The article is here.

My General Opinion:

If a Christian marriage is supposed to mirror Christ and the church, Molher's teaching is a full on assault on gospel-defined love in marriage (the UNdeserved favor of mercy and the ILL-deserved favor that is grace.)  Molher has warped  the testimony that IS the image of Christian love having replaced it with a loathsome treadmill of legalistic, regular performance and reward.

A Covenant Blessing?  Or "Regularly Earned Privilege?"

The privilege of marital intimacy, in Mohler’s teaching, comes from performance, not covenant, which means it’s no longer a covenant blessing – an expected part of a Christian marriage.  It is now a reward.

This goes beyond sexual intimacy as a right that can be lost – it is now a privilege that must be earned.

The argument goes - "so, you would force a wife to have sex, no matter how her husband behaves?"

There is a huge difference between starting out with a covenant blessing, and forfeiting that blessing by behavior that is covenant-breaking...and having to earn marital intimacy to start with.

This is the direct opposite of the gospel; this is full pelagianism in the sexual arena – a man must fully, and regularly earn his reward.  Gone is the image of “one flesh” and in its place we find a life lived under constant performance judgment, reward, or retaliation.

If a Christian marriage reflects Christ and the church, this teaching tells us that we enter into a covenant relationship with our Lord, and then we have to earn Enghetti.

When a “privilege” must be “regularly” earned, it explicitly communicates the premise that the starting point is…nothing.  Mohler is not teaching that Enghetti can be lost…he’s teaching that the husband’s default is the desert…and he must “regularly” earn the oasis of the marriage bed.

So...What if He Stumbles...?

If her husband does not “obey the word” – a wife will not win him “without a word by her conduct” by violating  1 Peter 3:1

A wife’s openness to her husband inspires his love toward her, bringing more closeness between them, allowing him to give more of himself to her.  Marital intimacy should not be a system of “carrot and stick” to allow him to earn access to the marriage bed!

1 Cor. 7:3 says “ The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.”  The KJV says, “due benevolence” – marital intimacy is “benevolence,” not an earned privilege.

I would submit that if a wife only gives of herself when all is well, or worse, only when he as performed to her expectation, that's not "due benevolence".

If she only "wants" sex when she wants it, when he has earned it...on her terms, that tags her with Mohler's description of him: "the accomplishment of sexual fulfillment."

It is when she gives of herself for HIM - to HIM, for HIS sake - not because he has earned it, but because she loves him, that's love.  When she gives to him, not because his behavior has earned it, but because her heart wants it, that's covenant love.

Final Thoughts:

Mohler writes:

Rather than taking satisfaction in his wife, he looks at dirty pictures in order to be rewarded with sexual arousal that comes without responsibility, expectation, or demand

Rather than making the battle against pornography a team effort, it becomes a battle of the sexes instead.

SHE gets to decide if he has earned sex.  SHE gets to decide if he has earned marital intimacy. SHE gets to decide of his behavior is good enough to give of herself.

All he can do is stay on the treadmill and hope that he measures up to her standards, whatever those standards might be.

If we bring “man and wife” back to “Christ and the church…” It doesn’t get any worse than this.