The Transactional Marriage, Part I
What would you think of a book for the poor, explaining what they need to do in order to get people to give them money? A book that recommended, for example, that the poor person be sure to dress up in raggedy clothes? That he fall on his knees when he receives alms and pray aloud a prayer thanking God for his benefactor? “A person is more inclined to give of his hard-earned dollars,” such a book might instruct, “if he sees that he’s going to get some genuine thanks out of it.”
Or what about a book explaining to husbands what they need to do to get their wives to respect them? A book that tells husbands to make sure they always act as if they have no doubts, and to be sure not to knuckle under to anyone when their wives are watching? “Wear a tie around the house,” it might advise, “so you look more authoritative. And never admit that you are afraid. It’s harder to respect someone who is fearful, after all.”
What would you say, further, if you learned that such books were marketed as guides for Christian behavior?
You wouldn’t know whether to laugh or cry, would you? Yet this is a trend in advice books for Christian women. Consider Gary Thomas’ Sacred Influence: How God Uses Wives to Shape the Souls of Their Husbands, for example, which advises the Christian wife to think like an adulteress:
“If you’ve stopped caring whether you’re ‘good in bed,’ then you’re giving less effort to your marriage than many a mistress would give to her adultery. Does that attitude honor God?”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen, in an ostensibly Christian book, a statement more theologically errant, more offensive to logic, more contemptuous of women, or more reprehensible in its characterization of marriage and God. Stop scheming for better sex techniques, it says, and you are worse than a whore. The logic is positively Orwellian. I’m sure that’s not what Thomas believes about wives who have not been attentive to their sexual prowess, but that’s what his words mean.
Another book on the shelf in your local Christian lifestyle store advises the wife to reach into her husband’s pants for change, and to linger awhile. Others admonish wives, in less graphically repugnant detail but with the same spirit, to work overtime at being seductive so that their husbands won’t commit adultery.
It’s a sickening state we’ve reached, when adultery is not only so common, but when much of what passes for Christian counsel effectively blames the victim.
One might object that many such books don’t pitch their advice as a means of warding off adultery, but simply as guides to help wives keep their husbands engaged in the marriage. That has the same ring of truth as when tobacco companies insist that they don’t want teenagers getting hooked on nicotine, but even if true, it misses the mark entirely.
It misses the mark because a godly marriage is not transactional. If we allow into our thinking a calculus that says: I must do so-and-so to get such-and-such in return, then we have become hopelessly pagan in our thinking. And we should not be surprised when divorce rates in churches mirror that of their surrounding communities.
Later this week I’ll offer some thoughts on what ought to replace the Transactional Marriage model. In between, perhaps we should all spend some time praying for every betrayed or fearful woman who has felt salt poured into her wounds by one of these books.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top24 Comments to “The Transactional Marriage, Part I”
Tony, while I agree that there are terrible books marketed to Christian husbands and wives, Gary Thomas’ excellent Sacred Marriage and Sacred Influence are NOT “Transactional Marriage” tomes. You do a grave disservice to Mr. Thomas and to your readers in misquoting the excerpt AND taking it out of context. The text you “quoted” reads:
“Think about your past week. How much effort have you put into really pleasing your husband, into bringing joy and happiness into his life? Have you given it a single thought? If not, go back a month. How many times in the past four weeks have you made this a matter of prayerful concern? If you can’t remember the last time you actively strove to please your husband, if you’ve stoppped caring whether you’re “good in bed,” then you’re giving less effort to your marriage than many a mistress would give to her adultery. Does that attitude honor God?”
Report comment to moderator
When will “Dr. Laura” become a Christian? This post reminds me a bit of her radio show and books. She’s given up the ultra-orthodox Jew bit, so evangelicalism seems like the logical next step for her.
Report comment to moderator
IMHO, we need fewer self help books about marriage and a little more study of God’s Word to see what the author of marriage has to say about it. He has a lot to say about almost every aspect of marriage, including sex. (see Song of Songs) While He doesn’t go into graphic details for us, he made us smart enough to see how we anatomically fit together. He also gave us imaginations. The entire New Testament has much to say about relationship maintenance.
He has a lot to say about infidelity, divorce, finances (a major cause of strife in marriage), priorities (another cause of strife), child rearing, etc. In fact there is much to glean about every aspect of life, most especially those which affect marriage.
It wouldn’t hurt to learn and understand what marriage is supposed to be (a reflection of Christ and the church) and what it is not supposed to be (you fulfilling all of my worldly romantic fantasies that I may have bought into). Also what true love (agape, storge, phileo, eros) is and isn’t and how it is and in the case of eros isn’t illustrated and demonstrated in the Bible.
It also wouldn’t hurt to see that God Himself is divorced (gasp!) and why He hates divorce.
Report comment to moderator
Self help manuals originally appeared in 19th Century England parallel to religious revival and the industrial revolution. Both blamed the individual for failure and/or sin which both considered to be the same thing. Not surprisingly, the neo-con age in America has also seen a rise in self help. In many ways religious self help and capitalist economics compliment each other yet compete against each other.
Report comment to moderator
Self-help books were brought into being en masse by liberals and feminists trying to supplant the word of God in the past four decades. That’s who brought us this nonsense, as usual.
Report comment to moderator
DaphMatt,
I don’t believe I’ve treated Thomas unfairly. Those are his words, and the meaning (which is not, as I said, what I think he believes) is clear. As for taking him out of context, let’s consider the chapter in which this quote falls. It’s about a mistress of Louis XV. “I am not exonerating Jeanne-Antoinette’s morals,” Thomas explains, “But I am applauding her effort!”
And let’s examine the context in which Thomas applauds this French mistress. He does so right after he tells his reader:
“When you stop trying to please your man, eventually, by degrees, you lose him; or at the least, you lose the intimacy that leads to influence. You become something other than the person he married, and the two of you begin to drift apart.”
There’s no misquoting Thomas in this chapter. His message is clear: take notes on how the French mistress got ahead of all the other concubines, and apply it in your marriage. That is precisely the Transactional Marriage worldview that I’m talking about.
Thomas is of two minds (as are many Christians), because he clearly recognizes here (and more obviously in Sacred Marriage that the marriage union is for God’s glorification, and for our sanctification. But his language and examples are infused with the mentality that says: do X and Y to get A and B out of your spouse. I believe that is wrongheaded, and offers an errant view of Biblical marriage.
Report comment to moderator
“God himself is divorced…”
Where in the Bible did you find that, Klasko?
Report comment to moderator
On the self-help book idea–
Most Christian books these days are really just religious takes on Dr. Phil and whatnot. These books confirm it … Klasko, I think, makes a good point in suggesting we need more books on Scripture.
Once we really understand God–and understand what he has done for us–then everything else will fall into place. The Bible supercedes all self-help books, and it is a personal introduction, God to man, not a self-help manual of any kind.
Report comment to moderator
NJL — the self help movement started in England during the early years of the industrial revolution. The first self-help guru was Samuel Smiles and his book Self-help (1859) which sold over a quarter of a million books when he died in 1904. The first sentence “heaven helps those who help themselves” tells you that he favors Franklin rather than Marx. Originally in favor of parliamentary reform, universal suffrage, etc, he gave up and focused on individual self help. Although endorsed by the bourgeoisie, he gained a mixed reception from socialist and outright hostility in the later years. He also wrote Character (1871), Thrift (1875), Duty (1880), Life and Labour (1887), if you wish to apply those traits to modern feminist I’m sure they would appreciate it. A modern American origin is Dale Carnegie — whom I’m sure was not a socialist. And even today, the vast majority of self help comes from the perspective of “you, too, can be rich” not a analysis of an oppressive system.
Report comment to moderator
Tony – I understand what you’re saying about the concept of “Transactional Marriage”, & why the concept is wrong.
However, I do believe that both spouses should give much thought to how they are treating the other, trying to make each other feel loved, appreciated, valued, & honored.
On the other hand, for the spouse whose needs/wants are not being met, that is not an “out”. The ignored/neglected spouse must still do their part, & find their identity & security in God.
Report comment to moderator
Karen,
I agree with your point. It’s what I’ll try to halfway competently articulate in my next essay, that we certainly should pour ourselves out for our spouses — but not with an eye toward what it will get us in return.
Report comment to moderator
The point HRW is that Dale Carnegie was no neo-con either. And in the past 40 years, it has been mostly liberals who wanted to offer up some psychobabble garbage that got the latest crop going. Now everyone does it, and as Klasko notes, people ought to be looking to the Scriptures for answers. It is liberals who have provided all the alternatives to the Bible because they don’t want to follow what’s in it.
Report comment to moderator
Karen, very nice post.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Ephesians 5
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad you asked, JBH.
A reading of the prophet Ezekiel in chapter 16 shows God in an allegorical marriage with Israel, entering into covenant with her and becoming one flesh with her as in marriage (v.8), and her subsequent adultery (verses 15,17-19, 24-29, 32-34). She provoked Him to anger (v. 26) and He was jealous (v.38)
God further describes his wife’s adulteries in Jeremiah 2; He was a faithful husband. She had polluted the land by playing the harlot and He even says in Jer 3:1 that divorce and remarriage pollutes the land, and yet He still wanted his wife back after her adulteries.
“And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.” Jer 3:8
She dealt treacherously with Him and He gave her the divorce she wanted. (That was the captivity of Israel by Assyria and the captivity of Judah by Babylon.)
The good news is that His heart was for Israel’s restoration, illustrated by Judah’s return from captivity and by the prophetic story of Hosea and Gomer.
Report comment to moderator
JBH – that was the Reader’s Digest condensed version.
Report comment to moderator
#12
Presenting non-biblical solutions does not make a self help book liberal or socialist. The simple fact is that self help at its root is based on a philosophy of individual responsibility for material failure or success, hence its criticism from the left.
Personally I agree its non-biblical but I also claim capitalism at its root is non-biblical and at times contradictory with biblical claims. Capitalism and capitalist economist like self help because it dismisses responsibility for the rich and the capitalist for any poverty. Its a blame the poor ethos.
Report comment to moderator
The Purpose of Marriage is to Conform You to the Image of Christ
(Paul Washer)
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7708223601
Don’t miss this one either!
What’s Wrong with American ‘Christianity’ – by Paul Washer
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91907553144
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
If we were totally mature Christians, we would always do things for our spouses (and others) and not need the resulting return to ourselves. But none of us is totally mature. Often the desire of a return is what gets us to do the right thing.
Think of the commandment in Exodus 20:12. “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land…” In this and many other passages in scripture God tells us of a promised return (or consequence to avoid) to further encourage us to do the right thing. So what is so wrong when a Christian author does the same thing?
What about Luke 16 where Jesus admonishes us to be shrewd like the unjust steward? Is this example that you quote from Gary Thomas much different than the one that Jesus used? Jesus is not encouraging us to be unjust and Gary, I assume, in not encouraging the wife to be a whore. But is in not in the wife’s interest (and also the interest of the husband and any kids, relatives and friends) to encourage her husband to look to her for any sexual gratification?
Yes, our culture and most Christians are overly concerned about themselves and sexual stimuli, but it seams that you are being overly critical to make a point.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
you state “If we allow into our thinking a calculus that says: I must do so-and-so to get such-and-such in return, then we have become hopelessly pagan in our thinking. And we should not be surprised when divorce rates in churches mirror that of their surrounding communities.”
I think that you are looking at this incorrectly. There many aspects in life where we do things in order to get a return. And often if we don’t do the required so-and-so we will not get the desired result.
