easily deceived” (17), though the Bible only ever states that Eve was deceived.
- Compares a woman’s place as that of a “slave” who rightly expects no thanks or recognition (31).
- Names “being treated fairly”, “having your needs met” and not wanting feelings hurt as idols for wives (61, 69). Pronounces a woman whose distant husband “uses her for sex” a sinner “with an idolatrous heart” for wanting kindness (65). Having desires for a good marriage is seen as incompatible with truly desiring Jesus.
- Shames women who work outside of the home or have children in daycare (16, 74). Admits it is common for women to have panic attacks that their husbands lose their jobs, but still insists women must not work (215).
- Declares the home the wife’s domain (71), where she must be organized and never lazy. Reading and resting are self-indulgent (74). The home’s “joyful atmosphere” is up to her.
- Says repeatedly that women must have a “gentle” or “soothing” (191) tone of voice, even when a husband has sinned or failed (167), which is encouraging the fawn trauma response when in harm’s way.
Most disturbingly, The excellent wife ENABLES ABUSE
- Declares it a sin to say “there is no hope for this marriage” (24), to believe “this is more than I can take” (95) or to be self-protective (32), with no caveats for abuse or chronic infidelity. States that women should battle for their abusive husbands no matter how long it takes (157).
- Instead of encouraging women to escape a “cruel” husband, this book tells her that it is a privilege to be “suffering for righteousness sake” (31). Unnecessary and easily avoidable suffering in marriage is glorified.
- Instructs a woman to respond willingly to their husband’s reproof, without defending herself (41) with no caveats for emotional abuse. States that feeling intensely hurt by his words is a sin (45), even if he is angry or unkind.
- Instead of teaching women how to draw boundaries to abuse, insists that women must give gifts, praise him, speak words of kindness, or put kind notes in his lunch when he is “evil” (158).
- Enables marital rape by telling women they cannot refuse sex unless they have both decided to pray instead (121). Says that if a husband wants sex while she is on the phone with a friend, she must not “defaud” him but should phone the friend back later (121). Tells women that even if their husbands touching them is nauseating (which is common in cases of abuse/infidelity), they must joyfully concentrate on pleasing their husbands sexually (96).
- Tells women facing “immorality, physical or verbal abuse, irresponsibility, threats of leaving, use of alcohol/drugs” that they should respond by “suffering personal embarrassment”; “thinking praiseworthy thoughts”; “not reviewing his faults over in her mind”; “speaking in a gentle and respectful way” (144).
- Warns against saying anything negative about your husband to others, even if true, (55) making it more difficult to seek help if she is in danger, as well as erasing any opportunity for the husband to repent or take accountability.
- Insists that a woman whose husband is “unfaithful, irresponsible, deceptive, drunk, or out of control” must still work towards reconciliation (97), and if he rages or hits her, she must still repent of her bitterness and forgive (97). Declares divorce is “not an option” (197) and a wife would be “rebellious” to divorce (98).
- Church discipline, rather than calling the authorities, is the first recourse for an abused wife. Comforts a wife in an abusive marriage with the thought that perhaps God will strike him dead (245).
STIGMATIZES EMOTIONAL AWARENESS AND MENTAL HEALTHCARE
- Equates seeking professional mental health care with lapsed faithfulness (2-3).
- Teaches that emotional pain can be removed by remaining hopeful for change when harmed, or by seeing the blessing of suffering for righteousness sake (92).
- States that feeling fear or sadness, even when justified by the circumstance, is a sign of lack of trust in God; feeling overwhelmed with sorrow is sinful (239).
WHAT WOMEN HAVE SAID
“The church had me read this book when I went for counseling when my husband became abusive. I stayed in that marriage for seven more years. It wasn’t until he went after me while I was holding my newborn that I finally had the courage to leave. This book started me thinking his treatment of me was my fault.”
“This book made me feel like God hates women in general, and made me wrong in particular. My inability to do femininity “right” made my marriage instability my fault, and implied I was just not good enough to be loved. I deserved mistreatment and loneliness. I didn’t want to live.”
