Book Review: Love Must Be Tough

On June 16, 2017April 6, 2024 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Book Reviews, Books, family, marriage, New Testament

James C. Dobson, Love Must Be Tough: New Hope for Families in Crisis (1983; repr., Tyndale Momentum, 2007), hardback, 238 pages.

Dr. James Dobson (1936-) is a well known and established licensed psychologist (Ph.D., University of Southern California), who has addressed social and family issues from an evangelical perspective for about 40 years. He held a teaching post at USC’s School of Medicine as Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics and was on staff at the Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles for many years. And he served on a number government advisory panels and testified at several government hearings.[1]

Dr. Dobson is perhaps known more for the ministry network Focus on the Family he founded in 1977 through which he has provided a steady evangelical voice with regards to social issues on radio, television, print, and online. Since 2010, however, Dr. Dobson formally transitioned away from Focus on the Family and established another multi-media ministry venture, Dr. James Dobson’s Family Talk.

Love Must Be Tough to Save Families

The book under review, Love Must be Tough, is not a new contribution. Dr. Dobson wrote it in 1983 and because of its popularity, it is often reprinted. I read this book as part of a family ministry class. I found it to be an insightful and highly useful volume designed to provide a strategic proposal to help restore marriages struggling under the burden and crisis of marital infidelity. Dr. Dobson argues that his strategy strikes at the heart of the recovery from marital infidelity better than those provided by the then-current advice by counselors and literature.

What appears to be at the heart of the problem lies at a spouse’s passivity and allowance for the other spouse to have all the control in the relationship. This imbalance is subversive to the marriage. Dr. Nancy M. Rockstroh, M.D., who often recommends Love Must be Tough agrees:

when the balance of power switches so that one person has undue control, the potential for abuse of that power becomes imminent. Once individuals have the opportunity to do anything with the tacit acceptance of their partner, they have carte blanche to engage in destructive patterns of behavior without fear of losing the benefits of the relationship.[2]
Nancy Moultrie Rockstroh, “Love Must Be Tough: Proven Hope for Families in Crisis,” Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2000)

It is not just theories or bad counseling which Dobson believes to be destructive and subversive to marital restoration. Marriage culture also is to blame, in particular, those which are so co-dependent that there is a loss of self-respect and the mutual respect which should exist within a marriage. Or, as Dobson argues, what marriages in crisis really need is the application of a simple principle: love must be tough.

Book Overview

Dr. Dobson develops his thesis by first showcasing the destructive nature of common approaches advised for reclaiming an unfaithful spouse. But, perhaps most instructive is the fact that he shares real experiences of infidelity and how the wounded spouse attempts to restore the marriage. According to Dobson, counselors tend to advise self-loathing, fault assuming, affair indulgent, and spiritually careless strategies. But even still further, wounded spouses often attempt to regain their unfaithful spouse through strategies (planned or not) that can be summed in the phrase: a complete lack of self-respect and identity (Panic, appeasement, etc).

This behavior must be stopped. Dobson argues strongly that this lack of self-respect and identity is a leading contributor for both the circumstances for a spouse to become unfaithful and for the pushing away of a cheating spouse. Dobson explains this character “defect” can be permissive as it “allows” flirtation with a potential lover, or it passively “allows” the spouse to continue dangerous relationships with a would-be lover. And once suspicion (or infidelity) occurs, the concerned spouse begins to tighten their grasp upon their beloved in order to keep them, but this often times pushes them farther away. The distrusted spouse feels caged and develops a need to escape. The spouse needs freedom. To further aggravate the situation, the worried partner who cannot feel complete without their spouse loses their individual identity and panics only to try to appease their unfaithful spouse. This behavior feels more like constrictions around the unfaithful spouse’s neck, and continue to fuel the desire for freedom (extramarital freedom).

