Pastor Doug Wilson has a new post up titled 21 Theses on Submission in Marriage (HT Hmm). Taken individually, most of the theses are good, and parts of the post are excellent. For brevity I’ll focus on what I see as the main flaws in the post, but I would encourage my readers to follow the link and read the whole thing.
One of the key ways complementarians neuter headship is by adding a special rule to husbands; submission is mandatory, they tell us, but husbands must not instruct or try in any way to coerce their wives into accepting their biblical role. As Mary Kassian explains in 7 Misconceptions about Submission, husbands must only love their wives sacrificially, and hope their wife gets the hint:
Misconception #4: Submission is a right—a husband has the right to demand his wife’s submission.
A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.
Kathy Keller explained the same thing in her sermon on submission at FamilyLife:
Submission is something that a wife gives. It’s not something that a husband can demand.
Coercion, complementarians tell us, is reserved for wives to use against husbands. As Kassian explains:
Submission is neither mindless nor formulaic nor simplistic. Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.
And likewise Keller:
He’s controlling, threatening (maybe even abusive). Am I supposed to submit to all of this?”
The answer is, “No!” Your submission to a husband who is sinning against God is to oppose him…
If he’s abusive, call the police—I mean, if necessary—but with the motive of trying to serve and save him—not punish, or dominate, or threaten him…
Note how this inverts biblical instruction to husbands and wives. In the Bible, husbands are to love their wives by actively leading them, by instructing their wives verbally (Eph 5:26, 1 Cor 14:35). Wives, on the other hand, are to win their husbands over without a word, even if the husband is sinning (1 Pet 3:1-2, ESV):
3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
I mention all of this as background, because Wilson does something very similar in his 21 theses. His instruction to husbands is to win disobedient wives without a word, and his instruction to wives is to bring in others to coerce husbands who aren’t obeying the word. Read the quotes below from Wilson’s points 5 and 11, and note how similar they are to the quotes above by Keller and Kassian:
- …When the authority of a husband turns rancid, a wife should receive the help of fathers, brothers, friends, and/or elders to help her stand up against it. I have been involved in this sort of intervention more than once.
…
- The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.
Wilson may not be trying to encourage the rebellion of Kassian and Keller, but at the very least he is inadvertently encouraging this kind of thinking.
I’ll add that the question of a truly abusive husband is a difficult one, and while I’m not aware of any specific direction in Scripture indicating that elders should intervene, I believe that the general instruction regarding following civil authorities as well the instruction on church discipline can be carefully and wisely applied here. But we must be aware that:
- The purpose of the intervention should be to help bring a brother back from serious sin, and to protect the wife. The purpose should not be to help the wife stand up to her husband’s authority, as Keller and Kassian teach, and as Wilson says he has done. The purpose should be Christian, not feminist.
- Abuse has been redefined to mean anything that frightens or upsets the wife, and is being very openly used by feminists as a way to abolish headship and make husbands submissive to their wives. The creators of the pervasive legal and social model regarding abuse (Duluth) are very open about the fact that from the beginning their objective has not been to stop domestic violence, but to stop men from seeing themselves as heads of the household and teach wives to stand up to their husbands.
- When the Apostles Peter and Paul wrote about headship and submission, they did not feel the need to remind wives to monitor their husbands for sin and call in the authorities. Instead, they instructed wives to win sinning husbands over without a word. This was in the ancient world, in a time (as we are forever reminded) when husbands were violent chauvinists. Yet in our age of open feminist rebellion and docile men, no discussion of headship and submission can occur without telling husbands to mind their own business if their wives rebel, and reminding wives to call the cops if the husband is abusive. Was there an embarrassing omission by the apostles, or is this being added to appease the feminist rebellion? Why must the tone and content of the teaching be so radically different today than in the ancient world?
To understand the depth of this perhaps (to some) subtle flaw in Wilson’s teaching, imagine if he had instead told wives to win sinning husbands over without a word, and had encouraged husbands with wives who rebelled against submission to seek out church discipline. Flipping the message like this would have lead to an open rebellion.
The other major flaw with Wilson’s theses on submission is his denial of the nature of the defining feature of our age, the very open feminist rebellion all around us. This is despite initially promising statements in theses 2 and 10:
- We live in a time when honest exegesis is routinely threatened with calumny, and there are frequently honors and rewards for dishonest exegesis. It should not be surprising that we are getting less and less of the former, and more and more of the latter.
…
- At the same time, because of the curse that followed the Fall, women have a deep resistance to dutiful submission, even though such submission would lead them into the joy and true satisfaction that comes from obeying God. It may or may not improve the marriage (depending on his sin issues), but it will most certainly improve her walk with God. The prophecy that her “desire shall be for her husband” was not speaking of romantic getaways, but rather predicting that there would be a struggle for mastery. So instead of trying to gain mastery over her husband, she should struggle to gain mastery over this besetting impulse within herself.
The problem is that while Wilson recognizes that we live in an age of open feminist rebellion, and while he recognizes that women will naturally be inclined to feminist rebellion, he chalks the widespread feminist rebellion up to men tricking women into feminist rebellion:
- The liberation of women was a false flag operation. The true goal was the liberation of libertine men, and in our day this was a goal that has largely been achieved. These were men who wanted the benefits for themselves that would come from easy divorce, widespread abortion, mainstreamed pornography, and a promiscuous dating culture. The early twentieth century was characterized by the Christian wife. The early twenty-first century is characterized by the tattooed concubine. And these sons of Belial have the chutzpah to call it “progress for women.”
It is true that part of the massive sin involved with our adoption of feminist rebellion involves men, including Christian men, hoping to exploit feminism. But this overlooks the much more pervasive sin by men, the same sin of Adam in the Garden, of listening to women when they should have listened to God. Calling women out on sin is hard, and feels uncomfortable. I know Wilson knows this, because he has written that the idea of confronting women’s sin from the pulpit is so disturbing that other pastors avoid it entirely, and while Wilson is more brave than other pastors the very idea of doing so evokes a kind of nervous laughter.
Cowardice in the Pulpit
And the reason we have such cowardice in our homes is because the example has already been set in our pulpits…
Now suppose—just suppose—the presenting problem in three marriages I am trying to help is the problem of lazy and idle housewives. Is there any practical way, without becoming a Pariah for the Ages, to preach on “Lazy Housewives”? I could get myself into a fit of the giggles just thinking about it.
Moreover, the idea that feminism is merely about a few alpha men wanting to get out of the restrictions of marriage doesn’t pass the laugh test. Not only does our new family structure perfectly align with women’s (and not men’s) preferred form of promiscuity, but the rebellion involves much more than merely destroying the family. Women are acting out their envy of men all around us, and demanding to be placed into every conceivable male role. This includes everything, including men’s sports, combat, and church leadership. Wilson and others observe women demanding to usurp men’s roles, and they tell us men are forcing women to sin. This position requires a parade of embarrassing rationalizations, including the fantastic claim by complementarians that men are forcing women to push their way into combat roles. Wilson is more subtle than complementarians in this regard, but still engages in the same basic thought process. In thesis #7 he describes women finding themselves in leadership roles over men, which he says is driven by male fecklessness:
- The requirement of submission within marriage does not prohibit the occasional circumstance when a woman in civil society finds herself in a leadership role over men. Deborah, Esther, and Lydia come to mind. At the same time, when feminine leadership becomes widespread and common in a society, it is not a sign of progress at all, but is rather a sign of cultural decadence driven by male fecklessness.
Worst of all, by claiming that the feminist rebellion is caused by trickster men who want to exploit the rebellion, Wilson manages to avoid confronting the pervasive sins of both men and women. Men are sinning by being too cowardly to stand up to the rebellion. Women are sinning by giving into the temptation to rebel. Yet Wilson is encouraging women to rationalize this widespread rebellion as something men are making them do, and encouraging men to mind their own business.
Very well done, Dalrock. I had a similar reaction to Wilson — he moves in generally the right direction, but gosh he is still subject to so many flaws and errors in his thinking.
I wonder — would Doug Wilson agree that women have no right to demand that their husbands love them as Christ loves the Church? I doubt it. In fact, it seems like women have a right to call in the posse to demand that on her behalf. It’s so one-sided as to be preposterous unless one understands that underlying this all is a deep-seated, very deep-seated, discomfort with holding women to account in any way. It feels bad, makes them look bad, and is just uncomfortable. So it isn’t done, and scriptural interpretation is bent around finding a man responsible for everything women are doing which is contrary to scripture as well. It’s all very sad, but quite understandable once you understand the basis for it.
Pingback: Submission with a twist, and denying rebellion. | @the_arv
@Novaseeker
Exactly. Submission is, we are told, something special. It is a matter of the heart and faith:
The husband’s obligation to love, however, is different, as the heart and faith aren’t involved.
Nova
I wonder — would Doug Wilson agree that women have no right to demand that their husbands love them as Christ loves the Church? I doubt it. In fact, it seems like women have a right to call in the posse to demand that on her behalf.