“I grew up in financial distress because this book convinced my mom not to work.”
“It didn’t spur me on to be a better wife, it made me feel hopeless and guilty.”
“This book twisted Scripture for me when I was a new believer, teaching me that enabling narcissistic abuse was godly. It taught me that my husband’s sin and walk with God were my responsibility.”
SYNOPSIS OF FINDINGS
With an overwhelming emphasis on “submission” as the most important role for women, The Excellent Wife teaches women to sacrifice their own values, callings, and well-being for the sake of their husbands’ whims. The book teaches women not to trust their own feelings of fear, anger, or sadness. While it is stuffed with Bible verses on obedience and giving up rights, it ignores Jesus’ messages of compassion, care and justice. Requiring women to return blessings for hurt and return to the marriage even when a husband is evil and abusive, the book traps women in marriages that endanger them and their children. This book “breaks bruised reeds” rather than bringing healing.
INSTEAD OF THE EXCELLENT WIFE, CHOOSE…
Boundaries in Marriage
by Henry Cloud and John Townsend
The Emotionally Destructive Marriage
by Leslie Vernick
Is It Me? Making Sense of Your Confusing Marriage
by Natalie Hoffman
The Great Sex Rescue
by Sheila Wray Gregoire, Rebecca Lindenbach, and Joanna Sawatsky
I can’t remember if I actually read this book or not, but, boy, did I hear this teaching somewhere. I tried to fight it, but I ended up living a lot of it.
Could we talk about the “Eve was deceived” argument? I have been wrestling with this. My husband deceived me for 30 years. I feel so much shame in typing that sentence. But as I’ve wrestled, I’ve realized that it wasn’t my fault I was deceived. It was his. I confronted him regularly. I asked for the truth. I asked him where he’d been, and I looked for evidence because I suspected the truth in my heart. However, my husband was a liar.
So whose sin are we really talking about? His. Period. I tried to get to the truth, but he wouldn’t let me.
When I think about Eve being deceived and her immediate confession to God when asked about it, I’m very confused as to why theologians see this as sin. Did she disobey God? Yes, by eating. Was she tricked? Yes. Perhaps it should end there, but men have developed a huge theology around women based on Eve. Adam was there, heard directly from God, sinned, and then blame shifted.
This is an honest question. Thoughts, anyone?
In my mind, Eve did sin in eating the fruit. Simply because we are tricked doesn’t mean me didn’t do the wrong. Having been tricked muddies the waters but it still happened. She knew they were not to eat of that tree.
My hang up is where many seem to think Eve’s was the greater sin? Adam heard directly from God not to eat, he was there when Eve was tricked, so where was Adam’s love for Eve in this? I feel like Eve’s heart (desire to know what God knew) was more pure than Adam’s complacency.
Check out the Tru316 project. They have done a ton of research on Genesis 3 and the implications for women. They have a podcast, books and articles and I’ve found it really helpful.
I found Katherine C. Bushnell’s “God’s Word to Women” to be very informative and helpful on the subject. She has much to say on the dynamics of The Garden narrative and what transpired within it. Women have been the scapegoat for so very long. It is about time that we, the daughters of Eve, know our value deep in our bones. So deep, that we never again forget. I am forever grateful to her and all she contributed to the body of Christ. Her insights were instrumental in helping me escape years of abuse. I pray her insights set others free as well. I am so very sorry for the deception and lies you have endured. I hope you have found your way to a safer place.
This is basically Bruce Fleming’s take in Tru316. Eve was deceived, but Adam deliberately sinned.
I’m not sure where I fall on that one!
It does say in the NT that Adam was not deceived. However, what different groups make of the implications of that idea is where things diverge. The groups I came from used that as an argument in favor of male headship. I.e. He wasn’t deceived, so men should be in charge. They leave out the fact that he was not deceived and still chose to eat.
There is a huge difference between knowing better and not choosing better (many men) vs. wanting to chose better, and seeking to choose better (seems to be where the tempter got to Eve), and falling for the wrong message (like Martha Peace’s book, that’s what happened to me–all these false promises of a being an excellent wife if you just follow these teachings).