Case upon actual case is rehearsed as testimonial evidence to support Dobson’s thesis that love must be tough. Consequently, if Dobson is right that popular counseling has it wrong in its strategic opinions, and that a consistent lack of self-respect and identity provide the stimulus for infidelity, then a new approach must be considered. Dobson argues therefore that the marriage relationship must include a number of applied principles. Despite the concept of “union” in marriage, each partner must exist with their sense of individuality intact, and each partner must be able to respect themselves. This sets forth the building blocks for a healthy sense of mutual accountability needed in a marriage that will allow it to thrive.

Thus, should signs of a potential extramarital affair begin to loom in the distance, a perceptive spouse can be grounded in their self-respect and identity, provide strong warnings set forth in love, self-respect, freedom, and independence (example: “I love you, but if you continue this course, then I will leave”). Spouses must be able to hold their ground, despite loving their spouse and not wishing them to depart. This “willingness to end a relationship,” says Dr. Rockstroh, “is the very essence of freedom and independence.”[3] Yet, this principle must be, according to Dobson, practiced with caution (see below).

Chapter 12 provides a timeline of eleven benchmarks showing how good marriages end in abandonment, adultery, divorce, and guilt. Side-by-side, the storyline of a husband and wife is unfolded. It shows how emotional starvation experienced by a loving spouse can lead to frustration and depression, only to work the heart into fertile soil for an extramarital affair. Preoccupations, such as work, only blind them of their beloved’s pain and that they too have contributed to this isolation. Eventually, an affair does ensue and is discovered. At this point, Dobson argues, the marriage can still be saved if both partners want to use “tough love” to regain themselves and restore their marriage. In this scenario that Dobson narrates, the cheating spouse leaves and a divorce is finalized. As in many cases which Dobson is aware of, at the end, the love affair turns mundane, the enabling but wounded spouse lives in ignorance of their contribution and the guilt for the children’s situation overshadows their heart.

Here Dobson makes one more appeal to confront misunderstandings that affect marital happiness. He appeals to the fact that culture essentially lies to our young ladies and young men in the aspect of who provides the happiness in the home. For the women, the lie is simple but devastating: “that marriage is a lifelong romantic experience.”[4] Moreover, the husband is entirely responsible for making this a reality; hence, women enter marriage with unrealistic expectations. And when these expectations are not met, it is her husband’s fault. For the men, the lie is relatively clear: “his only responsibility is to provide materially for his family.”[5] The love must be tough principle affirms individual responsibility for one’s happiness, and each spouse must play a role in creating marital happiness.

Of many of the valuable aspects of the book, is Dobson’s honesty that as much as the love must be tough principle is valuable and helpful, it can also be dangerously misapplied. The development of self-respect, individual identity, of creating a culture of freedom, of forgiveness, and many other traits can be so developed to the point where the wounded spouse uses them to destroy the marriage. For example, a person may become so independent that they want nothing to do with their spouse. Another spouse might defend their self-respect to the point where they become so outspoken that there is no mutual accountability. Dobson, therefore, warns against running wild with this strategy.

A Critique on Dobson’s Divorce and Remarriage View

There is no debate that Dr. Dobson’s book is valuable; however, his discussion on divorce and remarriage is perhaps the most egregious section in an otherwise well-developed book.[6] To Dobson’s credit, he inserts a disclaimer that he knows some Bible students will disagree with him. I register here as one who finds Dobson’s discussion of what constitutes a scriptural divorce and remarriage completely lacking biblical support.

Dobson affirms three matters to keep in mind in the discussion of divorce and remarriage. We agree with his discussion on what constitutes adultery in Matthew 19:9 so we will focus on the second passage discussed.

First, Dobson alleges that 2 Corinthians 5:17 sanctions the notion that it “includes divorce prior to salvation,” leading him to conclude:

when the marriage and divorce occurred prior to salvation, I believe God grants His “new creation” the freedom to remarry.[7]
James Dobson, Love Must Be Tough: New Hope for Families in Crisis (1983)

Dobson’s view hinges upon a phrase in this passage, namely “old things.” “Old things” as part of the “new creature” is typological imagery that supports the real emphasis of the verse, namely, that of a new creation. The person –not his/her marital situation– is made “new.” Paul had said previously to the Corinthian church that some of them had been adulterers (1 Cor 6:9-10) but not anymore because of their conversion (1 Cor 6:11). They changed their behavior. Conversion requires a change in behavior (Acts 2:38), it is not a simply a status change.

