This book is laid out in a 365-day format, so it took me a year to read. While I found Stephen Arterburn's other books and ideas mildly helpful, this book made my stomach turn. I did not get the impression that Shannon Ethridge grasped Mr. Arterburn's vision for his "Every" series of books. (If you are not aware, the "Every" series- Every Man's Battle, Every Young Man's Battle, etc- deals with issues of sexual purity.)
Some issues I had with the book is that I felt it was taking a step backward in terms of women's progress. I'll be honest, I am NOT a feminist in any way, however, I felt that the book emphasized women as doormats, regardless of the faults of the man, all the while, putting up a front that said, "Draw near to God and your sex life will be awesome if and when you have one."
In many cases, I felt that the statements in the book were presented as fact, without supporting statements proving them as fact. The book seems to assume that any reader has already read the Bible cover-to-cover, understands it like a theologian AND is willing to accept it unquestioningly as God's law for his people. Very few people fit into all three of those requirements. Any explanation of the Biblical references, such as Paul's original Greek words and how they were translated into English, is not supported with any reference to source material.
Also, there are a few statements that do not seem to be supported Biblically in anyway, such as the statement that a married woman has "traded away all her rights and freedoms" in order to marry. This statement is not Biblical as I have been taught to understand the Bible. Yes, women submit to their husbands, but they still have a power and a freedom all their own, which is demonstrated very vividly in Proverbs 31, as well as in the character studies of Ruth, Esther, and many of the women of the Bible.
There is at least one reference that I found to be somewhat racist. "She doesn't dress to seek male attention, but she doesn't limit herself to a wardrobe of ankle-length muu-muus, either." To me, this implies that the first part of the sentence is one end of the extreme, and the second part of the sentence is the other end of the extreme- that muu-muus are not attractive enough to catch the eye of a man. It gives the wrong impression of the Hawaiian culture, and is just plain incorrect anyway. Type "muu-muu" into a Google Images search engine, and you will find plenty of beautiful women in loose-fitting dresses. You will even find Angelina Jolie, whose dress stood out at the SAG awards (and was ridiculed behind her back) for its inability to display her hips and yet, will you take a look at the gawker? She clearly has a man's attention:
I also took issue with the book's attempt at science, with the claim that masturbation "can warp the brain's hardware." Masturbation destroys neurons?? Seriously? And you aren't going to back it up with any reference to a medical journal?
I'm trying to go through the references I took issue with chronologically, and I've only gotten to August 5, which seems to imply that men are too dense to understand the basic differences between men and women. I felt that the book made broad generalizations about men and women, without taking into account that there are often cases where a woman is wired differently than most women, or men are wired differently than most other men. The result appears to be degrading to both sexes. Although I continued reading to the end, I think August 5 is a good place to stop this review.
To be perfectly fair to the book, I will admit that every day's reading was taken from one of the other "Every Woman" books, and its meaning could be obscured purely because it was taken out of context. However if that is the case then there is absolutely no reason for this book to exist. I would need to read the other books to understand fully what is meant by each day's reading.
If you must read an "Every Woman" book, I do not recommend this one to anyone. Since most of the statements I took issue with came from "Every Heart Restored," that one may or may not be recommendable either. Like I said, I would have to see how the paragraph is used within the context of the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment