Author: Gregg

The level of personal offense someone takes when presented with a truth claim does nothing whatsoever to invalidate the truth claim.

The conflated argument Evans puts forward stands on the proposition that it “should make no difference” whether a wife maintains stewardship over her subjective appearance — that such stewardship or lack thereof ought to have absolutely no impact on her husband’s daily battle with sexual temptation.

While Pastor Challies starts his article by pointing out the red herring Evans cooked up — that if wives slouch off on their appearance, husbands will cheat on them — that isn’t what he chooses to focus on in the main thrust. Challies makes the case that while YES appearance counts in marriage, he dispels the notion that becoming a slob absolves your spouse of any sin. Further, he draws the distinction between naturally growing old and living life with what he calls inward and outward appearance.

When a wife rejects or belittles her husband’s sexual needs, she very obviously HARMS his ability to avoid improper sexual impulses. But that isn’t entirely what either of these cited truth claims state. The truth claim in each of the above cases expands on that accepted fact by stating that when a wife ignores (a) her appearance and (b) her husband’s sexual needs, she is NOT HELPING him to avoid sexual temptation.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not attempting an argument from personal ignorance, nor am I accusing Evans of outright lying. After all, what would be her possible agenda?

Does appearance matter in marriage? Is refusing to take stewardship over one’s personal appearance — “appearance” as defined by whatever subjective standards individual married couples recognize — considered sinful?