The main problem is not when we think that we must do a good thing, but when we start thinking that when we do it we are owed the desired return. Or if we start thinking: if I do so-and-so I WILL ALWAYS get such-and-such in return. It would be much better to think if I do so-and-so, GOD WILLING, I WILL get such-and-such in return. Then we will be more likely to focus on God, his will and power over us and our circumstances, and his desire for us to do good things.
Report comment to moderator
Another of the problems with the thinking ‘if I do so-and-so I WILL ALWAYS get such-and-such in return’ is that we often ignore the many other things that we do or do not do that lead to other results. We see life (and God) like a big coin operated machine where we put our quarter in and pull the lever and get what we want. We are in control and in charge of everything.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Fuzzyface.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been thinking more about this subject. What I wrote above, in #10, is the ideal, but – being human – we don’t always act according to the ideal.
We tend to think of “If I do such & such, then I’ll get so & so,” as being manipulative. But I find my own thinking to be that if I don’t do such & such, then I don’t deserve so & so. Although I know better, I sometimes tend to think I need to earn my husband’s love & appreciation.
Report comment to moderator
Fuzzy,
I’m hesitant to reply, out of hope that if you keep commenting you’ll work your way around to agreeing with me.
I certainly don’t deny that people respond to incentives. And you are right that God repeatedly explicates the blessings and curses that attend obedience and disobedience. It is a stretch, however, to argue that we are therefore enjoined to create similar incentives in our marriages. The blessings/curses of God reflect the boundaries and properties of his Law, covenant, and natural order. They draw His people to Him. The purpose of marriage is, likewise, that man might glorify, enjoy, and draw closer to God. When we introduce incentives into the relationship, we put that purpose of marriage aside, that the marriage might serve our ends. We also expect our partners to have concommitant thinking, for if they are responding to our incentives, rather than to God’s call (which must be its own incentive), then they have likewise adopted the attitude of self-service.
As for the parable of the shrewd servant, you’ve chosen perhaps the most difficult, from an exegetical point of view, parable in the Bible, the meaning of which is debatable. Even if we accept that Christ’s point was to admonish shrewdness in our dealings with others, it is still undeniable that the point of shrewdness is service to God, not service to self.
As for Thomas’s intentions, I stressed that there is a difference, I am sure, between what he believes and what his words mean. But his words are straightforward:
If you’ve stopped caring whether you’re ‘good in bed,’ then you’re giving less effort to your marriage than many a mistress would give to her adultery.”
Regardless of what Thomas meant to say, those words mean that the wife who is not attending to her sexual prowess is putting less effort into her marriage than a whore puts into adultery. There are so many things wrong with this claim that I’ll just take one here. Notice how it equates a woman’s sexual enthusiasm with her effort in the marriage. Never mind that she may be going out of her way to raise children, pray for her husband, feed and care for him and stroke his fragile ego — unless she’s “getting it done in the sack,” the rest of it counts for nothing.
Again, I’m sure Thomas doesn’t mean that, but it’s what his words mean. And that’s a destructive message.
I think your points in comments 19 and 20 are dead on, namely, that there is a big problem when we begin to think that by virtue of our actions we are owed a response. My point is that counsel which encourages transactional thinking inevitably leads to that sense of entitlement, and to disappointment when the spouse doesn’t reciprocate as we’ve hoped.
Report comment to moderator
Though, a conservative Christian, I don’t buy into the notion men rule absolutely over their wives. In our forty-eight years of marriage my wife and I have had many issues that we’ve managed basically to work out respectfully and reasonably. We sometimes agree to disagree and decide to yield to one or the other. This might sound loose, though it works. I’ve done the same in managing a business, though either the senior or higher person settles the few seriously disputed matters. Even in the military as a Marine officer, I encouraged men to speak out as to what is best and mostly respected and yielded to strongly held and reasonable judgments of both enlisted men and junior officers.
In general one finds that the strongest and most secure people are willing to listen and judiciously yield to other strong and reasonable people around them.
I respect men and women who try to do their highest and best and don’t suffer any illusion that my judgment is ipso focto the best. I’ve been proved wrong often enough to know this.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!