Josh Howerton Told Wives to ‘Be Aggressive’ Sexually. Evangelicals Are Divided.

The Sexuality Divide: Two Very Different Frameworks

Perhaps nowhere is the divide sharper than on sexual intimacy.

Complementarian View (Howerton’s position):

• Men experience emotional connection through physical intimacy
• Therefore, wives should be frequent sexual initiators
• Rejecting your husband sexually destroys his confidence
• The marriage bed should be a priority—even pulling kids into bed for co-sleeping threatens this
• A wife’s responsiveness to her husband’s sexual needs is a major measure of godliness

Egalitarian/Trauma-Informed View:

• Both spouses need both emotional and physical connection
• Sexual intimacy should flow from mutual desire, not duty
• Frequent rejection might indicate deeper issues the couple should address together
• “Duty sex” where one partner is merely compliant causes long-term harm to both people
• Past sexual trauma, postpartum challenges, and medical issues require compassion, not pressure
• True biblical sexuality is characterized by mutuality, consent, and delight—for both partners

The research perspective: Studies on marital satisfaction consistently show that quality of sexual connection matters far more than frequency. Couples where both partners feel desired, heard, and considered report much higher satisfaction than couples where one partner is dutiful but disengaged.

Sheila Wray Gregoire’s survey of 20,000 evangelical women found that women who were taught “sex is primarily your duty to your husband” reported:

• Lower marital satisfaction
• Lower sexual satisfaction
• Higher rates of pain during sex
• More difficulty reaching orgasm
• Feeling like “metronomes” (just going through the motions)

Women who were taught “sex is about mutual intimacy and pleasure” reported the opposite.

The Real Issue: Authority and Interpretation

At the core of this debate is a question about the Bible itself: Who gets to decide what it means?

Howerton’s approach: “We are word of God people here and we just believe all of God’s commands are a blessing to us.” The implication: his interpretation is what the Bible says. To disagree is to reject Scripture.

The egalitarian response: We’re also “word of God people.” We also believe Scripture is authoritative. We just don’t believe your interpretation is the only faithful one—or even the most faithful one.

This matters because when one interpretation is presented as “biblical” and all others as “worldly” or “feminist,” it shuts down conversation and stigmatizes legitimate theological disagreement.

RELATED: Traffic Study Canceled After Lakepointe Church Staffer Organizes Effort To Manipulate Results

What About the Women Who Love This Teaching?

It’s important to acknowledge: many women genuinely embrace complementarian teaching and find it fulfilling.

Women stood and recited Howerton’s “Woman of God Code” with enthusiasm. Jana Howerton led it herself. Thousands of women in that church and watching online resonated with the message.

Why might women embrace complementarianism?

1. It provides clarity – In a confusing world, clear roles can feel stabilizing
2. It works well with good men – A truly loving, servant-hearted complementarian husband can make this framework feel wonderful
3. It offers identity and purpose – Being told your role is sacred and vital can be empowering
4. It’s their tradition – Many women grew up with this teaching and see it bearing good fruit
5. They’re reacting against excesses – Some women experienced harm from second-wave feminism and see this as an alternative

The egalitarian response: That’s valid—but a framework that works well when men are good becomes dangerous when men are bad. Biblical marriage shouldn’t require husbands to be exceptional to be safe.