The third discussion Dobson enters is based upon a misrepresentation of 1 Corinthian 7:25-40. Dobson alleges that if a Christian is abandoned the believer has a right to remarry. Maybe there are other circumstances involved in the abandonment (i.e., adultery), but that is not discussed in this passage. Paul, however, argues that the abandoned spouse is not under an obligation -enslaved- to follow the departing spouse. The emphasis here is about fidelity to God’s sexual and marital laws (cf. 7:1ff). In fact, earlier in the passage Paul addresses “the married” and the potential of a legal separation,[8] to which he clearly gives two options: remain separated or be reconciled (1 Cor 7:10-11).

These are significant drawbacks from an otherwise really helpful book. I further understand that many would disagree with my critique of Dobson’s view. Still, neither conversion nor mere abandonment is biblical grounds for divorce and a subsequent remarriage.

Concluding Thoughts

In the final analysis, the book is generally sound and very helpful. But, because of the material on divorce and remarriage, I would recommend an alternative to sharing its articulation Dobson’s love must be tough strategy. Perhaps create a series of handouts (with due credit) with the strategies listed and illustrated. Or, recommendations to people well versed in the scriptural teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The material on self-worth and boundaries is the relevant and helpful element of Dobson’s work.

Dobson tackles a hard issue but the counsel he offers is advantageous. It is dated somewhat. For that reason, I would use Love Must Be Tough as a supplemental work to the more current volume by Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries in Marriage.[9] “Boundaries,” as Cloud and Townsend articulate, help to develop the issues Dobson is concerned with: a healthy sense of identity, personal responsibility, and mutual accountability. So, in the end, I offer a limited recommendation of Dobson’s book for the counselor and minister.

Endnotes

“James Dobson,” Wikipedia.org.
Nancy Moultrie Rockstroh, “Love Must Be Tough: Proven Hope for Families in Crisis,” Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2.6 (Dec. 2000): 229.
Rockstroh, “Love Must Be Tough.”
James Dobson, Love Must Be Tough: New Hope for Families in Crisis (1983; repr., Waco, TX: Word, 1996), 176.
Dobson, Love Must Be Tough, 176.
Dobson, Love Must Be Tough, 129-33.
Dobson, Love Must Be Tough, 130.
It is documented by R. L. Roberts, Jr., very clearly that the passive phrase “to be separated” (Grk. choristhenai) in these verses is a “technical expression for divorce” as it exists in ancient legal documents before and during the apostolic era (“The Meaning of Chorizo and Douloo in 1 Corinthians 7:10-17,″ Restoration Quarterly 8.3 [1965]: 179-80). Consequently, those that only see a “separation” as we commonly conceive of it as temporary “space” between spouses are unreasonably limiting the meaning of this word here.
Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries in Marriage (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999).

Defining Adultery in the Old Testament

On June 12, 2008April 16, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Biblical Ethics, Essays, Interpretation, marriage, Old Testament3 Comments

Adultery. Not exactly the warmest of words. For some, it evokes the pain that can only be felt from experiencing a broken home. For others, it is a reminder of what could have been if certain circumstances had presented themselves. There are some who think of this word as an obstacle that was overcome and they are survivors indeed. While yet still, there are others who are ever vigilant of all the steps that lead to this dreaded sin.

And finally, there are some who stand humbled in the rubble around them (a life destroyed), that was brought to fruition through that terrible act of adultery. They enjoyed their brief night in paradise, only to be awoken by the torrents of horror in the morning.

The Word Adultery

It is amazing that some who would set forth the claim that their interests are in teaching the Word of God hold a variety of views as to the nature and meaning of adultery contrary to the biblical data. Without considerable interaction with these distinct points of view, let us press on to consider some of the Old Testament evidence as to the meaning and nature of adultery. How does God represent it in the Hebrew Bible?

