I do not have a whole lot to comment on this chapter. It discusses the process for "healing the wound". While their methods are not blatantly harmful, it is harmful to attempt to conduct such intense therapy through a book rather than with the assistance of a trained therapist. There is much stigma against therapy and specifically medication in the world - especially the Christian community - but they are both useful things. Most people wouldn't look down on someone for going to the doctor when they broke their leg rather than trying to fix it by reading a book at home - so why is it wrong to go to a therapist? John Eldredge himself is a counselor, there is a need for counselors and those who believe all wounds can be healed simply ask God to heal the hurt are minimizing the damage and insulting the injured. God gave us minds to learn and study and apply that knowledge in a manner which is beneficial, such as doctors and counselors.
The authors spend a couple pages discussing how "So God has to thwart her. In love, he has to block her attempts until, wounded and aching, she turns to him and him alone for her rescue." (96) Where is the free will in that? Does it demonstrate love to turn to someone as a last resort? I believe God has the ability to "thwart" us, but it is generally against his nature as good and loving to "make what once was a great job miserable....bring hardship into her marriage, even to the breaking point...he disrupts our plans..." (97) The authors previously said "The Evil One had a hand in all that has happened to you" (90) and simultaneously are writing that God is causing these bad things to happen. God is about bringing us freedom and life (Ephesians 5:1, John 10:10), and while we may misinterpret events he means for good and we respond in a manner in which turns them against us, everything God has created is good, he is for us and not against (1 Timothy 4:4, Romans 8:31).
One specific instance in the book which I did have a problem with was a small issue, but it demonstrates the errors in thinking which the authors depend on in assuming that all things are related to gender, going so far as to twisting and removing scripture from context to prove this. The authors quote the following verses from Zech. 9:16-17:
16 The LORD their God will save them on that day as the flock of his people.
They will sparkle in his land like jewels in a crown.
17 How attractive and beautiful they will be!
The authors did not tell us, however, they were removing the next two lines of verse 17 which read, "Grain will make the young men thrive, and new wine the young women." This passage is clearly a gender neutral passage, clearly written to everyone, by the nature of the words "them" and "people" and the further examples relating to men and women. The authors don't specifically say this passage was written just to women, but by removing the line about men and speaking about the "feminine heart" directly before and after quoting this, the implication is clear. There are a multitude of other verses throughout the Bible which portray this same message of God's desire to save and rescue his people, but I believe the authors chose this one for its "fluffy" language in speaking of "sparkle..jewels...attractive..beautiful". As an additional sidenote, when read in context, this verse appears to be discussing the end times while the authors are applying it to today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment