The author appeals to her own authority and experience as the standard to define rebel and good. While she did interview 25 millennials, she quoted them as if they were actual quotes in the book. However, they all had the same voice (despite being male or female) and used near identical language to describe events (i.e. Devastated). Either all 25 were psychological majors or the author took liberty in her quotations to use her own voice. Being as how she stated that one had an electrician degree, one was studying biology, and one premed(I'd have to refer to my notes to verify that), it created an untrustworthy tone to the testimonies given. I took fairly extensive notes and my questions or arguments outweighed beneficial statements by more than 15:1. A Goodreads review simply isn't enough to give a thorough review.
While I grant that the author had an engaging tone and was generally enjoyable to read, I must reject nearly all of her examples. I do greatly appreciate her comment on page 95 that raising kids who don't rebel means raising kids who are going to be different.
The author did not present a clear definition of what "rebel" means. She implied that rebellion was partying, sex, drinking, and drugs. The dictionary definition of rebel is to rise in opposition or resistance to an established government or ruler, or authority. In the first several chapters, the author subtly set the stage to undermine parental authority. She did not address Biblical authority as set in the Word of God. Rebellion is more than just a physical act of the above mentioned things, but is an act in the heart. A defiance against authority. She set no grounds as to why we should not rebel. Why is rebelling bad? She repeatedly referred to partying and drugs as stupid and dumb. Why are they stupid? Are they stupid because they are sinful? Her emphasis was placed on being smart rather than being holy.
The author consistently appealed to psychology above the Word. She also failed to identify her examples where a clear Biblical standard was broken as Biblical, but rather appealed to psychology. Her examples or rebellion consisted of children who were children on divorce, children whose only disciplinarian presented was the father, or children whose father's exasperated (although the previous examples outnumbered the latter). Fathers are instructed to not exasperate their children, yet rather than offer Biblical instruction the author turned to a study.
The author did not mention sin until page 142. It was mentioned a total of four times. The second time was a parent telling a child we don't go to the circus because that is where people go to sin. The last two times were within a few paragraphs of each other in the conclusion and it was addressing sexual sin. I do not recall repentance being mentioned once - but multiple times God healing our hurts. It was about God helping us feel better rather than us serving a holy and righteous God.
There were many inconsistencies within the message as well. Chapter 6 said family was about fun above all. Chapter 8 said it was about team sacrifice above fun. In one chapter the author said she was disciplined but not punished. Later she said she was punished for disrespect. In the beginning, she said her family had no rules, yet later she said her mom wouldn't have allowed her to get away with the disrespect other girls had. At one point she agreed with her interviewees that bringing friends on vacation is a terrible idea because it hinders family time, yet a couple chapters later she spoke of taking many family vacation/camping trips with the Woods family and the kids being detached from the adults (although she made it sound like a good thing there). Just as the author failed to define rebel and played loosey goosey with the meaning of words, the author manipulated the meanings of acts through her inconsistency. Another example is where she applauded Jason's father for calling out the youth leadership who publicly berated his son. She emphasized how they yelled at the boy, and yet she says the father then yelled at the leaders. If yelling is bad, why was it good for him to do it? It sounded as if the father also did this in public? I was seriously confused in that example as it seemed to be using different, inconsistent, standards that for one person it is acceptable to do something yet not for someone else. And again, by what standard? If we are using the feelings of Jason, what gives more weight to his feelings than the leader's feelings?
In the chapter about spanking the author cited a researcher. She made the claim that children who were spanked were more at risk. However, only a general statement was made with no qualifications. At what risk? Five percent or ninety-five percent? Additionally, at risk of what? At risk of becoming drug users? Or at risk of becoming astronauts? The statement does not validate her point, but creates a vague (yet false) appeal to authority because an expert says children are at risk. That is meaningless as stated. Regarding the Hebrew use of the word child in the proverbs, I intend to do more research. The author has not proven to me that she can fairly and meaningfully apply expert testimony to her case, therefore I cannot accept the testimony simply because it is presented. I do agree, however, that it was serious business as we were talking about sins that possibly included the death penalty. But then again, wasn't the death penalty instated for disobedience? God took sin very seriously in the old covenant. (He still does, but praise God, Jesus paid the penalty for all of us).
The author fails to realize that not everyone is as extremely extroverted as she stated her family is. She spoke as if her experience was the only reality.
I understand that many will reject my review. I understand that may be the case because I know this is a popular blogger/author. What it ultimately comes down to is not my opinion versus someone else's opinion, but rather what the Word of God says. The entire, authoritative word of God. From cover to cover. It is not what I feel (at one point the author referred to 'feeling that the gospel is misrepresented'). It is what the Word says. Can we go to it for what we need? Is it enough? Do we need to go to psychology?
Simply put, I cannot in good conscience recommend this book. This book cannot be defended Scripturally. The author exhibited naïveté towards the sinful nature. On multiple occasions she referred to how good we were. We were good kids. We'd always be good, wouldn't we? Being good is the natural state of man, or so she implied. When a parent follows the advice in this book and the child still rebels, the views of this book are not defensible. The child is a sinner. The parents are sinners. We all choose whether we will obey or rebel. (Again, this refers to the lack of defining rebel as several examples that she uses as innocent learning, such as her sister defiantly asking how many spankings, reflect a rebellion to authority in the heart). If you want man's wisdom, in which man is the authority of right and wrong, then I surmise you will love this book. If you want tough, Scriptural edification and training in which we recognize our sin (sin and 'mistake') are not the same thing, and fall humbly on our face before the Lord of Lords this is not the book for you.
There were enough infractions in this book between inconsistencies, misrepresentation of Scripture, misrepresentation of others (were the parents ever interviewed of the kids who rebelled?), simple lack of defining of words and consistent application, poor execution of expert testimony, lacking of common sense, appeal to own authority and experience, that a thorough refutation of this book would require a book longer than he initial book.