Both were unbelievers. He was driven to repentance. She never was driven to repentance. There is not a single part of the movie that indicates any repentance on her part for her sins, even after they got back together, even after they had a second “wedding” ceremony. Everything is brought to a “happily ever after” moment, without the pre-condition of her repentance. It creates the illusion that she wasn’t equally at fault. But her sins were of the same kind as his: Her planning to have an affair with a doctor while still married was the same sin as him looking at pornography. It’s called lust. But it’s okay for her to do it, because her subjective emotional desires weren’t being met.
We are called to forgive EVEN when no one tells us THEY are sorry. I think this was a movie aimed at men to give it all to God and not expect anything in return. Jesus forgave, even as the nails went into his hands and feet, he said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing”.
I think lots of people would have liked to see the wife say she was sorry and wrong. Maybe that is how much God wants us to stretch for HIM. Right now men are writing these stories and are aiming at men to do the right thing, even if women don’t. When we don’t forgive, unless we hear I’m sorry too, have we really given it all to God?
2) There are tons of Christian resources "aiming at men to do the right thing, even if women dont." Why are there no Christian resources criticizing women for the emotional form of lust they practice, but rather there are Christian romance novels and romance movies that encourage it? Men are constantly told to "man up" in the face of unfaithful women, but rarely do we see Christian leaders informing women that the purpose of marriage isn't to meet their selfish emotionalistic desires. Rather, I see that view encouraged in discussions of "Christian" marriage. It is a view entirely at odds with the Bible, but the view underlies Fireproof.