Eve sinned because she didn’t believe God. She liked the idea of knowing more and being like God. But your absolutely right man sined just as much if not more in that garden. Both are at fault, but the number of men and churches that blame the women is sickening.
Jen, my take on it is this: Early Christian (male) theologians struggled a lot to work out their interpretation of the sin in the Garden. Not just who was responsible (Adam or Eve or the serpent), but the other implications, like “If eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil doomed humanity, is knowledge bad?”
As I read their lengthy debates, their discussion comes across to me as a type of what we call in linguistics a “back-formation” (when someone makes up an incorrect etymology for a word based on a faulty understanding of that word’s origins) – (usually) well-meaning Christian male leaders were mystified at the chasm between what God created – equal males and females – and how, by many canonical and non-canonical accounts, Jesus lived and practiced his faith, with both male and female close disciples – and the historical and current state of male-female relations, whereby women were subjugated and abused.
They settled on a few different explanations:
1. This was God’s original plan (that men dominate women)
1.a. Therefore, only men are made in God’s image; women were defective or a lesser category of being from the start
2. This was not God’s original plan, i.e. humans were created equal, but sin caused the gender inequality we see today;
2.a. Therefore, the reason women have been subjugated and abused is because women sinned first or committed a worse type of sin
Trying to re-invent Christian theology to justify gender domination resulted in variations of both #1 and #2 above (and is of the exact same flavor as people who re-invented Christian theology to justify slavery).
But this was not the theology of Jesus’s teachings or the earliest Christian groups. Paul said, “in Christ, there is no male or female.” Women led church communities, were missionaries and patrons and deacons, disciples, teachers, writers, saints, and martyrs. Women were over-represented in many early church congregations – one early church, as recorded by the belongings they had to relinquish during persecution, had 3-4 times as many women’s baptismal outfits as men’s. Throughout Christian history, starting at the very beginning, Christian women rejected the patriarchal secular restraints on their humanity by remaining unmarried/virgins, by congregating freely with other women and men, by founding religious communities, by pursuing education and property ownership, by writing religious works, by rejecting arranged marriages that treated them and their offspring as property owned by others.
Male leaders, both inside and outside the church – i.e. those who wielded religious power as a weapon of their politics – were alarmed by the power Christian women had. Many of them sought from early on to shove women back in the box that secular societies built around them. Part of that involved creating theological “reasons” why the church was right to subjugate women. The frequent edicts, excommunications, debates, and disputations about the subject suggest that Christian women were not so easily repressed.
In short: the idea that women are responsible alone for humanity’s sin; that women are naturally inferior or more sinful in any way; etc – these ideas were not taught or practiced by Jesus, but were invented well after his death by male theologians. We can feel confident rejecting these ideas.
I don’t think Paul was intending to blame Eve for being deceived. My understanding of the context is that it seems there were a lot of former worshippers and priestesses of Artemis/Diana entering that particular church, and they brought with them their ideas about women and men from their previous religious background, namely that women (based on the Artemis cult and associated birth story) were more likely than men to be the fountain of knowledge and truth, and therefore, that these former priestesses should be the main teachers simply because they were women rather than the more mature believers (many of whom happened to be men).
From what I’ve heard, Paul is directly attacking this idea by reminding these former priestesses that: 1) Adam was made first (rather than Artemis being born first); and 2) that our first matriarch was decieved (meaning that women are not inherently more knowledgeable than men). The point isn’t “women are bad because of Eve” but rather “Artemis doesn’t mean that women are better than men.”
I have also heard this, and it makes sense.
Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam was deceived also, since he was right there with her (even though the Serpent only spoke to Eve). They both sinned, in that they disobeyed God’s direct command, but as you say, they told God as soon as they saw Him.
I’ve seen (not here, but elsewhere) some people disputing the part of the verse that says “Adam, who was there with her” and claim that Adam really wasn’t there.
When I saw the title of the post, I thought “Okay, that’s a book”, then I guessed that it should probably be called “The Excellent Doormat”.
“The Excellent Doormat.”
Good one!
One more comment about the original sin story.
Each tried to shift blame. Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent.
God punished all three (Serpent must slither on the ground, Eve will have painful childbirth, Adam must work and sweat to earn a living). God didn’t just blame Eve for being non-submissive. All three were responsible for their own acts.
Nathan – consider this statement: God did not punish Adam and Eve. He cursed the ground and loved both Adam and Eve. Their consequences from their lie was they allowed evil in and because of that God will love them through their toil. He loves us. GOD NEVER PUNISHES US. EVER! HE ONLY LOVES US. <——period. Please accept my capital letters as passion for my statement not anger or force, thank you. The follow up verses is that God provided a shield clothes for Adam and Eve from evil (their nakedness). Not that nakedness is evil but it is when it’s not with your wife right? That shield/clothing is love. This to me is the forecast of the real shield-JESUS. That is my Jesus interpretation.
I don’t think Eve “blamed” the serpent. It was a simple statement of fact that the serpent had deceived her and she ate. I think the trope of “Adam blamed Eve and Eve ‘blamed’ the serpent” is just another way male theologians have invented to put Eve down, and we need to stop repeating the statement. She didn’t; she simply stated a truth.
Actually Eve didn’t blame shift, she told the truth. The serpent did deceive her. In fact God took his daughter at her word and immediately turned to curse the serpent for its attack on his children. Eve also wasn’t cursed with painful childbirth: she was given the same prophecy that the she would have sorrowful toil of the cursed ground but also that she would still have multiplied conception. God didn’t curse Adam either, but the ground. All if humanity has had to struggle against the cursed ground from that day to this. Why would god give Eve extra penalty with suffering in childbirth when he knew she would also be struggling with the ground alongside her husband? He didn’t. The actual Hebrew shows Gid gave her both sorrowful toil (of the ground) AND multiplied conception. For more on this, look up the work of scholars such as Bruce Fleming of the Tru316 Foundation.
“States that women are “more easily deceived” (17), though the Bible only ever states that Eve was deceived.”
If Adam wasn’t deceived, what does that say about his character??? Let’s think this one through.
Eve genuinely thinks the fruit is good and healthy, so she eats it (against God’s command).
Adam knows perfectly well that the fruit is not healthy, lets Eve be his guinea pig, and then takes a bite because he’s curious.
And this line of reasoning is supposed to reflect badly on women? Interesting.
What is the deal with people who think women are just sex robots that also do household chores? It’s dehumanizing. And why do they think a fellow sinner should be treated like Jesus just for having a male reproductive system. And I hope she’s not trying to justify her own situation as the ideal norm!
Ha, The Excellent Doormat is an excellent title for this book! Thank you, Sheila and team, for finally covering this one. I know it doesn’t have the big glossy publishing look and numbers behind it, but this book is so toxic. A friend gave it to me when I was still single at one church and then my next church prescribed it for premarital counseling as I was preparing to marry my husband. Both times I read parts of the book and felt in my bones that this couldn’t be good advice and I didn’t want to be such a saccharine sweet sycophant to a husband. (*Everything* spoken to the husband has to be couched in sickening sweetness lest he be disrespected.) Reliving this book through the review makes me shudder—so glad I didn’t follow this book’s directives!
“Having desires for a good marriage is seen as incompatible with truly desiring Jesus.”
Do the folks writing and promoting stuff like this realize they are creating an impression of Jesus that is utterly undesirable?
Remember the interview with Scott Coley a few weeks ago? Well I got his book and this is exactly what it is about. This is propaganda: reasoning that appeals to some value, in service to an agenda that undermines the very value it purports to uphold. This book sounds like it could have been a case study for his argument. Selective use of scripture to uphold preferred social arrangements? Check. Eerie parallels of the arguments for women’s submission and past justifications for race-based slavery and segregation? Check. Seeing scripture as primarily about who submits to whom? Check.
