Most of the negative comments here are unfounded and misrepresenting what Ken really teaches. Ken does not go into women's sin, he just speaks to the effects our sin has on them. He teaches what it means to be "spiritual leaders". God does not call women to be spiritual leaders therefor the book focuses on men. We are not to look at the spec in our brothers eye when we have a log in ours. Any finger pointing to the sin of others is really just a way our sinful nature (flesh) protects itself and uses the "sin of others" card to direct any attention away from the real problem, our flesh! God looks at our heart and deals with it first. Then he can change the heart of others. We are not to look at the sin of others, just our own.
I demur here, the negative comments I have made are based on Ken's book, "Discovering the Mind of a Woman." Which I have in front of me at this very moment.
Ken actually does go into a woman's sin, he claims that a woman's sin is a reflection of the sinful character of her husband and throughout the book you get the impression that Ken believes this to be the case almost without exception. That's what makes Ken's book spiritually abusive. He shifts the personal sin of a woman onto her husband. It doesn't matter what it is, Ken will shift the blame to the husband.
Here are some examples:
Discovering the Mind of Woman:
You can gauge the sensitivity of your spirit by asking, "Am I meeting the needs of my wife's spirit?" How will you know it? Very simple. If your wife is unpleasant, difficult to live with, and frequently depressed or moody, then you are not ministering to her spirit. If your wife is pleasant, easy to live with, and able to handle the stresses of life confidently, then you are in all likelihood ministering to the needs of her spirit. (Page 119)
Women are not emotional infants who are tethered to their husband's character by some emotional umbilical cord. They are choice making individual people and if they are difficult to live with and unpleasant then it is because they are making choices to be unpleasant and difficult to live with. To assume that a woman cannot choose to react otherwise is, in my view, a deeply offensive philosophy which steals the honor of women, some of which are on this board, who choose to be pleasant, easy to live with and able to handle life confidently despite the fact that their husbands are wholly insensitive to their needs. Conversely, you unjustly condemn any man, also many of whom are on this board, who is bending over backwards to serve his wife only to find that she still is unpleasant, difficult to live with and frequently depressed or moody.
Here's another example from the book.
Discovering the Mind of a Woman:
God, through Isaiah and the apostle Paul, is telling us, in essence: "Husbands, because your ways are not My ways, use Christ's unselfish love for humankind as your example of how to love your wives: (compare Isa. 55:8 with Eph. 5:25-29). If we do this, we will cause our wives to become spiritually mature through our loving and confidence-building examples. (Nair, Discovering the Mind of a woman page 140)
Bottom line, this is a falsehood. There is nothing that I can do to cause
anyone to spiritually mature....
God alone changes the heart.
That's human nature 101.
Here are some more examples of harmful blame shifting.
On Page 85, Ken blames a woman's unexplained hair loss on her husband. I think this is both medically irresponsible and unfair. It is unfair because a woman's response is a woman's responsibility and it is medically irresponsible because if there is something medically going on blaming the character of the husband is a red herring that could prove medically disastrous. On page 87 a man is blamed for his wife's fainting spells. Again, unfair and medically irresponsible. Ken's explanation? He was too critical of her and that made her nervous. I personally hope this couple sought medical intervention despite Ken's diagnosis. There's more. On page 88 a woman's arrogance is blamed on her husband, on page 89 a woman's strong will is blamed on her husband, on page 91 a woman who is domineering is so because her husband is neglectful. If a woman lacks confidence or even doubts her own salvation that is her husband's fault (page 93). A woman who has renounced Christianity can rightly blame her husband for her loss of faith (page 95).
Here's more. A wife who is a poor communicator has poor communication skills because her husband doesn't listen to her. (Page 99)
A wife who struggles with depression does so because her husband is incompetent (Page 100), if he were more adept at handling life's situations, should would have more confidence in him and be more hopeful about life.
Ken even finds a way to blame a man's inability to be clairvoyant and read his wife's thoughts on his sinfulness (page 112) and finds a way to condemn a man if his wife struggles with weight gain (Page 97-98).
Nair actually does deal with a wife's sin, but not in a biblical way. He blames the sinful attitudes and behaviors of a woman on the character of her husband.
The problem with Nair's approach are threefold.
1) It is an unjust approach. The bible consistently teaches that each person is to take responsibility for their own sin. As Paul said in Galatia, each one must bear their own load (Galatians 6:5).
2) It assumes a distorted anthropology which leads to a perverted soteriology. In Nair's approach men sin because of their sinful nature, but women sin because their husbands are sinners. So a husband's core need is a regenerated heart while a wife's core need is a husband of more noble character.
3) Nair's view assumes a distorted (and in my view deeply offensive) view of women. According to Nair, women are only capable of reflecting the character of their own husband, either good or bad. So a woman with a husband of good character is a spiritually, emotionally healthy woman, while the wife of a husband of bad character reflects the bad character of her husband back to him by being (in Nair's words) unpleasant, difficult to live with, and frequently depressed or moody. The problem with this is that, as many women on this board can attest, women have characters of their own and many wives of less than praiseworthy husbands live lives of faith, hope and love despite the character of their husband; thereby showing that a woman actually does have a will of her own, is capable of returning good for evil and should consider her response her responsibility.