Response to "The Tit-for-Tat Marriage."

       This post was written by Ken, and I'm probably going to skip over most of it. As anyone who has read Ken's writings will know, he tends to be very wordy. I'm not criticizing this, since I have the exact same problem! However, I want to focus on a few points he made that seem to be the most in need of a response. 

       Here is Ken's opening paragraph: 

 We live very much in a Tit-for-Tat world and this same mentality now permeates our churches. Although nothing could be further from the heart of the gospel of Christ than conditional love and behaviors, still far too many “Christian” couples are playing the tit-for-tat game trying to ensure “fairness” in their marriages. If you are all about ensuring that everything is fair for others, I get it and am with you to some extent. But if you are all about trying to make sure that you are treated the way you think you should be in your marriage, even putting on a frown, pout, and harsh words to even up the score, you are outside of living the Christian life.

       As we will see, Ken is very tricky with his words. He tries to make his views sound so elegant and reasonable, but hidden behind what he writes are many wrong and harmful assumptions that are designed to be invisible to the most vulnerable type of person. This is the primary skill of the manipulator: frame issues in a subtly vague or oversimplified way that plays off of an agreed-upon point, so that people will feel unreasonable for disagreeing. So, I agree with Ken that love should not be conditional, and the Gospel is not about merit. Frowns, pouts, and harsh words are a problem. But there is so much more here beneath the surface, as we will see. 

       He shares about a conversation he had with another man who asserted that while wives must submit, husbands must love their wives (of course, we know that the submission the Bible teaches is required by both husbands and wives and has nothing to do with obedience, but I don't have time to get into that here). Ken tells us he replied with  “I didn’t know that our obedience to God’s Word is conditional.” Of course, as Ken tells it, the man did not say anything of the sort, only that both spouses have obligations to each other. But this is how a cornered animal lashes out at those who get too close to uncovering the lies on which they have built their teachings. 

       Ken continues: 

As I started thinking about it more, I realized that one of the greatest harms to a marriage’s love and intimacy is this idea that I will do my part ONLY if you do yours. The egalitarian Christian marriage is far too based off of this false notion of Christianity that God only wants me to fulfill His commands and admonitions so long as I have equal say, equal rights, and most of all, you treat me the way I believe I am supposed to be treated. Certainly Egalitarians would not say it this way, but watch what happens when they feel mistreated.

Once again, we cannot help agree with some of Ken's points. Absolutely I should be kind to my wife even if she is not kind to me, and the other way around. We all have weak moments and should continue to love and have grace for each other through those moments, rather than reflecting back exactly what we receive. The problem, however, is that Ken sneakily inserts a mention of equal rights, equal say, and fair treatment. I know Ken and Lori bristle at mentions of abuse and wave them off as "exceptions" that have no bearing on the general "principles" they teach, but they are very real problems that must be addressed. Some types of advice will be good for most relationships but terrible for those in abusive ones, and it is our responsibility always to be clear about this to avoid causing harm. Let me be loud and clear: no one should feel as if they are betraying God or their spouse if they remove themselves from a harmful situation. And, thankfully, what is truly abusive or harmful is not up to Ken or Lori to decide. 

       Having said that, even for relationships in which abuse is not present, there is a balance to be maintained. Boundaries are healthy and necessary. If one spouse is consistently being treated unfairly (which is much more likely in a relationship that is built on authority structures, as Ken and Lori encourage), there is a point at which that spouse must put his or her foot down. Jesus said to "turn the other cheek", but we also all believe in the right of self-defense. We ought to have grace and a self-sacrificial posture toward one another, but that does not mean we can never stand up for ourselves. Ultimately, Ken doesn't seem to understand what love really is. Boundaries are part of loving someone. It is never loving to let them do whatever they want, as every parent knows. If you fail to hold your spouse accountable and resist their harmful behaviors, you are not loving them. You are enabling them. 

       As a side point, it's interesting to me that Ken is suggesting here that each spouse is responsible for only their part, and yet he and Lori frequently insist wives do their part in making their husband feel masculine or feel like a leader. For all his talk, he sure seems to require wives to do their part first. Ken even wrote a post once about how to discipline your wife if she isn't the way you'd like her to be! 

       Beyond this, I would also like to address Ken's deceptive misrepresentation of egalitarian marriage. Of course, there is nothing more natural than both spouses being equal and working together instead of one ruling over the other. As a result, those who insist on such unnatural marriage models as patriarchy must go to great lengths into deceiving their followers in order to achieve their agenda. Patriarchy simply cannot stand up to egalitarianism without some trickery (and, often, bullying). In addition to the above, Ken says the following regarding egalitarianism:

 Tit-for-Tat may be great for egalitarian marriages where each side keeps score on the big things to even them up, but in reality, things are never equal in any marriage because our roles and giftings are so different. 

I have an egalitarian marriage, and so do many others who are very happily married. Despite the rantings of Ken and Lori and others like them, egalitarianism really works. Their goal is to paint egalitarianism in a terrible light and insist that the patriarchal model is heaven on earth, but the facts do not support them. 

     Egalitarians do not believe in "tit-for-tat." Like I said earlier, I believe each spouse should be responsible  for themselves and treat the other well regardless of moments of weakness and bad days (within reason, of course, based on reasonable boundaries). Egalitarians do not believe in "keeping score." And Egalitarianism has nothing to do with believing God's commands are conditional upon how happy we are with how we are treated, as Ken said earlier. The truth is, egalitarianism is simply about mutual respect and acknowledgement of equality. Yes, Ken, things can be equal in marriage, despite different giftings. My wife and I play different roles in our family because we have different strengths and weaknesses, but why on earth does that qualify either of us to rule over the other? There is no logical reason it should, which is why Ken has to rely on eloquent words and inaccurate comparisons to pull the hood over our eyes. 

       In the end, Ken seems to think that love means permissiveness and enabling. It is truly concerning that someone who apparently counsels so many husbands still doesn't understand himself what love really is. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/the-tit-for-tat-marriage-2/