Notes on the book,
|
||
|
Notations: page.paragraph.sentence |
||
|
To the undiscerning believer, Small has enough misinformation in this book to do more harm than good to a marriage. While he uses some Christian language here and there, the book is nearly absent of scripture. He starts many of his chapters quoting non-scriptural authors. He omits a very large portion of scripture that speaks to the marriage relationship. Smart is consistent with the Christian community of the last 30+ years in his myopic use of Ephesians 5 and ignores the balance of scripture that speaks to wives and husbands. 41.4 - This presumes each reciprocates with true agape love. What happens when the trust has been betrayed so many times without repentance? Intimacy is not possible, even if there is a desire by the offended to have an intimate relationship. Compound that with the offender's narcissistic tendencies (high demand, low reciprocation) and what should be an intimate relationship turns into resentment and hate. 47.2 - The author implies that increased pressure on the marriage for intimacy is a bad thing. Isn't that where the husband and wife's energy and attention needs to be directed? I think there are too many socially acceptable alternatives for husbands and wives to mis-direct their emotional capital. p. 58.3. I don't buy it. So far, Small has used more language and viewpoints that appear to be centered on psychobabble than on Biblical standards. In this paragraph (and the previous one) his claims are so general that they are hard to take seriously. I will continue to read with the hopeful expectation that he will eventually introduce Biblical standards that married couples can look to in defining their roles, identify their sinful predispositions (particular to what the Bible shows for the man and the woman separately), and reel in their sinful tendencies and patterns. It would be especially useful for the author to acknowledge the influence of modern-day culture on the marriage as it competes with Biblical standards. p.60.3. I'll assume the "superiority" he speaks of is different than the Biblical submission required of the woman to her husband. "Superiority" would be a gross mischaracterization of Biblical relationship of husband and wife. 83.2.1 - Small holds Eph 5 in disproportionate high esteem to the point of neglecting the rest of what scripture says. This is to his own admission by calling it "the high-water mark in the NT teaching concerning the relation between husbands and wives". 83.2.2 - Small is careful to point out that only two verses in Eph 5 are directed at wives, while all the others are directed at husbands. If he were as diligent with the rest of scripture, he would find a contradicting proportion -that there is more written in the OT and NT about the woman's duties, position, disposition, and sins in the H/W relationship than there is about the man's. This is telling and cannot be ignored. 83.4.3-4 Notice Small's almost apologetic couching. 83.4.5. He gets it correct here! The principle IS aimed at the very highest happiness possible for wives. 84.1 - Small is making the same error many do today by reading into the NT verses what is not there. He disregards 1 Pet 3 and seems to make the wife's obligation to her husband (and, more importantly, God) almost conditional on the man's actions. He disregards God's clear admonishment to Adam's wife, and, thus to all women, her predisposition and the directive regarding her position to her husband. Small contradicts his own demand made early in Chapter 3 of his book for agape love as opposed to eros love that seeks to satisfy its own. In this section on "Mandate to Wives" Small flips the object lesson around to the husband. There is so much he could have written to address the woman's predisposition, but his bias brings him back to the man. So he spends most of the paragraph speaking to his own view on the husband's role and obligations. What contradicts his earlier observations of agape love is his description of conditional obligations. If this, then that. 84.2.1 - Small gets it right in this sentence! If only more women would understand this dynamic. It is the same as the comment "Behind every successful man is a woman." Meaning a man's success is often due to a loving and supportive wife. Not a nag or someone who tears him down at every opportunity or is unstable or seeks to usurp his role in the marriage. 84.2.2 - Again, he makes the object lesson about the husband's MO. 84.3 - Small contradicts his accurate claim made earlier in the book that a Christian marriage is founded on the agape love of Christ and that our own love to one another in marriage must center on this type of love. 85.1.1 - Not only in freedom and love, but in obedience to God himself as it was God who directly addressed the woman in Genesis as to her position. The NT verses are consistent with this. It is our culture that imposes a secular bias on the H-W relationship where it ignores or, at best, downplays the woman’s obligation to her husband and, more importantly, to God. 85.1.4 - Again, if Small is talking about agape love, then the woman's love is not dependent on what the man does or doesn't do. Small is contradicting himself. Furthermore, his statement is inconsistent with 1 Pet 3. 85.1.3 - Small, like most today, have this dynamic backwards. It is actually in the woman's hands! God addressed the woman in Genesis, citing her predisposition and position which is to be kept in check by her. 1 Pet 3 and all the other NT verses on submission are directed at the woman. Only she can create the Biblical marriage dynamic by yielding to her husband. The husband cannot wrest it from her. There is no indication in scripture that her responsibility in this matter is conditioned on the man's actions. In fact, 1Pet 3 indicates the opposite! In the OT and NT verses where the man or the woman are instructed on their disposition and obligations to the relationship, they are done so independently, without condition. Any conditional dependency is being read into the writings - a tendency of the last 40 years introduced by cultural influences. How can there be an equal and balanced relationship of true agape love when the wife's response is dependent on what the husband does or doesn't do. Small apparently doesn't see his contradiction. 85.2 - But for the first sentence, he uses the paragraph to continue his admonishment to husbands. For a section titled "Mandate to Wives" he spends most of it pointed at husbands! 85.3 - Small's sarcasm is indicative of social pressures to which even he is subject. He obviously feels the need to cater to the caricature that men have been painted with. It presumes that all men are lade with a view of the marriage relationship that is inconsistent with Biblical standards. It undermines the headship of the Christian husband. 85.5 - "A singularly complete word to husbands"? Small is making the same mistake so many others have made. He, by his own words, is using Eph 5 to the exclusion of all other NT scripture to define the husband's role. He fails to realize the scripture that defines the woman's role and obligation in marriage is as much a commentary on the man's role - it is a RELATIONSHIP. Like a mathematical equation, you cannot change or redefine one side without disrupting or affecting the other . By defining the woman's role and obligations you by necessity affect the complement –the husband. 85.5.2 - Small claims "THE KEY to understanding the spiritual dynamics of Christian married love." 86.1 - Small is again using cutesy sarcasm that paints men with a disparaging brush. His habit is tipped to the side of husbands. This demonstrates the bias I have spoken of that Christian leaders, authors, and pastors are stricken with - a bias that is rooted in our secular culture and that has seeped into the church. 86.1.6 - More of his sarcasm. 86.2.4 - So it is conditional? Again, if it is, then this statement contradicts the agape love Small so adamantly insists is true Christian love. If we are each required to have agape love, why is this dynamic not mutual? He departs from the agape love requirement for women by removing her obligation to God (Gen 3:16), regardless of her husband's spiritual state (1 Pet 3). I believe what Small and so many others today put forth as the Christian married love relationship is no different than what the secular world pumps through its channels and is what what is undermining Christian marriages. Why is the divorce rate in Christian marriages no different than non-Christian? 86.4.4 - Small kicks off his five major characteristics for husbands that he and many wring out of Eph 5:25 - 31. He uses the next four pages to expound the characteristics from a text that is arguably more ambiguous than the many others that speak to the marriage relationship. 87.1.1 - What does he mean by "realistically"? 88.1.6-7 - a pathetic appeal to wives reading the book. This is another broad- brush caricature. If he is going to include these straw examples, why doesn't he balance them on the wive's side? 90.2.3-4 - Wherever Small gets theses ideas, it is not Biblicly based. He, as many others have, has imposed meaning on Scripture. Yes, God said it is not good for the man to be alone, but Small takes that idea to another level that cannot be found in scripture: "without the woman the man becomes callous, licentious, and selfish." No, without CHRIST the man (or woman) becomes callous, licentious and selfish. The Gospel and epistles call husbands AND wives to love - Eph 4:26 - 5:1. Again, a presumption about the man is consistently made, but the predisposition of the woman that God Himself calls out is ignored by Small and so many others. 103.1.5 - that is quite a statement. I would not say that family planning ought to be the number one concern in the well-ordered marriage. I don't know what Biblical basis Small has to make this claim. ? To his own admission, he cites the Bible's relative silence on the topic of procreation on page 103.1. 105.2.6 - Why does he defer to a psychiatrist? 106.1.4 - Wow! He actually refers the readers to Planned Parenthood for counsel and direction! 106.3. (Top of page 7) This is quite a narrow-minded and extreme statement. It affords no room (grace) for couples who serve God outside of raising children. So, is the couple with 2 children any more selfish and immature than the couple who has 10 children? 107.1 - There is something unsettling about his focus on the heartache of the adoptive parents if an adopted child turns out to be in his word "defective". 110.1 - 2 - Small does a nice job of paralleling our adoption as believers with adopting children. 111.1 - Small's references to a psychiatrist and a Mother Goose rhyme does nothing for his credibility. Furthermore, his 'it is here to stay, so we might as well go along with it' attitude is more than a bit flimsy. Is this the best he can do in taking a position on contraception? 112.1 - 2 - The influence of secular academia on Small's thinking really shines through his choice and order of rationalization in these two paragraphs. 114.1 - Small comes back to couching his dicussion in terms of "population control", a popular topic in secular academia that, for some reason, is not discussed much outside of academia. It does rear its head in areas where there tends to be a liberal, leftist world view of "conservation" of the environment and resources. The way that Small plays into the discussion is worrisome in that it points to the religion of secular humanism so often assumed in academic circles. 116.1 - Small makes no mention of abortion, but his statement "Whatever the method of birth limitation . . ." is a bit too open ended.
-------------------------------
|
||