Summary: A man’s wife is disobeying her biblical obligation to sleep with him because he won’t do chores. He develops a porn addiction. She takes off her ring and starts flirting up another man for after her planned divorce. He buys her everything in the world. She forgives him. We get a nice speech about how things will work this time because instead of a contract, their marriage is now a covenant (a word that means contract).
Welcome to the Western church. There is no distribution of blame. There is no sober-eyed judgement. There is no need to be faithful to your vows if you are a woman — if you are unfaithful, it was the man’s fault for not romancing you enough.
Everything is all the man’s fault all the time. Period.
See also Courageous, in which a very good message (Dads should be role-models involved in their kids’ life) is set in a world where women are always right and all problems are due to the default insufficiency of the men in their lives.
Not saying the reverse is true: that men are perfect and women are evil, or that men are victims and women are villains.
Just pointing out three or four truths:
- Men and women are both human, and humans are intrinsically evil, regardless of reproductive apparatus.
- Marriage is a contract. Breaking contracts, however you feel about the laundry, is evil.
- The Bible makes it quite clear that divorce is always evil (it is occasionally a lesser or necessary evil, but never a non-evil).
- The reason the church needs a special word (Covenant) to signify a contract that is holy is because it now assumes without thinking that normal contracts do not need to be kept.
I may, perhaps with some justice, be accused of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would rather fancy that I am trying to fish the baby out of the toxic waste barrel, because I am not discarding the intended messages (Husbands love your wives, and fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, etc…), but objecting to the fact that the basic message is drowning in pool of anti-biblical assumptions. Fireproof more than Courageous, though. Courageous’ femolatry can be excused as it is a story about the dads, and their wives and children need not be as nuanced. Fireproof, on the other hand, takes a Powerful Stand Against Divorce with an underlying assumption that divorce is quite alright if the woman isn’t perfectly happy. A never addressed, never refuted, always ignored assumption.