Nair has a big heart and a very flawed theology. I'll keep this short.
The Good: 1. He calls men to be Christlike, sacrificial and unselfish leaders inNair has a big heart and a very flawed theology. I'll keep this short.
The Good: 1. He calls men to be Christlike, sacrificial and unselfish leaders in their home, and sensitive to their wives hearts. 2. His book is like a 2x4 to the face of many very dense husbands. 3. He tells husbands to listen to what their wives have to say about what it's like to be married to them, and to believe that what their wives say is really the truth, however hard it is to hear. Spot on!
The Bad: 1. His treatment of Scripture, especially of Genesis 1-2 is at important times horribly and dangerously flawed. The problems at times seem clearly intentional, as when he says (regarding eating the fruit) that "Eve was not to blame. Adam was." (quote from memory) Conveniently, after discussing how God approached Adam and how Adam adopted the "male defensive stance" by blaming everyone around (Eve, God), he says nothing at all about how the woman also received judgment from God or how she also blamed another (the serpent). God clearly makes Eve culpable for her own actions and delineates consequences for them. His explanation of what it means for the wife to be a "helper" is both bizarre and illogical (Illogical in that he first discredits certain wrong ideas by saying that they weren't issues when God created her--dishes, children, etc.--and then proceeds to ground his own explanation in God's ability to see into the future.). 2. As a result of his abuse of Scripture, the roles he assigns to wives and the instructions he gives them are (for lack of a better word) wicked (he advises women to not hold back any of the venom in their spirit again their dense or ungodly husbands, not to attempt a gracious spirit toward them, but to lash out in the fullness of their anger--that this is actually what God designed them to do). 3. Finally, he disbelieves the promises of God to minister to the hearts of his children. He does so with regard to wives, to whom he claims (in his videos if not so clearly in his book) God will not relieve their tortured souls, but by necessity of his design for them will leave them tortured so that through lashing out at their husbands he may be made more spiritual and only then (and through that means) will she receive relief to her soul.
It's an interesting, but grossly unbiblical worldview that hangs on his personal experience and strong distortions of Scripture.
I really enjoyed the first part of this book. Later on, his presentation of Dispensationalism did not seem at all representative of the DispensationalI really enjoyed the first part of this book. Later on, his presentation of Dispensationalism did not seem at all representative of the Dispensationalism I grew up in (and subsequently abandoned for historic premil), which given the authors he sites, is of the same brand he is dealing with. Also, his treatment of Arminianism seems wholly unrepresentative of Classical or Reformed Arminianism. Regardless, well worth reading....more
Very interesting. As a conservative evangelical, I share very little in common with Rowan Williams. This book did not bridge that gap. However, the boVery interesting. As a conservative evangelical, I share very little in common with Rowan Williams. This book did not bridge that gap. However, the book is very well written and the subject is very interesting. Two things particularly stood out in my mind. First was the discussion of the Christian and nuclear deterrence, for which I hold some slight sympathy for his position and remain undecided. The second was his reasons for opposing the ordination of either women or gays--I can't now remember. Either way, they are subjects of ordination that the historic church has long refused as disqualified. His reason for opposing it had nothing to do with the teaching of Scripture on those topics (as my own argument would be), but rather to do with the staunch conservative position of the Catholic church in that regard and his fear that for the Anglican church to abandon the conservative stance would compromise the progress of fellowship between those two communions. Of course, I am at one level disinterested in his reason (since I am not part of either church), and on another level I wholly disagree with his reasoning. It seems very pragmatic. So while I find it interesting that we agree on the specific position (should women/gays be ordained), we are completely in disagreement on the reason....more