Bonus question: hypothetical middle aged man comes to Wilson and states his wife is in rebellion because she has refused him sexually for 6 months. No medical issues, he’s faithful, no porn use, just rebellious refusal. How would Wilson react? Most likely a fit of giggles.
It’s so one-sided as to be preposterous unless one understands that underlying this all is a deep-seated, very deep-seated, discomfort with holding women to account in any way.
And “traditional”. It’s neo Victorianism on steroids with an energy drink chaser. Pure emotion, zero thought, and neo-Pagan woman worship in the extreme case. Statistically, any church with more than 100 women it is contains at least one woman who’s had an abortion. Maybe in her 20’s before marrying at 29.99, or maybe after marriage when she’d born the two children she wanted. How many trad cons could look around their oh so patriarchal church and ask themselves “Which women have had abortions?” with serious intent? I wager about…zero. Because that would require accepting a fact they deny: women can and do behave badly, or in Bible terms “women can and do sin”.
>He’s controlling, threatening (maybe even abusive). Am I supposed to submit to all of this?
Yes.This ‘controlling’ behaviour from him will disappear if she truly gives up control. Men respond warmly and protectively to feminine submission.
@Anon Reader
Wilson addresses this very question here:
Another scenario: if a married man in Wilson’s church was having a sexual affair, and Wilson told him to stop it, could that man then declare that his submission to the church is purely a matter for his heart and that he can’t be coerced into submission? How much giggling from Wilson would result? Probably zero.
“Nor does Scripture require a new absolute submission to her husband. No authority in this fallen world is absolute, and includes the authority of a husband.”
The Bible very clearly disagrees. In fact, as authority comes from God, we are to assume any authority we are under is absolute and correct until clearly proven otherwise.
“When the authority of a husband turns rancid, a wife should receive the help of fathers, brothers, friends, and/or elders to help her stand up against it.”
Phrases like this should be clarified in the context upon every use. What does “turns rancid” mean? It seems like a deliberately vague term that could be construed to fit many situations.
The husband’s obligation to love, however, is different, as the heart and faith aren’t involved.
It’s just a complete laffer. I mean do they even think about what they are saying?
>husbands must not instruct or try in any way to coerce their wives into accepting their biblical role [say the complementarians]
I think this is nonsense — the reality is that wives, once married, must be claimed and taken by their husbands.They cannot give permission to be taken; that would place them in control, which is not where they want to be. The only issue is the means. A *good* husband will be confident and aware enough of her state and his to achieve this without violence, open threats or verbal abuse.
Dalrock quotes Wilson
The most common way this happens in marriage is that a man does not treat his wife right, they start to quarrel and drift apart, and this naturally includes their sex life, and he feels just as entitled as he ever did.
Comedy gold! A mix of passive voice and man-blaming plus woman absolving: trad-con trifecta!
Reading the comments on Doug’s blog, especially from the usual ‘insanitybytes’ going by the name MeMe now, are enough to make you just wipe your hands and walk away. There is no fixing this mess. There is no reason to tie yourself down with a loose around your neck and a sword above your head. Christian marriage is a disaster, there’s no way around that. You get nothing but a shit sandwich, which is force fed to you, and then forcefully removed from your ass once the marriage ends.
Marriage is terminal, it’s dying. Doug is merely a symptom of the disease.
@Anonymous Reader
“Another scenario: if a married man in Wilson’s church was having a sexual affair, and Wilson told him to stop it, could that man then declare that his submission to the church is purely a matter for his heart and that he can’t be coerced into submission? How much giggling from Wilson would result? Probably zero.”
Exactly. No where else in the church is this sort of half-hearted submission accepted. If someone runs from the cops and gets shot, everyone proclaims they deserved it. If they get fired for arguing with the boss, they wouldn’t get any sympathy. If they joined a militia and raised an insurrection against the government, they would be rebuked for not submitting to authorities.
Where the heck does he get this? Men are just expecting grades, standard of living and so on? Really? No, Doug, it’s women who have the legal system in place to give them employment, enhance their grades, get them hired, keep them in the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to… that is what women expect and get, hand delivered by daddy government.
Why is a husband expected to fight against the government, the church and society for the submission of his wife? Why Doug? Answer the question. No man can pass so they might as well walk away, you’ve created an impossible to achieve check list where the man is evaluated by the very vessel that is meant to submit to him. It’s like us being able to judge Christ and thus determine if we are able to get into heaven or not. In other words, Doug Wilson, bullshit!
The presence of insanitybytes / yttik / etc. in comments n a blog is a reliable indicator. She destroys any rational discourse. Might as well link to NARAL, NOW, etc. and be done.
“I could get myself into a fit of the giggles just thinking about it.”
This is not a sentence that should ever leave the mouth/pen of a grown man, let alone a pastor.
“It’s so one-sided as to be preposterous unless one understands that underlying this all is a deep-seated, very deep-seated, discomfort with holding women to account in any way.”
But why in the world is “comfort” the pertinent criteria? We’re supposed to be talking about a grown man here, not a newborn babe.
I think y’all are being too generous in attributing this behavior to mere discomfort. The dynamics involved are much darker/more base than that. These pastors are de facto alpha apes with their own harems, in many cases not just figuratively.
Excellent pointing out how they twist scripture to fit in the modern feminist rebellion times we live in. One example of a good woman who won her abusive husband over to God through submission and prayer is St. Rita. That would be the example to look to.
And the more our church leaders try to stay with the feminist ethos in marriage instead of what God said…the more marriage will suffer. Men will continue to be cowards by either being cads or emasculated yes men and women will continue to rebel through promiscuity and being bossy.
‘No where else in the church is this sort of half-hearted submission accepted’
So we have to ask…what’s in it for the church to encourage rebellion in wives? It would seem to me that’s one way to destroy a church.
”The liberation of women was a false flag operation. The true goal was the liberation of libertine men, and in our day this was a goal that has largely been achieved. These were men who wanted the benefits for themselves that would come from easy divorce, widespread abortion, mainstreamed pornography, and a promiscuous dating culture. The early twentieth century was characterized by the Christian wife. The early twenty-first century is characterized by the tattooed concubine. And these sons of Belial have the chutzpah to call it “progress for women.”
Interesting perspective but some Feminists call themselves “sex positive” and they promote porn. Some other Feminists are against porn. During the 70s and 80s anti-porn Feminists and Christians joined forces against porn. There were men and women, self-proclaimed Feminists, and not, who fought those Feminists and Christians. The collective cultural (and legal) consensus was reached that porn is “free speech” and now we have human trafficking to keep porn and prostitution going, including child porn and prostitution.
”the reality is that wives, once married, must be claimed and taken by their husbands.”
Taken where? She is already claimed as his at engagement, or at least the wedding. Presumably once married they are already living together, so taken where, exactly?
Wilson’s follow-up post:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/now-brief-word-wife-beaters.html
“What’s in it for the church to encourage rebellion in wives? It would seem to me that’s one way to destroy a church.”
It’s called useful idiocy. The well intentioned can be tricked into pushing terrible ideas fairly easily. Most of these preachers probably believe they’re doing the right and fair thing. They’re not trying to destroy the church. They listen to their teachers who listened to their teachers. It’s always best, as McCain and Dalrock have done, to go back to the source material. Where do these ideas come from? Then you see the end goal.
“The collective cultural (and legal) consensus was reached that porn is “free speech” and now we have human trafficking to keep porn and prostitution going, including child porn and prostitution.”
Human trafficking does not equal prostitution.
When are we going to realize that human marriage has gone the way of the denarius?
“When are we going to realize that human marriage has gone the way of the denarius?”
I mean that presently. I don’t mean to disparage the goal of this blog to bring back Biblical based marriage.
Hmm, do you ever bother to read anything anyone else writes? I’m curious, because you seem to mostly just be a drive-by poster.
Without peeking, I will predict:
Wilson will take the usual brave stand against “abusive men” but once again fail to mention the Duluth protocol that binds him and all other men in courts of law.
Wilson will equate men who shout at their wives in a moment of frustration, or who cut up a credit card, with men who break bones – thereby revealilng that Duluth underlies his emoting.
Wilson will include one sentence, or perhaps a part of a sentence, to acknowledge that some husbands sometimes may have some problem with some women – implying that Real Men like him never get attacked by Real Women, so it’s all still men’s fault.
Wilson will once again reveal that he’s a typical tradcon who has a pagan worship of women.
Now I’ll go read and test my claim. That’s called “reasoning”. Tradcons should try it sometime. Unless thinking is too scary…
Pingback: Submission with a twist, and denying rebellion. | Reaction Times
‘When are we going to realize that human marriage has gone the way of the denarius?’
Marriage will always continue…what I hope comes to a fiery end is the feminist ethos and its widespread promotion of female rebellion. But it’s going to take returning to God for it to happen.
@Hmmm
After reading Wilson’s latest meandering bleat, I admit to being wrong. He didn’t even get as far down the male abasement road as I expected, but rather spent his time mumbling about C.S. Lewis. Oh, and blaming men if their wives become rebels, but specifically rejecting the idea that they should have any authority. Responsiblity with no authority – 1970’s feminism with a few fancier words dressing it up to look all nice and churchian.
The comments I looked at were not all insane, a few men pointed out the obvious “responsibility without authority”, while a couple of girls insisted that any wifely rebelliion was properly to be dealt with by church authorities….I laugh out loud at that.
Wilson is an appeaser. He’s an old man who is clueless about the modern world, the real nature of women, and quite possibly what the Bible actually says in part of Ephesians, 1 Peter and for sure he hasn’t read Proverbs in a looooong time, if ever. Doug Wilson is a conservative feminist. He opposes abortion and lesbianism, but is 100% behind FigureHeadship / the Chauffeur model of marriage.
This is the best tradcon you’ve got, Hmm? Really?
Thanks Doug for growing the MGTOW movement, we couldn’t do it without you. Keep it up. There is no responsibility without authority, and there is no authority if one does not have the necessary tools to discipline the one under your authority. What we have here is a clear case that marriage is a trap. There is no other relationship either between God and men or between two different men in a hierarchical structure.
This Doug is merely an AMOGing fool. He despises other men and seeks to place himself above them. Joking about how wives always own their husbands in the battle of the wills. The husband is a loser don’t you know and the wife knows best, always. Why don’t they just lead then? Since they are holier and better than the husband. Fuck this tosser!
There were those who spoke highly of Doug and questioned us for taking him to task. What do they say now? All is out in the open, Doug perverts the authority of the husband into one of mere servant. He spits on men, calls them names and strips them of their God given authority. Do not ever again ask why men are not marrying. The answer is there, only those so blind do not see it.
Sorry, that should read, “There is no other relationship either between God and men or between two different men in a hierarchical structure where the person under authority gets to determine the value of their superior.”
@Anonymous Reader-
Do you read the comments? I replied to a person’s post.
Rebellion against God given authority never ends well. Satan rebelled against God and was thrown out of heaven. Adam and Eve rebelled against God and were thrown out of Eden. Trying to encourage wives to rebel against their husbands results in being thrown out of a marriage.
@Anonymous Reader
Ha….even I didn’t read the post carefully, since you didn’t put the @ before Hmm.
My bad.
‘It’s always best, as McCain and Dalrock have done, to go back to the source material. Where do these ideas come from? ‘
At some point feminism has poisoned the minds of some clergy. And I would venture to guess many of them are married already where they have first hand experience with wife rebellion.
It’s funny, no really it is. The Christian women in the comments say that a husband cannot discipline a rebellious wife but must go to the elders of the Church to have is authority enforced and they know full well that the Church will side with them on any argument between the spouses. In essence they believe the husband must be responsible for the marriage but that he cannot do a thing to help the marriage along. In other words, the husband is merely a passenger along with the ride and that, they, the wife is the one who determines direction. The man just gets the blame and must lay his life down for the wife.
LOL! Fucking hell! Pure gold, marriage is so lovely! Don’t sign me up though, haha!
It’s tragicomic watching Wilson try to Bible-square the circle of feminist rebellion, especially the apparent principle of “Christ gave mandatory orders to us but men should follow Christ’s example instead of giving mandatory orders like Christ did.”
And what’s up with #17: “The liberation of women was a false flag operation. The true goal was the liberation of libertine men, and in our day this was a goal that has largely been achieved. These were men who wanted the benefits for themselves that would come from easy divorce, widespread abortion, mainstreamed pornography, and a promiscuous dating culture.”
Wilson still refuses to accept that it’s women who invoke easy divorce, women who authorize the abortions done on themselves, women who leverage promiscuous dating until they’re used-up old hags. And pornography is an inferior substitute to a pleasant wife. Why would men go out of their way to make porn their only sane hope of release? That’s like banning caffeine to justify a meth habit.
The Churchian obsession with Apex Alphas has long been pathological. It must be frustrating to watch their powergirl daughters become the sons they were raised to be, only to throw all masculinity aside to become the fucktoy of the hour for a convicted felon.
…
“I’ll add that the question of a truly abusive husband is a difficult one,”
How so? Assault & battery are illegal regardless of marital status.
Cops show up to a domestic dispute. Wife claims abuse. Cops check for serious injuries. If there’s blood on the ground, arrest the perp (might be the wife). If no blood, cops ask husband how he wants the situation handled so the cops won’t have to come back that shift. If a spouse is drunk then it’s off to the drunk tank, no charges filed. Patriarchy is affirmed with no potential for brutality. Doesn’t seem hard.
“Human trafficking does not equal prostitution.”
Statistically a large part of it does.
“I’ll add that the question of a truly abusive husband is a difficult one,”
“How so? Assault & battery are illegal regardless of marital status. Cops show up to a domestic dispute. Wife claims abuse.”
For cops to show up someone has to make the call. Sometimes abuse victims don’t call and don’t claim abuse even if they do. This includes men too.
Still reading the comments over at Wilson’s. Pretty good summary of what’s wrong with churches.
There are men pointing out the “responsibility with no authority” problem, but even the oh-so-holy church women are either playing No True Scotsman (“a REAL Christian wife would never..”) or just peddling conservative feminism of the “Servant leadership means obeying me while pretending to be the head” variety.
“At some point feminism has poisoned the minds of some clergy.”
At that point it becomes self-perpetuating. No matter how many times you refute the teaching, it’s going to survive in some circles and come back in the next generation. As I said, most of these preachers are probably sincere, just blatantly misguided.
Dalrock,
Concerning elders, pastors, preachers, men of the church in general getting involved for an intervention with an “abusive” husband, my personal experience is to the point:
When my ex filed for divorce my attorney discovered a blog she had been running where she conversed with several of her friends, in which they discussed how she could claim abuse in court to improve her position. She admitted to her friends that I had never abused her, but they then went on to assure each other that since she is female the court would automatically believe her.
Apparently my
Apparently my court jurisdiction is atypical, because my attorney was able to introduce this and use it. Confronted with the material, my ex testified under oath that I had never abused her or our child, nor had I ever threatened her or our child in any way.
The church we had attended at the time, however, took a different view. My ex accused me of abuse to the eldership, who took the matter very seriously. When I presented them with her sworn testimony given to the court, including the original court documents, they discounted it completely, based on her telling them I was abusive. No evidence other than her say so was needed for the church, and no evidence to the contrary mattered. She said so, so it was true.
In addition, she attempted, and failed, to get a restraining order against me…. An order which an attorney friend told me is usually automatic. Apparently this was because of the massive evidence of premeditated conspiracy to commit perjury on her part. The court actually threw out her request to have me placed under a restraining order. Even I was amazed by that.
By this point she had already left the church as well, and publicly renounced her previously espoused faith.
None of this meant anything to the church…. I was still guilty of abuse in their eyes. In the end, divorce court and the judge were far more just and equitable to me than was the church when my now ex wife decided she was unhappy and had the tingles for another man. When a man can honestly say divorce court is better than the church…. well.
@Okra
How did the church respond? Discipline? What manner?
“Sometimes abuse victims don’t call and don’t claim abuse even if they do.” As in they don’t press charges.
“When my ex filed for divorce my attorney discovered a blog she had been running where she conversed with several of her friends, in which they discussed how she could claim abuse in court to improve her position. She admitted to her friends that I had never abused her, but they then went on to assure each other that since she is female the court would automatically believe her.”
Another reason why South and East Asian parents don’t want their adult kids marrying us. Divorce, and divorce on extremely flimsy grounds, even fraudulent grounds. My kids go to a private school with a lot of Asian students and I’d like to see them someday coupled up accordingly but if this keeps up, their chances will be slim. They might have to marry other Anglo-Americans with such “values”, end up divorced or not marry at all and simply remain lonely or worse yet, sexually promiscuous, diseased and lonely in the end anyway. This is not a future I want for my kids so I really hope other Americans can become cultured, educated, professional, and family oriented so that our international reputation improves and my kids can marry right.
It seems that evangelicals sound more and more like mainline Protestants, though they will insist that they are “Bible believing”
Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church…. How does he love the church? Read the letters to the seven churches in Asia at the beginning of Revelation. If they are unfaithful He fights against them with the sword of His mouth, He removes their candlestick, He spews them out of His mouth, etc… To Doug Wilson’s frame of mind Jesus Christ is an abusive husband.
How does God love individual members of His church? Read Hebrews 12. Every son he receives he chastises (beats with a rod). If we do not receive chastisement we are bastards, not His. I guess Wilson can’t wait to get to Heaven and have an intervention to put the Father and the Son in their places for being abusive.
“None of this meant anything to the church…. I was still guilty of abuse in their eyes. In the end, divorce court and the judge were far more just and equitable to me than was the church when my now ex wife decided she was unhappy and had the tingles for another man. When a man can honestly say divorce court is better than the church…. well.”
Sorry to hear that Okra but you’re much better off without her if her heart was so fraudulent. Compassion is a Christian virtue and out of compassion for someone they thought was abused, they took her side. A good actor can really convince others. Chances are she’s an undiagnosed narcissist, maybe even a sociopath if her acting was so good. Again, you’re better off without such a disturbed/damaged person in your life.
“When a man can honestly say divorce court is better than the church…. well.”
Time to find another “church”.
Dalrock, methinks Kotter may be a manifestation (another sock puppet) of our old Desi troll girl from several years ago? What do you think?
Squid,
I am no longer a member of that church, nor am I welcome back. Although my ex openly renounced her faith and never darkened the door again she is still included in all their social functions.
I’ll share something I’ve found in my search for an uncucked church.
I’ve returned to examining house churches (they don’t always have to met at homes). In how did participatory worship and teaching turn into groups in theater seating? How did a full meal communion turn into crackers? Groups that are focusing on early church practices point out how important structure is; structure can breed outcome. There was a lot left open on church practices in the New Testament but maybe saying women should be silence (during teaching and discussions) is a practical structural issue based on human nature.
From : https://ntrf.org/index.php/2016/08/03/practical-considerations-for-starting-house-churches/
[blockquote]Wimpy Men, Bossy Wives: One of the most common reasons a house church fails is because the men won’t fulfill their God-given duties as leaders in the home. Even if a church has a full time minister it won’t make any difference unless the other men are being loving leaders in their own homes. Men won’t be men; it is a chronic problem. They are not leading at home and they don’t lead at church. They are not spiritually minded. They do not lead their families in reading the Scriptures or prayer. Men fail to disciple their own children. They are disconnected. Often, a man will not speak up during the participatory worship precisely because he does not have a spiritual life. It shows! Conversely, when a man is spiritually active at home, he will come to the church meeting and share from his personal over-flow. A large part of your ministry will be encouraging and challenging the men to be leaders at home, to love their wives as Christ loved the church and to pay attention to their children.
The role of the women in the meeting needs to be carefully considered. Since men are already tempted to abdicate the throne, if the wives will lead, the men will often let them. It has been observed that in churches that allow women to be elders, fewer and fewer men can be found in the congregation. Applied to a participatory church meeting, the more women speak up or lead out, the quieter the men will tend to be. Church meetings should model and reinforce biblical teachings on family: husbands love, wives submit, children obey. 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 indicates that it is actually a form of submission for a woman to refrain from sharing in the assembly. 1 Timothy 2:8-15 further reveals that within the body of Christ, women are to learn quietly rather than serving as teachers. The women should cooperate in a dynamic silence that encourages the men to speak up. Scripturally, it is the men who are to lead in public worship, just as they are to lead in worship in their own families.[/blockquote]
Anonymous Reader” hypothetical middle aged man comes to Wilson and states his wife is in rebellion because she has refused him sexually for 6 months. No medical issues, he’s faithful, no porn use, just rebellious refusal. How would Wilson react?
My guess is that Wilson would tell the man to “search his heart” to see if he’s truly so faithful to his wife. Wilson will interrogate the man, browbeat him, and find all sorts of examples of how he’s been unfaithful.
Has he helped enough with housework? Does he always listen to his wife, for as long as she “needs” him to, or does he tune her out? Etc, etc, etc.
Wilson is sure to find some area in which the husband has fallen short, and thus been “unfaithful” to his wife by not loving her enough.
…If he’s abusive, call the police—I mean, if necessary—but with the motive of trying to serve and save him—not punish, or dominate, or threaten him…
Exactly right, because when Duluth Model-trained cops show up at what they were told is a Domestic Violence call, the first thing on their minds is how they are going to serve and save the man in question.
@Okra
A similar situation happened at my previous church. About a month after we showed up, one of the wives left her husband and moved to Florida. They did the whole reconciliation thing with the church. He, I guess, stated that he had no desire to reconcile which gave them the excuse to church him for her leaving. It was very weird. They pretended to follow the Epistle instructions, but when it came time to vote on the situation, they never even explained what the charges against him were. I refused to vote because I didn’t know what in the world we were voting on or the evidence. I was and still am really confused what grounds they had against him.
Kotter,
I don’t think acting had anything to do with it. Once she was caught red-handed lying, and moved in with another man, she no longer even attended the church where we had been members. The elders simply carried on, with her gone, and acted as though her accusations of abuse were unassailable truth, even with her own sworn testimony otherwise. Once the accusation of abuse was made there were only two possible outcomes… The man confesses to abuse and accepts whatever punishment his ex demands (including complete surrender in divorce court) as an act of penance, or be read out of the church. It is not even possible, in their minds, that the accusation can be false.
Okra….
What denomination of church did this situation happen?
#17 Pastor Wilson fails to notice the obvious: that if men are libertine then women must perforce be slut (progress for women). Does he regard all men as libertines? Here today, gone tomorrow Pick-up artists are surely not much interested in divorce, abortion or pornography yet he says that they are so interested. I therefore like to think that Idaho (I had to look it up to see where it is situate) a State fifty per cent larger than England yet with only three per cent of the population is an idyllic part of America largely untouched by modern hedonism though seemingly Yiddish flourishes: is it really proper for him to use the word chutzpah?
Earl,
It was a fairly mainstream evangelical non-denominational congregation.
“There was a lot left open on church practices in the New Testament but maybe saying women should be silence (during teaching and discussions) is a practical structural issue based on human nature.”
They will ask “if we are to be completely silent during teaching and discussion then why should we show up at all?” Then they will start their own sex segregated churches.
“Pick-up artists are surely not much interested in divorce, abortion or pornography ”
The are interested in abortion (for obvious reasons, they like to raw dog it), and pornography (they claim to watch it, some claiming to having once been addicted but now are moderate viewers), and sometimes in divorced women who they claim are easy pickups.
“…If he’s abusive, call the police—I mean, if necessary—but with the motive of trying to serve and save him—not punish, or dominate, or threaten him…”
The legal system punishes, it doesn’t reform. High recidivism rates result.
@Kotter
“”Human trafficking does not equal prostitution.”
Statistically a large part of it does.”
Where are you getting your stats?
‘It was a fairly mainstream evangelical non-denominational congregation.’
Then you made the right decision to leave. Non-denominational leaders can make up the rules as they go along.
Kotter,
No, womynz will not start their own segregated churches. In the city I live a couple of times gyms have opened up that were womynz only. Neither one lasted long. Tons of womynz at the regular co-ed gyms. Womynz want to be where men are even worse than the other way around. If they found out their was a men-only church in town they’d be breaking down the doors.
For crying out loud, when have womynz in this country EVER accepted segregation away from men in the last 100 years?
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/faqs.html
Damn Crackers, does your moniker refer to the Pope’s latest decree regarding gluten free communion wafers, or to white people?
Okra maybe you’re right but I can’t see women, who make up more than 50% of the church, accepting not having a say.
Crackers,
While Kotter may or may not be a troll, here is a link… https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-human-trafficking
According to what I can find anywhere from 70-80 % of trafficking involves prostitution. Historically it may overlap (many slaves laborers were also used for sex).
Where does the UN document say that a huge proportion of prostitution in the United States is related to human trafficking? Didn’t see it.
“Non-denominational leaders can make up the rules as they go along.”
When I explained this to a Catholic cousin we were visiting in Hungary last year, she remarked that she couldn’t wrap her head around that as it seemed utterly bizarre to her, along with how many Protestant Americans would church hop. Of course, for her Protestant meant Lutheran (or Evangelical as they are known over there). The notion that there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of independent Protestant churches where Pastor Bob would teach the Gospel as he understood it seemed very strange to her. And she is not some village bumpkin, she’s a corporate attorney working for Daimler.
Kotter,
The more of a “say” womynz have in a church, the greater the likelihood that church will be experiencing a negative growth rate. The churches with the healthiest membership levels tend to be those with a patriarchal structure. The UMC, Episcopalian, Disciples of Christ are all examples where I live…. All embraced female leadership, all are dying out.
‘The notion that there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of independent Protestant churches where Pastor Bob would teach the Gospel as he understood it seemed very strange to her. And she is not some village bumpkin, she’s a corporate attorney working for Daimler.’
Well I’m Catholic too and it is strange to me. Granted we have our fair share of bad apple clergy but our church wasn’t founded by them.
Reading through those comments at Wilson’s just makes me appreciate 1 Corinthians 14:35 all the more. If those women respected their husbands at home, all those nonsensical comments would disappear. Reminds me of the classic heartiste post, “who bitch this is?”
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/who-bitch-this-is/
@Okrahead
I see both your link and the UN link on human trafficking both do not include the illegal immigrant trade as human trafficking. So yes, a majority of human trafficking might be sex trafficking.
However, for some reason I don’t see young women dying in tractor trailers from extreme heat or 1000s of Arab and African courtesans pouring into Europe or dying in the Mediterranean Sea. It’s almost that the powers that be are having our eyes focus away from the real problems.
But where does it say that most prostitution in the US relates to trafficking (i.e., that most prostitutes in the US are trafficked)?
Most, if any, of the sex trafficked women in the US reside in the immigrant community. I doubt that the large majority of Backpage girls or street corner junkies were brought here by Albanian sex trafficking rings.
W.B.Kotter: What about gay pastors? I know they’re increasingly accepted and ordained now. How are those churches doing?
Near where I live, I noticed a Lutheran church that often flies a rainbow flag. I looked them up on the internet, and found that they’re an affiliate of Reconciling Works: http://www.reconcilingworks.org/
This seems to be a Lutheran gay ministry.
A Catholic church near where I live has a Gay Outreach: http://stmonica.net/ministries/fellowship-groups/gay-and-lesbian-outreach
I doubt either of these churches teach their homosexual congregants that the homosexual act is a sin.
If you include the current Islamic invasion of Europe as human trafficking then the prostitution numbers will rapidly skew downwards. As for those crossing into the U.S. via the Mexican border, while women and children may be brought across primarily as laborers, they are also raped on a regular basis along the way, including by the coyotes who transport them. I suppose that could count as sex trafficking if not actual prostitution.
Kotter,
“What about gay pastors?”
Seriously, hard left turn into seriously troll territory with that one, or are you just going for lolz?
Dan Horton
Reading through those comments at Wilson’s…
Remember, these are the conservative, True Christian women [*]. Not NARAL / NOW screechers, not pink pussy-cat hat wearers in the street, these church-going women clearly think of themselves as Proverbs 31 all the way down. So their contentiousness tends to be more passive-aggressive than in-the-face, but it is still there. These are, in short as good as it gets for many churchgoing men. And Doug Wilson is all in favor of beating foolish men into submission for those women.
[*] Except for Bytes, who genuinely appears to now have some mental health issues that go beyond the uncontrollable anger / hatred of men she has displayed over the years at Rollo’s blog and other places. On a recent comment thread at Wilson’s even other women are noticing how often she self-contradicts, how she can’t seem to keep track of whom she replying to, and so forth.
Earl,
It wasn’t founded by Peter either, it was founded by men who came to political power and claimed it was founded by Peter. Humans are the problem (and who God continues to use). Please avoid the digs against Christians not in the RCC.
Opus @ 2:00 pm:
“I therefore like to think that Idaho (I had to look it up to see where it is situate) a State fifty per cent larger than England yet with only three per cent of the population is an idyllic part of America largely untouched by modern hedonism”
Not that idyllic. Direct democracy in the rural states focuses political power in the largest cities which always lean left. Of course, being rural makes centralized enforcement not happen reliably, which is good.
Idaho (and Montana) are also where the right-wing crazies go. They’re more dangerous than left-wing crazies because the latter usually miss what they shoot at and can be paid off. You can google “Sovereign Citizens” to get an idea of America’s right nuts.
…
okrahead @ 2:20 pm:
“According to what I can find anywhere from 70-80 % of trafficking involves prostitution.”
Illegal immigration is also human trafficking. An example:
articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/12/local/la-me-ln-saudi-princess-case-20130712
Human trafficking is now being associated exclusively with forced prostitution in order to rewrite anti-slavery laws for the benefit of globalists. It costs a lot of money to relocate a factory; much less to “relocate” the workers instead. At least the banksters won’t be literally raping them!
As a bonus, the Churchians get a new cause to celebrate. Stop forcing our daughters to have unwanted sex! Yes means Yes! If you moved her from the bar stool to the toilet stall for sex then you’re a human trafficker!
okrahead,
I would call that imoral, but I would not count it as sex trafficking, unless your real goal is to make it mean anything that touches on sex at any point, which would be just about any human movement in history.
When everything is sex trafficking, nothing is sex trafficking.
“It wasn’t founded by Peter either, it was founded ….”
Just for the sake of accuracy not argument, Catholics claim the Church was founded by Jesus not Peter. At least that’s what I was taught.
Opus, I spent some time reviewing and re-discovered that Doug Wilson is in Moscow, Idaho. This is a college town (Univ. of Idaho) and some 10 or so miles away in Pullman, Washington there is another college, Washington State. So even though the population isn’t all that large, there are enough co-eds and college men for Wilson to have had his ears filled with tales of the dastardly PUA cads from the no doubt intense club scene of Moscow’s Main Street.
Of course, with the internet there are no really isolated places anymore. Amazon alone will fulfill all sorts of desires at the click of a mouse button.
‘It wasn’t founded by Peter either,’
I never said it was founded by Peter. He was however the rock upon which Christ built His church.
@AR: “Hmm, do you ever bother to read anything anyone else writes? I’m curious, because you seem to mostly just be a drive-by poster.”
I do read every meta top to bottom. I typically reserve my comments to issues of Biblical interpretation, and an occasional bit of snark. I post links that I think might bring interesting conversation to the meta, or that relate to earlier posts in some way.
Wilson and I are about the same age, and I have read him profitably in other areas. I posted both links to the current conversation because I perceived the weaknesses in them, and wanted to see other interaction. Apparently Dal agreed.
Having been happily married for 30+ years (“Hmm” stands for “happily married man”), I have no horror stories from my own married life – although I have friends that have been through the divorce mill. But I found insight into my own pre-marriage relationships back in the seventies through the red pill lens. And even before marriage, I had a bit of an unconscious red pill mindset (no one-itis, keeping my own frame).
What brings me to Dalrock is observing the dynamics I see among the young people (both women and men) at my church – people I am responsible for as an elder. Being in a church led by male elders and deacons, and with a zero divorce rate among active members (although a few are previously divorced when they join) we are not yet much influenced by the feminist evangelical incursion. But I saw plenty of it in my previous church, which one time split into two along a divide between the families led by the wives and those led by the husbands (I stayed in the “husband” church).
There. More about me than you probably needed (or wanted) to know.
I’m going to try to get back on topic….
I’ve mentioned before I spoke to an older relative who is a pastor, who has been a full time minister for fifty-two years. In the entirety of that time he has dealt with exactly zero – 0 – times that a Christian man abused his wife. He has, however, dealt with abused women many times. It’s just that the abuse was almost always from a boyfriend; on the rare occasion it was her husband he was neither a professed Christian nor a member of any church.
This jibes with national domestic abuse statistics…. Women are safest living with their husbands, children are safest living with two married biological parents. Domestic violence, especially by men, is, statistically speaking, a direct result of womynz shacking up with dark triad bad boys.
Pastor Wilson takes things as far as he’s able. His own activities and writings are likely constrained by his personal situation, which he lays out on his blog profile, calling himself “chief cook and bottle washer around here”.
Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
Exhibit #5,965,783 why I loathe the celebrity pastors of the Reformed world – Doug Wilson, Doug Phillips, John Piper, Tim Keller, Al Mohler, Mark Driscoll, etc. almost as much as I loathe evanjellyfish types like Russell Moore. Churchian Blue-Pill ‘complementarian’ cucks, all…
Between evangelicalism and the Reformed world, I don’t think I’ve encountered yet a single famous preacher who isn’t problematic doctrinally in some way or another. Eschew the famous ones. They all suck. (Mind you, so do many unknown ones, but almost always, the famous ones have gotten so by in some way compromising doctrinally, and thereby becoming worldly popular…) (Don’t think I’m endorsing mainlines, or Pope Francis, though; not for a minute…)
I can confirm that, indeed, Wilson has been involved in that kind of intervention of a marriage to the detriment of all.
wow, hooda thunk?
I’d also say that when Wilson has a man actually sinning in his church, not only does turn a blind eye, but he attempted to cover the matter up. And this happened multiple times.
https://natalierose-livewithpassion.blogspot.com/2014/07/standing-up-speaking-out.html?m=1
To summarize the link for the squeamish, the church helped a young man with lodging in a members home. He proceeded to rape the teen daughter of the man hosting him. When the man discovered it and brought it to the attention of Wilson and the elders, they hushed it up.
‘This jibes with national domestic abuse statistics…. Women are safest living with their husbands, children are safest living with two married biological parents. Domestic violence, especially by men, is, statistically speaking, a direct result of womynz shacking up with dark triad bad boys.’
Not surprising… abuse is another one of those possible consequences to fornication with a man who isn’t their husband. Rebellion isnt what it is cracked up to be.
What’s funny is that it seems more inappropriate to demand that a man love his wife than for a wife to submit to her husband; or at least it should. After all shouldn’t a man choose to love his wife without being coerced into it? Submission is a stance of at the very least non-resistance if not full support. If there’s a choice of ‘when and how’ then it’s not really submission so much as a passive-aggressive stance.
The logic behind it is sick. What it amounts to is a standing rationalization for a woman to undermine her husband at will AND still claim that she is being submissive; or at least desires to be submissive.
America is obviously – even rural Idaho – Sodom and Gomorah and the more Christian the community the worse it gets which is usually what happens when you raise the bar too high.
In The Woman Racket, Steve Moxon on pages 224 to 226 thereof discusses the trafficking to Britain of women for prostitution which a while back was headline news but despite the hysteria the level of trafficking was virtually non-existent. I have to say virtually for there were two girls – Albanians – who were being pimped by their boyfriends. In other words Sex trafficking despite what the U.N. may want you to believe is an Urban Myth.
My experience of Prostitutes FWIW – I of course made my excuses before any trade resulted and I was merely a researcher keen to learn of the shocking depths of depravity in certain premises in and around Berwick Street – is that they are nearly all English, clearly enjoy what they do, work indoors and are well paid – certainly far better paid than any shorthand-typist.
It is not men that dislike working girls but women: women see Prostitutes as scab labour.
So a husband is to wash and water his wife in the Word, but avoid all those passages about submission and headship?
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching (but not on authority or submission to husbands), for reproof, for correction (of males exclusive of females), for training in righteousness (women need no training they just need the freedom to express their hearts); so that the man (not the woman) of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16 with commentary based on pastor feckless Wilson.
Congrats to most of you not taking the Kotter-troll bait. In this awesome post by Dalrock, Kotter has brought up “what about the kids,” sex trafficking, and “what about gay pastors?”
That follow-up article by Wilson is worth its own post, but if it doesn’t get one, then I agree with it being odd for the long CS Lewis bit, maybe that was to help with the giggles. Then he acknowledges servant leadership can be a ruse but just avoids calling church leaders to account for it and still skips the role women play. I think a conversation with him would be long and tiresome and at the end, he just won’t put skin in the game to actually differentiate himself from other pastors.
Dalrock has been prolific in his writing, so much so that I haven’t been able to keep up with his posts. I’ve been very busy getting our startup company going. Dalrock: this post is pure gold among other golden posts you’ve been publishing. Very well done, thank you.
Wilson sure does have a way of twisting things 180 degrees. His two major errors are clearly pinpointed here by Dalrock:
* Blaming the feminist “liberation” of women on men, and instead claiming that the resulting calamity was designed to benefit “libertine” men, those supposed benefits being “easy divorce, widespread abortion, mainstreamed pornography, and a promiscuous dating culture.” Great! This is just what I wanted…NOT! Wilson’s is a classic error, a 180 degree reversal of the truth. You can’t make this crap up.
* Blaming the intrusion of women into every conceivable men’s role on the fecklessness of (some?) men, again turning the truth on its head by failing to acknowledge that women in our society have all authority without the attached responsibility, while men have all responsibility without the attached authority. You can’t make this crap up.
And the churches encourage this crap.
Dalrock has elucidated Wilson’s errors with clarity and alacrity. Well done, Dalrock.
Do Wilson and these other Cuckservative Clerics really believe this all stems from man’s fall, or do they say these things to placate their mainly female audience in the feminist zeitgeist?
Snowy,
Great post, and a hearty agreement. What I find strange is that church seems so completely on board with Wilson. If I tell others of my wife’s actions but don’t mention my red-pill knowledge then all I ever get is blue pill advice- always and completely. Either to mind my own business like Wilson advocates, or to be a servant leader. No Christian will utter a truthful word about the husband’s biblical role. So complete is the compliance that I wonder if it is less due to pastoring and more due to the overall discouraged spirit of men.
People are petrified of the images the Wilson commenters are obsessing on, which is about women getting beaten and the cops not caring. I guess until the 60’s American women had horrible lives. Which is funny when you think about it, because Wilson seems to think women are from the 50’s and likes them.
Where I end up at is that believers don’t care about the truth. I don’t think intentionally but because they are entertained to numbness and because passions are more valued than reasoning (both of which are feminine traits). Wilson is a believer and trusts God’s Word but is prevented internally from speaking plainly as is done here.
@Damn Crackers:
At some point, after repeating a lie long enough, you start to believe it yourself. At this point, I would assume they believe it, but that’s probably by practice. If you hold yourself out as being insightful but have no introspection on “this isn’t working as expected”, you’re a failure. As both an intellectual and a Christian.
@ BillyS
Humans are not the problem. Satan-dwelling-in-humans rather than God-dwelling-in-humans is the problem.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails
Just like orgasms, fake.
Real trafficing is usually of men. Shanghai anyone?
Tim J Penner says, “Just like orgasms, fake.”
Of course you mean women’s orgasms. Men can’t fake it, unfortunately.
By the way, excellent comments all round, including the usual suspects like feministhater, Looking Glass, Swanny River, Damn Crackers, Jonadab, et al. Thanks for the excellent reading. Really enjoy it.
Remember that Apostle John gave us a clear warning about what happens when we start tampering with God’s Word. Changing it, twisting it, morphing it to fit our own humanistic agendas.
Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So when we add to God’s Word things that God didn’t say, God adds unto us the plagues of Revelation.
When we take things out of God’s Word that God meant to be there, God takes our part out of the Book of Life, the Holy City, and the promises therein.
No wonder then that our marriages are full of plagues and the life that was once in them (when we obeyed God) is gone.
Thanks Swanny River! I enjoy your comments too. You say, “If I tell others of my wife’s actions but don’t mention my red-pill knowledge then all I ever get is blue pill advice- always and completely.” Absolutely. Although I haven’t had a wife for about 13 years, I too have found most people, including many men (manginas?), are aloof, and fearful, to go anywhere near the sin problem of women, whether when directly confronting them with red-pill knowledge, or withholding the red-pill knowledge while directing them to the mere possibility of women’s sin problem. Fear seems to be the order of the day. It’s the truly masterful work of Satan.
Where I end up at is that believers don’t care about the truth. I don’t think intentionally but because they are entertained to numbness and because passions are more valued than reasoning (both of which are feminine traits).
Your first point is absolutely correct; churchians –and that’s what 99 percent of self-described “Christians” are– not only don’t care about the truth, but are willfully ignorant of it.
How many “Christians” devote any serious time to deep-diving into the Bible to truly understand and absorb its message? Of the very few who do, how many internalize the less pleasant aspects of the message, the commandments to live and act as one apart from the World, no matter the personal cost?
Exactly. This is why it is impossible to distinguish the contents of a church on Sunday morning from the contents of a corporate office building on any weekday morning or the contents of any shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon.
Wilson is a believer and trusts God’s Word…
Are you sure about that? This guy has been around for a few decades, long enough to be intimately familiar with God’s Word – enough to know that it absolutely does NOT say what he is deliberately, knowingly, ineptly, and desperately trying to pretzel it into saying. That, to me, is an example of anything but someone who “believes” or “trusts in” the Word. It is, rather, characteristic of someone who despises the Word, who is embarrassed by it and seeks to pervert it for narrow, selfish, cowardly ends.
In other words Dougie Wilson is a stereotypical churchian huckster who fears –and puts his faith in– [wo]man rather than God. God is going to want to have a word or two with Dougie about that come Judgment Day (Dougie surely knows this and either doesn’t care or thinks that there will be “strength in numbers” [“hey, EVERYBODY believes this way, so why would God pick on l’il ol’ me?”]).
… but is prevented internally from speaking plainly as is done here.
Again, Dougie is a typical churchian coward who fears [wo]man more than he trusts God. If this weren’t the case he would trust God and preach the unvarnished, painful scriptural truth.
Lost Patrol
Pastor Wilson takes things as far as he’s able. His own activities and writings are likely constrained by his personal situation, which he lays out on his blog profile, calling himself “chief cook and bottle washer around here”.
That’s rather cryptic. It leaves me wondering what the actual situation is – wife that earns more than he does, or something else? Given his somewhat bombastic and wordy pronouncements on culture, headship, etc. one would expect him to have his own house fully in order, yet you say that is not the case? Very interesting.
Interesting how W.B. Kotter somehow wants to equate wifely submission to husband with prostitution, slavery and human smuggling. Have to wonder why that is. Could it be trolling for flames?
I looked back at Kotter’s comment history and agree with the commenters who think he is a troll. Kotter is not welcome back.
Freeriker,
Concerning Wilson, we are warned not to be many teachers because teachers will receive the stricter judgement (James 3:1). Wilson is holding out Biblical teaching on leadership to men with one hand, then stabbing them in the back with the other when he denies the authority both inherent in and necessary to that leadership. The home, and marriage itself, is ordained by God just as the church, and in fact predates the church. Wilson has no business claiming authority in the church which he denies to the rightful leaders/rulers of the homes.
@davidtaylor2:
Yup. ” The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. ” Proverbs 1:7 ESV
He’s pretty explicit about what is to come for those that aren’t listening.
Furthermore, when Wilson counsels wives to rebel against their husbands authority, he is actually rebelling against God. In Numbers 16 the scripture is clear that when Korah and his co-conspirators rebelled against the authority of Aaron and Moses, they were actually rebelling against God, for He had put Aaron and Moses into office. As a result all of the conspirators were destroyed by fire from God, along with over 14,000 Israelites who continued their rebellion the next day and fell to a plague. Per Moses, the lesson was that each one should be content with the position God has given him and not seek to pull down those God has placed in authority. This is exactly what Wilson and his ilk do when they tear down the authority of husbands and fathers in the home.
Novaseeker,
methinks Kotter may be a manifestation (another sock puppet) of our old Desi troll girl from several years ago? What do you think?
I think so as well. But it appears the situation has been remedied already.
Dalrock,
You wrote, “I’ll add that the question of a truly abusive husband is a difficult one, and while I’m not aware of any specific direction in Scripture indicating that elders should intervene, I believe that the general instruction regarding following civil authorities as well the instruction on church discipline can be carefully and wisely applied here.”
I am sure you have already seen my comments on this above, but I would like to sum them up this way: Preachers who get into the pulpit and lecture about men beating their wives are of the same cloth as those who lecture men in the church about being pick up artists to poor single mothers. Neither PUAs nor wife beaters are in attendance. It’s just another way for the boy on the lectern to AMOG all the poor saps in the pews who nod along because they agree what he’s preaching against really is a terrible sin.
Men who beat their wives are rare. Men who beat their wives and then go to Sunday morning worship with the family are about as common as 30 year old feminist virgins. Hectoring men in the church about wife beating is just cheap and destructive brain candy to all the NAWALTs in the audience.
“Calling women out on sin is hard, and feels uncomfortable.”
Here’s a guy who should have called out his old woman. And maybe dished out some of the devil-beatings himself. Back story: hillbilly lady marries seminary student, they globetrot as missionaries until the wife gets bored of being in the shadows.
“At the time, Sam was the leader, but that changed in the late 1970s when his wife decided to set up her own ministry. Although she had no formal religious training, Whaley had a natural gift. She was passionate, preaching loudly that demons had to be expelled to help followers achieve a better life. She began attracting people from all over the world who would do anything she said to obtain eternal salvation.”
Fast-forward 30-40 years and now the accounts of cult-like manipulation, beatings, abuse, and trafficking (!) come out. How can you pretend to be ultra-conservative and have a lady running the show?
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article162899558.html
I actually visited this place for my uncle’s wedding, a decade or so ago. The people seemed eerily nice. Apparently my uncle tried to stop going; the wife refused. And has the kid hostage, pretty much. Looking back, she failed the sanpaku test. Both ways.
Doug Wilson seems to employ some awe-inspiring mental gymnastics in order to avoid getting his women off-side.
Why?
What is it that Wilson gets out of it?
If he remains ”middle of the road”, he is going to alienate the church’s most faithful. It is always better, in my opinion, to offend the ”Left”, since they are always going to keep up a temper tantrum like children.
The trick in dealing with them is to not concede anything. You may as well not concede or apologize. They only ever interpret this as a sign of weakness and demand more anyway.
Concerning whether husbands are to “enforce” submission:
God has ordained three institutions here on earth with authority in their respective realms. In chronological order they are:
1) The home
2) The civil government
3) The church
Per Romans 12 and other passages we must recognize the absolute right and responsibility of civil government to compel obedience from its citizens, and to punish those who are wicked and disobedient.
Likewise, per multiple passages in the New Testament we must recognize the absolute right and responsibility of bishops/elders/pastors to discipline the flock over which they are made overseers.
In the home we must recognized the absolute right and responsibility of the father to discipline his children to teach them obedience to their Heavenly Father, even using the (literal) rod of correction if necessary to do so.
But we are supposed to somehow come away with the idea that ONLY the husband…. the FIRST authority figure put into office by God Himself…. has no right to discipline his wife.
Doug Wilson on church discipline:
“Discipline is inescapable. Either we will discipline those who love what is sinful, or we will discipline those who love what is righteous. But as long as the antithesis between the two exists (which is to say throughout history) we must choose one way or the other. A refusal to discipline those who are threatening the integrity of the church is actually a form of discipline directed against those who love the peace and purity of the church, and who labor and pray for it.”
https://dougwils.com/s8-expository/church-discipline-and-life.html
This paragraph true doctrine. Now suppose we remove the church and insert the word family. Could Wilson still support his own teaching?
From the same article by Wilson,
“A church that does not or cannot discipline errant members of the congregation is a church with AIDS. It has no means of fighting off infections—whether those infections are moral or doctrinal or both. ”
Now, can we substitute the word “family” for “church”? Or perhaps the marriage has AIDS?
Again, Wilson on discipline and sin….
https://dougwils.com/s16-theology/is-discipline-a-mark-of-the-church.html
“And last, we are to discipline in order to deter others from sin. The Bible teaches that consequences for sin deter (Ecc. 8:11; 1 Tim. 5:20)”
It’s almost as if Wilson does not want wives to be deterred from sinning.
I forgot to mention how much I enjoy feeriker’s comments too. Thank you.
“Kotter is not welcome back.” Very funny that! 😂
If pastor Wilson thinks himself beyond correction in these matters, then he is likely a tare. We know what’s going to happen to the tares, and it isn’t pretty. By their fruits ye shall know them.
Another reason not to get married. This article’s headline should also include Canuckistan and Australia. They also for the most part have egos to match their girth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4725004/British-American-girls-fattest-world.html
@Snowy Blaming the feminist “liberation” of women on men,
is that inaccurate? If men had all the political power at the time, then the only way the feminists could get any traction is if the men gave it to them.
@wraithburn: Way to present half the story.
@ everyone else: If you want to know what Wilson thinks about marital relations et al. there’s an entire blog and hundreds of pounds worth of books that you could read to find out. No need to speculate or gossip like fishwives.
As for Moscow ID, the last nightclub in town closed recently, and the city council is trying to prevent the local Christian college from converting the building into something useful, AFAIK after the college had already paid for the building. The state university is actively hostile to Christians (especially those from the congregation which which Wilson is associated), and there have been several attempts over the years to prevent of damage various economic activities that church families engage in.
Nobody’s going to stop you from armchair-quarterbacking, but you could show a bit of grace to people who are actually in the trenches.
Hopeless…
I am glad you agree with the principle argument Feather Blade, namely, that Wilson is weak and leading people astray. You say it is because it takes all his energy just to maintain the fight he is fighting, so he should be excused, that is interesting and worth thinking about.
‘It’s almost as if Wilson does not want wives to be deterred from sinning.’
That’s a great way to keep women out of the kingdom of heaven…but at least he won’t be offending them.
Feather Blade,
I have read Wilson, and quoted him above repeatedly. Teaching the truth on a number of subjects does not excuse a pastor from teaching falsehood on another subject.
The local university is hostile to Christians? Well, yes, most state universities are hostile to Christians. That does not mean we should excuse teaching that disrupts Christian families.
Consider the church at Thyatira. They had endurance in persecution…. but also tolerated a rebellious woman, and were rebuked for it, and commanded to throw her out.
One reason I read Doug Wilson: “The pretense, to take an example at random, that all the boys should be just as eager to date a eunuch as they are eager to date a pretty girl is not exactly a defensible fortress. Kind of like a Disneyland fiberglass castle trying to hold out against Tamerlane and his hordes.”
From his new post on feminization of the military and the church, here: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-size-of-basketballs.html
I notice you don’t bother to provide this supposed other half Feather Blade.
@okrahead,
“None of this meant anything to the church…. I was still guilty of abuse in their eyes. In the end, divorce court and the judge were far more just and equitable to me than was the church when my now ex wife decided she was unhappy and had the tingles for another man. When a man can honestly say divorce court is better than the church…. well.”
Sorry for what you went through. I am appalled at how your ex and your church treated you.
Thanks for commenting. I have always appreciated and learned from your comments. It is a good day when I get to read a comment by okrahead.
Feather Blade @ 12:51 am:
“@ everyone else: If you want to know what Wilson thinks about marital relations et al. there’s an entire blog and hundreds of pounds worth of books that you could read to find out.”
Yeah, we looked at his blog. If you want to know what I think about marital relations then buy my book on nonlinear fluid dynamics.
“Nobody’s going to stop you from armchair-quarterbacking, but you could show a bit of grace to people who are actually in the trenches.”
That would be us in the trenches, not Wilson, and we’re mighty tired of being stabbed in the back by leaders whose idea of hardship is city council interference over his latest land acquisition. You want to see troublesome state universities, come visit California. Here’s your vagina hat and bring your own hockey stick.
Well, you see, the rest of us have to deal with reality on the ground. No so much Wilson and others who line their pockets with the money made on selling a half truth.
