Book Review: Loveology–discussion of marriage and sex from a soft-complementarian

Loveology: God. Love. Marriage. Sex. and the Never-Ending Story of Male and Female. by John Mark Comer
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

From an Egalitarian: Some very good points and some questionable ones.

Loveology, by John Mark Comer, is a study of what the Bible teaches about love and intimate relationships from one theological perspective. I say this because the Mr. Comer writes from a soft-complementarian position in regards to gender roles. He holds to conservative positions on marriage and family, sexual practices, and LGBTQ issues. However, in my reading of the book, he does not appear quite so rigid when it comes to his hermeneutics of the Bible. He takes a position that is much open to reading text through cultural lenses, making evaluations on whether what is found is descriptive or prescriptive, and where it does not conflict with what he perceives as non-negotiable "truths" he will take into account present-day culture for application purposes.

As one who takes egalitarian positions and gender questions and as one who takes a far more progressive hermeneutic, I find it difficult to assign this book a rating. If I take the position of his intended audience - moderately conservative evangelicals - I'd rate this in the four to five (out of five) range. Rating it from my personal perspective and usefulness to me, it would fall to around three because I did not think he engaged opposing viewpoints sufficiently. Mr. Comer provides endnotes, and I wished he would have provided more counterpoints and arguments there, if not in the main body of the text.

That said, there were several good points that were made that did not rely on or connote gender roles or sexual orientations.

Mr. Comer lays a good foundation when he introduces love as both feeling and action. I think that Christians are sometimes fearful of feelings and are afraid to make positive comments about them. Here, caveats are provided, but feelings are affirmed as a good and necessary part of love. To be human is to have emotions. We were created to love, and emotions are a part of who we are.

Mr. Comers offers four reasons for marriage as it was originally intended by God: Friendship, Gardening (vocational partnership in the journey of life), Sex, and Family. There may be quibbles about some of the details that are found in the book, but overall these make good sense.

Some other valuable points he makes include
• There is no "one" person that will complete you
• Don't idolize childlessness or having children
• Don't think either marriage or singleness are God's preference
• Don't marry for the purpose of achieving happiness
• Sex is good - it's from God - it's to be enjoyed

Where things get problematic is when Mr. Comer writes about gender roles. It actually starts out well about a fifth of the way into the book. He discusses the term ezer as an equal helper, and that the term is also used of God. But just around the halfway mark in his discussion of the Song of Songs, he makes the observations that women want men to take them away and for men to chase after them, as described in the poetry. From here he draws the conclusion that it is man's job to lead things, including romance. He bases this conclusion also on the creation order found in Genesis 2. He does clarify that "to lead" does not mean to boss, to dominate, etc. He reminds readers that the Bible has been used to excuse abuses.

A few chapters later Mr. Comer devotes a whole chapter to gender differences and roles. He writes that historically women have been treated badly based on gender stereotypes, but that is no reason to throw out all the ideas about gender differentiation, including the idea that God designed and created into human genders different roles. He acknowledges that God is genderless and that feminine descriptions are attributed to God. He even agrees that "feminist" can be a good term. But based on his interpretation of the creation account, he concludes that because Adam (the man) was created first and given the command to work the earth, it is the male gender's responsibility to lead. He reads this same idea into Paul's writings. He reads the Genesis 2 account as a literal, historical even that is applicable to all subsequent marriages.

At the beginning I noted that I perceived Mr. Comer as a soft-complementarian. I say this because he specifically limits male leadership to marriage and (possibly - it is not clear from his writing) the church (although if you look up the church that he leads, you will only see men in the leadership positions). He acknowledges that the command to "rule the earth" and "to be fruitful and multiply" apply equally to men and women, but that men were created to lead.

In the following chapter he tacitly introduces the counterargument that gender roles are a result of the Fall, but dismisses it without much explanation. He writes that the curse of the Fall was not that gender roles themselves became skewed and corrupt, but that their applications became corrupt so that men began to domineer over and abuse women. In discussing Ephesians 5 and the household codes, he describes how Paul's version is different from traditional ones encountered during that time; that how radical it was in assigning responsibility to those higher on the hierarchy to care for and respect those on the lower rungs. But he continues to see the household codes and the command for submission ("Wives, submit…") as still precisely and literally applicable as it was written. He defends his conclusions by giving the traditional response that if a husband truly respects and loves his wife in a self-giving way, the wife will have no problem submitting. He acknowledges that churches have often been the worst places for women, but does not see the theology of gender roles as contributing to the problem.

The final chapter deals with sexual orientation - the LGBTQ issue. On this point Mr. Comer is far less nuanced. He acknowledges that churches have treated non-heterosexual people badly. He acknowledges that sex should not the biggest "sin" issue in Christianity. He does not view homosexual orientation as sin, but it is sin to act upon it. He differentiates between "who you are" and "what you do." I feel he does disservice to himself by parroting cliché arguments and failing to engage both the science and the complexities inherent. In his arguments, particularly in the discussion of sexual orientation, I see Mr. Comer falling into the trap of logical fallacies, especially that of the "slippery slope" in order to make his arguments.

For me, I found about the first half of the book to contain useful elements. The last half, although interesting to read the arguments for theologies of complementarianism and heterosexual-only marriages, it was something that I did not find useful otherwise.

The intended audience, as I noted earlier, seems to be moderately conservative evangelicals who hold to a more nuanced interpretation of scripture than a strict literalist reading. Those who hold to a very literal reading, and fundamentalists, will have some points of large disagreements. And likewise, as I have described, progressive and liberal Christians will have points of agreement but will likely be turned off by the gender and sexual orientation discussions.

(This review is based on an Advance Review Copy provided by the publisher through NetGalley.)

View all my reviews