I thought the book would be chalked full of real-life moments of love—proof that Harry and Sally, Philip and Aurora, and Rochester and Jane do exist in real life.
I was so excited about my purchase, I decided to crack the spine on my ride home on the Light Rail. Imagine my surprise when I realized the book is heavily rooted in Christian theology. In the spirit of Darkness, I decided to give the book a chance. Writing from a different spiritual background could challenge me to grow intellectually. These new Christian perspectives could help me understand my own beliefs in a more developed way. It would be closed-minded to disregarded a book simply because the author and I share different ideologies.
After a few pages, I came across the following quotation:
There is an obvious difference (though the world may not see it) between the Christian proposal of marriage and the secular proposal of marriage. Yes, the words may be just as romantic, the setting just as creative, the ring just as exquisite. But the difference lies in the understanding of the magnitude of the union. (62)
Apparently the author of the book didn't get the memo about being open-minded.
The way that Ms. Eva Marie Everson explains her thinking is simply too anemic to be considered rationale and open-minded. Her words are rooted in closed-mindedness rather than actual analytical thought. Let me explain.
Ms. Everson's diction is presumptuous. She assumes her readership shares her particular religious beliefs. Is there an “obvious difference” between the two types of marriages? Certainly. But to what obvious difference is she referencing? She doesn't clarify her thought process or her terms. And because “the world may not see [the difference],” Ms. Everson comes off like a self-proclaimed expert on the differences between the Christian and secular marriages even if that was not her intent.
She continues with an anecdote:
Years ago I read two articles describing the marriage proposals of two sets of celebrities. One couple had lived together for some time, and while their proposal story was interesting and fun, it lacked something...the other couple was John Tesh and Connie Selleca. The story was beautifully romantic (in my way of thinking) and their love for Christ and each other was evident throughout the piece. (62)
Apparently, the secular proposal was “interesting” and “fun” but it “lacked something” that John and Connie's proposal possessed. I find the phrase “lacked something” to be vague and worthless as support for her argument that Christian marriages understand something that secular marriage do not.
To that end, the purpose of this passage was not to prove her point logically, but simply promote Christian lifestyle while attacking the secular. If Ms. Everson had attempted an argument, even a flawed argument, I would have at least given her credit for her effort. But here, in this quotation, her words simply assume a secular marriage inherently lacks a spiritual gravitas and an “understanding of the magnitude of the union.” She does not attempt to debate her point of view logically—she simply relies on her own arrogance and closed-mindedness to provide the rhetorical momentum.
Isn't “True Love” supposed to be more universal than this? Why must a book about “True Love” be so divisive? Why must I read about why I'm not a good lover simply because I'm not Christian? Would an unwavering belief in Christ really make me a better husband? Why can't I love my wife as deeply as a Christian man loves his wife? Why can't this book about “True Love” simply make me smile at others' happiness rather than make me upset about others' preconceptions?
Ms. Everson, you have punished me for having an open mind. You're either a bad writer for being unable to support your thesis, or you're a ignorant writer for being unable to control your prejudice. Either way, you shouldn't be publishing books about True Love.
Everson, Eva Marie. True Love: Engaging Stories or Real-Life Proposals. Urichsville, OH: Promise Press, 2000.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment