On 30 July 2025 I shared a Crossway article, "Encouragement for Anyone Waiting on a Prodigal Spouse," which I believed would prove interesting to many of our readers. Below is a thoughtful response from Jeanie Shaw. On further reflection, I am inclined to agree with her.
I always enjoy reading your newsletter; however, the article you posted today on "Prodigal Spouse" raised lots of red flags for me. Perhaps I am misreading it, but after three readings, it still greatly troubles me. First, I will mention what is positive. The writer offers encouragement for those who remain married to unfaithful spouses and feel spiritually adrift, comfort for those who choose to wait and pray rather than immediately leave (especially when there is ambiguity about repentance), and reminds that our identity must be rooted in Christ, not marital status.
Here’s where I believe the article veers into troubling territory:
(1) Conflating Spiritual Infidelity with Marital Abuse.
Using the Hosea narrative as a marital model is, in my opinion, dangerous theology when misapplied. Since it's a prophetic allegory about God's covenant love toward a nation, to turn it into a prescriptive example for individuals, especially women, risks spiritualizing harm. Also, in Jer 3:8, does God not metaphorically divorce the northern kingdom for adultery? “She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce.” It seems such a judgment was the greatest path toward repentance. And, in Rev 18, Babylon, portrayed as the great harlot, is judged for her corruption.
(2) Romanticizing Emotional and Spiritual Abuse
The example of Lynn’s husband sleeping with another woman immediately after apologizing is not just infidelity, it borders on emotional abuse and manipulation.
Presenting Lynn’s continued waiting and prayer without clearly condemning the husband’s manipulative behavior risks promoting endurance of trauma as virtue. This is a huge problem many women face, feeling guilty, and coerced to feel guilty for expecting or requiring accountability.
(3) Silencing Red Flags with Spiritual Language
The article doesn’t address the question, When is it right and holy to walk away? When do you take legal action (for infidelity, or physical abuse)? There’s no mention of boundaries, safety, accountability, or trauma-informed pastoral care. Without those guardrails, such writing can be weaponized.
Vulnerable women in unsafe marriages may read this and interpret God's will as: “Stay. Suffer. Be like Hosea." Church leaders may hand this article to women asking for help, reinforcing pressure to remain in toxic situations. Women whose husbands are unfaithful, abusive, or even who make sexual advances toward others could easily see this writing as a call to keep waiting and "forgiving." Men could (and do) use this thinking to put responsibility on their wives more than on their own repentance and accountability.
(4) Making God the decider of outcome, thus vilifying him.
When Lynn says, "I remember many times thinking, if God wanted things to be different in our marriage, he could change it in a heartbeat. But he wasn’t choosing to do that. Rather than making her bitter toward God, this recognition brought her comfort. It helped her realize that even her husband’s unfaithfulness was something God could use for good in her life."
Lynn seems to make God responsible for the outcome of their marriage rather than her husband's agency in choosing sin. It's not "if God wanted things different in their marriage." Of course God wanted things to be different in their marriage, but the husband would not repent. While I appreciate her turning to God, and understand that yes, God works for good for those called according to his purpose, this response leads toward the thinking that, "Isn't it good that my child died from cancer? God used it for good." There is nothing good about sin, illness, death, abuse, or infidelity, all resulting from the brokenness of the world. With God responsible, this approach leads to...why would a loving God allow....
If this article were paired with clarifications, which unfortunately it is not, it could help avoid harm:
- “Waiting” should never be equated with enduring abuse. God never asks someone to stay in danger for the sake of a metaphor.
- Repentance must bear fruit. Boundaries are biblical (Matthew 18).
- God’s love is unwavering, but human marriage has limits. Divorce may be a sad but necessary mercy.
- It’s possible to hold hope for a prodigal while also walking away, for safety and wholeness. In fact, walking away may be the most loving action to take. Did not Jesus look at the rich man and love him... and allow him to walk away? In marriages and at times with adult children, often the separation / walking away and holding them accountable is their greatest hope for repentance.
Anyway, I was hoping for something different when reading this article, even knowing it comes from the (usually complementarian) Gospel Coalition. It seems to support patriarchy. For the above reasons, I find the author's message troubling, if not dangerous.
Thanks for your response, Jeanie—DJ