But where does the word adultery come from. The actual derivation of the English word for adultery is quite enlightening. It actually derives from combining a number of Latin terms into one:

The word adultery originates not from “adult”, as is commonly thought, but from the Late Latin word for “to alter, corrupt”: adulterare. Adulterare in turn is formed by the combination of ad (“towards”), and alter (“other”), together with the infinitive form are (making it a verb).
Wikipedia.org

So, in English the word adultery has the idea of one person moving towards another person in order to make a new personal arrangement. Moreover, in some cases the Latin term adulterare carried the meaning of “to pollute” – taking something that is pure, and contaminating it.

When we say that someone has committed adultery, we are simply stating that a person has corrupted his or her marriage by introducing a third party. The marriage has been altered, changed, and polluted. The English word is quite graphic, but since the Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew we would be wise to consult the meaning of this term there.

The Old Testament Term

In the Old Testament, the primary Hebrew word for adultery is nā’ap. As with any word, it is part of a grouping of words with similar meanings. Many of these words emphasize a range of meanings; for example, they can take literal or figurative meanings, and even describe those who are married or betrothed who are unfaithful. However, nā’ap is the found the majority of the time to state that a person has – as we say – “cheated” on their spouse.[1]

William Wilson notes that nā’ap “is confined to adultery in the exclusive sense of the term or fornication by a married person.”[2] James Swanson amplifies the meaning, stating that it refers to a person who has “sexual intercourse with [someone] other than a spouse, as a married or betrothed person, generally, a person of low social status.”[3]

One of the earliest appearances of nā’ap in the Old Testament is in the reading of the “10 Commandments” (Exod 20:14). God says transparently, “You shall not commit adultery.” This command is cradled between the “shall not’s” of murder and stealing, which should give us an indication as to the severity of adultery in the eyes of God (Exod 20:13, 15 cf. Lev 20:10).

Clyde Woods makes the observation that in this command, the “sacredness of marriage” is emphasized, and it is this “principle of social purity” that “provides the basis for numerous [other] laws regarding sexual relationships and offenses” (cf. Exod 22:19; Lev 18:1-18; Deut 22:13-30).[4] And in this connection, R. Alan Cole finds in Joseph’s rejection of Potiphar’s wife the fact that:

For a man to have intercourse with another man’s wife was considered as the heinous sin against God as well as man, long before the law, in patriarchal times (Gen 39:9).[5]
R. Alan Cole, Exodus (1979)

The holiness of God demands that the matrimonial bed be undefiled by extra-marital affairs (Heb 13:4). Some people defile their marriage by actually sleeping with someone other than their spouse (John 8:4), others have so saturated their minds with “daydreams” of scenarios to have affairs, that if circumstances presented themselves they would do it (Matt 5:28); and yet still, there are those who have slipped on more rings on their one wedding finger than many super bowl champions have on their whole hand – and with little to no effort (John 4:16-19). From the beginning, however, this was not God’s ideal plan for marriage (Matt 19:9 cf. Gen 2:24).

Literal and Figurative Adultery

Nā’ap may mean literal adultery, but it also carries figurative, or more precisely, a spiritual application as well. Swanson explains: “in some contexts this refers to religious adultery, usually in which Israel is viewed as the unfaithful female spouse to the Lord in a covenantal marriage contract.”[6] Wilhelm Gesenius likewise remarks, “it is applied to the turning aside of Israel from the true God to the worship of idols” (Jer 3:8-9, 5:7, 9:1, 23:14).[7]

Even as Jeremiah writes of the faithless one – the Northern kingdom of Israel:

The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretense, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 3:6-10)

Judah had not learned the lesson of her sister Israel. The Northern kingdom of Israel’s fixation with idolatry is amply substantiated in the Hebrew Bible, and, in fact, was a foundational aspect of its administration and spirituality (cf. 1 Kings 12:25-33). It was this faithless one that committed adultery with stone and tree.