One thing that crossed my mind during this discussion was this—if those coming from a broadly complementarian view think wives are to submit but equally believe that husbands are supposed to sacrificially love, why does there seem to be no books emphasizing the husband’s role? Perhaps there are a plethora of books on the subject that I’m unaware of, but my impression is that there are many books assuming that wives are always failing to submit and demanding that they do so but little to no books demanding husbands to sacrifice their desires out of love for their wife. That seems telling.
“Comforts a wife in an abusive marriage with the thought that perhaps God will strike him dead (245).”
What
Agreed! Wow!
So… women are to treat their husbands essentially as their own personal gods (” she is to glorify her husband, not God (49, 51″) because husbands must be hearing from God because that is the created order or something, yet wives may find comfort in God possibly striking dead our own individual “god?” How does that make any sense to the author???
When my ex and I separated in 2009 ( for what turned out to be 13 months,) this is the “help” that was offered by my church, along with several sessions of “counseling” both on the book and focused on the “idols of the heart.” No true comfort, no talk about what happened, no practical or financial help. I found much more practical help through Divorce Care. ( Though they too encourage one to take responsibility in their part of the breakup.) I did not finish reading the book, but as it lived for years in my closet before I threw it away, I was nauseous every time I saw that cutesy lace cover. And I generally like lace. What I DO remember from that book is that basically if I were a better wife , we wouldn’t have the problems we had. That’s how I would have described my experience at the time. Not what the problems were: abuse. My ex even referred to sexual intimacy as my “wifey duty.” You can perhaps imagine how this idea of his led me to learn disassociation.i know know what those experiences were: marital rape. I was ” love bombed” into returning. We had our second child in 2011, and divorced in 2015. I’ve been free for ten years since he left. Divorce was terrible for the kids in many ways, but set me free.
I’m so sorry that the church only made things worse, Reba. That grieves me so much. I’m glad you’re safe now.
Yes, and hoping/wishing that God would strike another person dead is presented as being more healthy than seeking a divorce and escape from a toxic marriage.
Wrong on so many levels!
For years when I would read books like this, my take away would be, “why on earth would anyone want to be married?” It’s such a low view of marriage, eliminating relationship completely in favor of roles.
I’ve become increasingly convinced that the biggest problem in evangelicslism today is perpetual gaslighting to deny the compleye absence of healthy relational skills and practices.
I completely and utterly agree.
This podcast was eye-opening to me. I read this book and then led a women’s book study on it for our church ladies in my home in 2005. I didn’t pick up on any of this! My husband was a wonderful, kind man and we had a good marriage. Yet I could be very hard-headed at times, as could he, and I felt the conviction of the Holy Spirit when I read this book to practice humility, check my heart, and not be selfish by demanding things be my way. When she explained how many arguments are rooted in selfishness, a lightbulb went off for me, and I desired to be more humble.
I do remember feeling frustrated because not all arguments are about what color to paint the kitchen, but about things like how to educate our children, are we going to celebrate Halloween, are we going to allow sleep-overs, and things of that nature. But, as your guests said, she provided a formula for women to follow so that they would have God-honoring happy marriages and I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Just give me the rule book and I’ll follow it. Same with raising children. You are absolutely right, Sheila, it is the prosperity gospel. “Do things this way, and God will bless you.” I relied on the formula and my performance, instead of the guidance of the Holy Spirit unfortunately.
I’m going to have to go back and read through some of this book with different eyes.
Do churches, “counsellors” (who endorse this unspeakable horror) NOT KNOW HOW MANY WOMEN ARE KILLED by intimate partners EVERY year??!! And if this is the END of the continuum, think of the suffering prior. These same “authorities” should be challenging these teachings and saying ZERO tolerance. I’m so sad and discouraged these books are published let alone read and endorsed. Where are the teachers, pastors counsellors besides “Bare Marriage” who should also be denouncing this???!!!
This book did so much damage to me. spiraled into the worst place of my life because of this book. I was near suicidal. Left my church last year because this was the book I was given there when I was deeply hurting in my marriage. Opened my eyes to what my church thought of women and how deeply troubling it was. Took years of therapy to undo the damage this book did to me personally.
I’m so sorry, Laura! It does take so much to disentangle.