I am studying through this book. Though it has rave reviews on Goodreads, there are some problems that I am seeing with it. First off, and this is not insignificant, this is a husband/wife co-authorship. According to 1 Tim 2:12, a woman should not teach or exercise authority over a man. How is a man to know, when reading this book, whether he is being taught by Chad or by Emily? Secondly, it seems obvious to me that the feminine influence of Emily is present throughout all that I have read so far, it that Chad can't escape the grip of that influence, even if he wanted to. Next, the authors try to appeal to William Gouge to lend legitimacy to their arguments. They are really big into "mutual submission" (as they define it). Therefore the following quote appears in Chapter 3: >>>> In our introduction we mentioned William Gouge’s book Domestical Duties. Gouge wisely dedicated many of his pages to the importance of Ephesians 5:21 and the call to mutual submission “out of reverence for Christ.” Significantly Gouge did not do this because he felt awkward about verse 22 and its specific mention of the submission of wives. He did so because he wanted to take seriously the message of verse 21 on its own terms. He wanted to understand what mutual submission might look like. >>>> Interestingly enough, they don't provide footnotes for the Gouge resource. Why? Could it be that if one were to read Gouge directly, they would see that it does not support their premise? I suspected as such, and so turned to Gouge's old "Domestical Duties" and read the "many of his pages" dealing with Ephesians 5:21. While the Van Dixhoorn's would advocate a "mutual submission" of more like "turnabout is fair play," Gouge on the other hand propounds a "mutual submission" in that both superiors and inferiors ought to submit to one another by performing the duties of leadership or obedience in the fear of God. He emphasized that superiors ought to ensure that their leadership has the good of family in mind when he leads his wife and children. Gouge's idea of mutual submission isn't that the husband needs to do his share of the housework. In fact, Gouge states explictly: "Neither is it hereby implied that they which are in place of dignity and authority should forget or relinquish their place, dignity or authority, and become as inferiours under authority," This is in contradiction to what we read from the Van Dixhoorn's: "Maybe you will get up and serve her when she is tired. Maybe you will mobilize (or immobilize!) the children and give her an evening with friends or a rest in bed. Maybe you will finish cleaning the house because her work was too much or because you want it tidy for guests and she has enough to do already." Now, is there anything wrong with a husband doing these things for his wife? Not at all. These are all very good ideas. But my point is, are these the duties that should define what it means to be a godly husband? Gouge's commentary issues forth quite a different flavor. He compares those within the body of Christ with the members of a physical body (as does the scripture in 1 Cor 12:21) as he continues the quote that I started above: "...and become as inferiours under authority, no more than the head doth: for the head in submitting itself doth not go upon the ground and bear the body, as the feet; but it submitteth itself by directing and governing the other parts, and that with all the humility, meekness, and gentleness that it can. So must all superiours: much more must equals and inferiours learn with humility, and meekness, without scorn or disdain, to perform their duty:" The Van Dixhoorn idea of a godly husband could be replaced by hiring a good quality maid to help with the housework. The Gouge idea of a godly husband is one who leads his family righteously, under the fear of God, and directs his family according to what is best for them, whether they think it is best for them or not. And yet, both the Van Dixhoorn's and Mr. Gouge are reading the same Bible. What we should look for then, is this, How does the author support his points? With scripture, or his own opinion? Another example from the Van Dixhoorn's: "Although Paul calls wives to submission in every area, a wise husband should learn—quickly—how seldom he should ask for submission in every area, explicitly or even implicitly." Stop and consider this. "Although" works just like a "but." It essentially undos what you're about to say. They are literally saying, "I know that Paul calls wives to submission in every area, -but- we say that he should not expect this scriptural principle to be adhered to very often." Who is defining the "wise husband" here? It is the Van Dixhoorn's; certainly not Gouge, and certainly not the scripture itself. This book gives ammunition to wives that they need not submit to their husbands, even when their husbands are not asking them to sin. This book also weakens the authority and the scriptural mandate for husbands to lead their families, according to their best interpretation of scripture. Like so many other modern marriage books, this one promotes an egalitarian view of men and women, though maybe not to the same extent that secular marriage books, or even one that you might pick up off the shelf at Focus on the Family, might do. After all, the Van Dixhoorn's are marketing to a Reformed readership. So they feel the need to quote Gouge's name, while not quoting what he actually wrote.