We see then that the literal usages of nā’ap enhance the figurative-spiritual uses. The literal and figurative uses share a reciprocal connection; that is to say, they enhance each other.[8] And, this makes perfect sense, for there are very few – if any – words that do not lend themselves to figurative or metaphorical uses.

Examples of Adultery in the Old Testament

Several times in the book of Ezekiel, the spiritual appraisal of Israel is pictured in terms of adultery. Principally, the first 24 chapters of Ezekiel address themselves to this theme. Chapters 15 through 17 explain the doom of Jerusalem by means of allegories and parables.[9] Within this framework, chapter 16 portrays the spiritual infidelity of the Hebrews in the unmistakably graphic picture of marital sexual infidelity.

Observe some snippets from the chapter that the English Standard Version translators call “The Lord’s Faithless Bride” (Ezek 16:1-58):

“When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine.” (vs. 8)
“But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore [were unfaithful; ESV footnote #2] because of the renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his.” (vs. 15)
“At the head of every street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, offering yourself [“Hebrew spreading your legs”; ESV footnote #1; cf. ASV “opened thy feet […]”] to any passerby and multiplying your whoring.” (vs. 25)
“Adulterous [nā’ap] wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband!” (vs. 32)

With great precision, the prophet presents God’s anger and sense of betrayal with the imagery of adultery. As Samuel Schultz and Gary Smith summarize:

[I]n an allegory, Ezekiel compared Judah to a young girl that God cared for and married. But the bride ignored her husband and loved others (foreign customs, idols, her own beauty).[10]
Exploring the Old Testament (2001)

Jeremiah, a contemporary of Ezekiel during the Babylonian captivity, ministered in Jerusalem and abroad. Numerous false prophets declared that this captivity was merely temporary and that God would return them soon. In Jeremiah 29:1-28, the prophet sends a letter from Jerusalem to the captives in Babylon encouraging them in their situation, rebuking those who oppose the truth of God’s punishment upon Judah, and re-enforcing the fact that Judah will remain in Babylon for 70 years. One of the blistering comments rendered to the false prophets is that they were adulterers (Jeremiah 29:20-23).

Jeremiah says that Ahab and Zedekiah, the false prophets, “have done an outrageous thing in Israel, they have committed adultery [nā’ap] with their neighbors’ wives, and they have spoken in my name lying words that I did not command them” (vs. 23). This language is as transparent as Leviticus 20:10 where Moses writes, “if a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

Adultery, literal or figurative, describes the most intimate of interactions. Literally, it refers to actual sexual encounters with someone other than their spouse. Spiritually, it expands upon the literal meaning of adultery and give it a figurative flavor stressing the deep treachery felt by God from his people who give their beauty to another.

Conclusion

Literally, then, adultery is sexual activity between a married person and a person who is not their spouse. Spiritually, then, adultery is spiritual and moral activity contrary to God’s teaching. While Old Testament and the New Testament are uniform in their presentation of adultery, space has been given to a brief investigation of the concept in the Old Testament. The Old Testament and New Testament are two testimonies that share the same conception of adultery, a behavior that Russell describes as, a “special and aggravated case of fornication.”[11]

This concept has not been altered or distorted through the passing of time; consequently, we have no right to redefine it in modern times, contemporary times, or in any subsequent generation to come, for God’s truth endures to all generations (Psa 100:5). He means what he says. Heaven help us to keep it secure and unaltered in our minds!

References

James Swanson, “nā’ap,” Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), 2d ed., electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.), 6.
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods, 1972), 179.
R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (1973; repr., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979), 160.
Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, electronic ed. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2003), 525.
Emmet Russell observes this exact point when he writes, “the figurative use enhances the literal sense, emphasizing the divine institution and nature of marriage” (Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967], 17).
Homer Hailey, Hailey’s Comments (Las Vegas, NV: Nevada Publications, 1985), 1:201-04.
Samuel J. Schultz and Gary V. Smith, Exploring the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 191.
Russell, ZPBD 17.