More with the shaming. No one here is going to go spend money on his books, his blog posts provide enough fodder. He spoke ill of men and rebuked them for nothing more than trying to lead their families. He speaks badly of men, calling them wife beaters and so on. Shaming Christian men for the bountiful pussy on offer due to feminism. Men that had nothing to do with the sexual revolution being blamed for the fall out. Isn’t he such a nice fellow.
In the end, he’s merely wrong about wifely submission. Yes, it’s a choice on the part of the woman, one she needed to have made by the time of her wedding. Once the wedding is over, she is to submit. At that point, the husband must have the authority that comes with the responsibility of leading his family, without which he is a powerless actor within a script that his wife writes. We would not expect a Sergent or a Captain to lead their men without the authority to discipline them when the case calls for it. No person in authority will be in authority for long if they have to keep on going to those in command for each and every insubordinate act done by a subordinate. A man in authority in the military is expected to keep his troops in line and so it must be with a husband. His family is his responsibility, not the Church’s.
No, he is not on our side. He is demonstrable wrong, his teaching is false and his words scratch the itch of his female audience.
At one point there were enough men strong enough to MAKE Christianity work. Sadly, too many are now invested in its counterfeit.
Bee,
Thank you.
‘At one point there were enough men strong enough to MAKE Christianity work. Sadly, too many are now invested in its counterfeit.’
It’s hard to be strong when your proper authority is constantly undermined by various usurpers. Now the usurpers have all the incentives and those in authority have all the risks.
Feminist hater,
Good comment. In agreement with what you said. When I was still under my father’s roof I was in subjection to my parents. I am commanded to obey my parents. I never understood that to mean they could not enforce their rule if I disobeyed, and neither did they. I am told to submit to the civil authorities of the land in which I live. The fact that I am told to submit does not mean that civil authorities cannot enforce their rule with the sword. In the church I am subject to the rule of the bishops. This does not mean that if I do not submit they cannot enforce discipline. In the Revelation of St. John we learn that individual churches are to submit to Christ, and if they do not he will discipline those churches. In the book of Hebrews we learn that all God’s children must submit to Him, and if they do not He will chastise them. Yet Wilson and his ilk would have us believe that wives, and wives alone, are free to submit or not as they see fit, and if they rebel the husband is to shut up and put up with said rebellion.
‘Yet Wilson and his ilk would have us believe that wives, and wives alone, are free to submit or not as they see fit, and if they rebel the husband is to shut up and put up with said rebellion.’
Is it any wonder why most divorces are initiated by women? Rebellion is often the root cause for tearing relationships apart.
‘His family is his responsibility, not the Church’s.’
From what I understand the Catholic church is in regards to the sacrament from a homily…it is a witness to the marriage. The couple is responsible for the sacrament. Hopefully this means it’s not a potential usurper like other denominations…but I’ve never been married.
Another teaching of Wilson and his ilk that is especially pernicious is the idea that if a man leads his wife properly she will not rebel; hence any wifely rebellion is a direct result of the husband’s failure to love her as Christ loves the church. What are the Biblical precedents for that idea?
1) Moses was the meekest man in all the earth, a man mighty in word and deed, the lawgiver and deliverer of the people. Yet the children of Israel rebelled over and over again against his leadership. By Wilson’s doctrine this means Moses was a poor leader.
2) God the Father rules His children with love and compassion, yet some still rebel and must be chastised (Heb. 12). Per Wilson’s doctrine this makes God a poor leader…. which is, of course, blasphemous.
3) Christ’s love for the church is the perfect model for all love. Yet John tells us that many churches rebelled against His rule. Per Wilson this means Christ did not actually love those churches as Christ loves the church… Which is both a nonsense statement and blasphemous.
4) Even some of the angels in Heaven rebelled against the rule of God. Once again….
I suppose I could keep listing examples, but what would be the point? Will Wilson ever believe that
a) A Christian husband who is leading his family according to God’s will may still experience rebellion by his wife?
b) A husband has any right whatsoever to enforce discipline in his home in any way at all?
The word lies is appropriate. Wilson writes what he thinks rather than what his eyes actually see. For example, he wrote:
That is just some kind of Christian word game and not true at all. A concubine is a committed slave who may not leave without her master’s command, and she receives no more providence when that occurs. What Wilson actually sees are tattooed sluts. A slut is an informal whore who loves her work. In the twenty-first century, sluts not only aren’t concubines, they have have legal rights to extract from their johns future pay for past work; a sort of whore pension. That isn’t anything like concubinage. If we fix Wilson’s phrase so that it reflects the real world it read (“…the twenty-first century is characterized by the tattooed slut.”) it makes sense.
Which gives the lie to Wilson’s sentiment that it’s not progress for women. If twenty-first century women as a group are characterized as tattooed sluts (informal whores), then a clear-eyed observer might call a government enforced whore pension as progress; at least from an economic perspective. So the “sons of Belial” are better observers than Wilson, and the chutzpah on display is Wilson’s because he tries to pass off lame impersonations of G.K. Chesterton as truth.
Perhaps it never crosses their mind that women have free will. They can choose what path they take be it submission or rebellion. Problem is when you call a woman out on it you are labeled a ‘victim blamer’.
Feather Blade
@Snowy Blaming the feminist “liberation” of women on men,
is that inaccurate? If men had all the political power at the time, then the only way the feminists could get any traction is if the men gave it to them.
It has taken a few years to wrap my mind around the fact that tradcons argue just like women, apparently incapable of recognizing any difference between “some” and “all”. Why that is would be a different discussion.
Feather Blade, in 1969 Ronald Wilson Reagan, a great hero of tradcons, signed the first “no-fault” divorce law. I am certain that he did not consult with the men farming raisins and fruit in the Central valley, nor with the rice farmers in the Sacramento valley, nor the fishermen of the coastline, nor the oil workers down by Bakersfield, nor the loggers up by Shasta, nor the date farmers near Indio, nor the Navy men in Long Beach and San Diego, etc. and so forth. All the men who were most likely to be affected were never consulted, if they protested they were ignored.But tradcon/feminists like you will still hold all the men alive in California in 1969 responsible for the actions of Reagan, his Hollywood friends and a tiny handful of very rich men. Because, like women, you can’t seem to differentiate between the actions of one man and the actions of other men. It is childish, but that’s how tradcons tend to be.
Furthermore the same holds true for Roe and Doe. Nobody asked my father if he thought it was a good idea, or any other man out in flyover. A handful of men in black robes imposed that. But tradcon men and their conservative feminist women (who often have no problem with abortion for themselves and their daughters) make sure to blame Roe and Doe on the millions of men who were imposed upon, rather than the coastal elite who imposed it.
Nobody asked any of my relatives if Title IX was a good idea. When Bill “BJ” Clinton expanded Title IX in the 1990’s he sure didn’t any man I know about, nor did Joe Biden ask any men outside of his DC / NYC / Hollywood clique if the “Violence Against Women Act” was good law. But you tradcons had no problem with it, did you? No, you did not. Because any time feminists want something done, all they have to do is shriek “FOR THE WOMEN!” and you tradcons will come bouncing along like a pack of not very bright dogs, ready to do whatever stupid thing feminists want. Yes, when VAWA comes up for renewal again, I fully expect chin-strokers like Doug Wilson will be sure to either support it, or remain silent. Because they don’t want to risk being shamed by the feminists in their church, possibly including wives and daughters.
Yes, Feather Blade, you White Knighting tradcons have been the allies of feminism more than once in the last 25 years. I’ve seen it myself, in legislative hearings. Any time any group of men try to make post-divorce custody more just via shared custody, they can count on two groups opposing them: feminists, and Traditional Conservatives. That’s you, Feather Blade, probably on both counts.
The coven of feminists who came up with the Duluth Power Wheel certainly did not consult with much of anyone, they just created it and use the bureaucratic power of the state to impose it, and now it’s a national standard. Probably an international standard, thanks to a tiny handful of radical feminists and their enablers.
It is false that “all men” handed power over to feminists. It doesn’t even pass the laugh test. It is false and knowingly false, therefore it is a lie.
I repeat, it is a lie. Go look in your Bible and see if there’s anything in it about lying. Report back to the men actually in “the trenches” when you are done reading if you dare.
Said another way: In the West, in our times, the closest thing to a concubine is a husband. He can be ejected for hardly any reason, with full approval of secular and religious leaders, and can expect no further subsistence from his former mistress*, but she has claims against his future work.
*In the archaic usage
@okrahead: You forgot the first one: Adam loved his wife with what must have been a perfect love, since there was no sin, yet she rebelled and brought sin into the world.
Part of Wilson’s problem with leadership in the home is the idea of “federal headship”, that the man represents his home before God, and therefore he is the one ultimately responsible when things go sideways. It is his decisions that shape the entire environment and faithfulness of the home. Thus, a man should never be allowed to be an elder if his son or daughter leaves the faith, because he failed in his headship.
Looking at his own family, Wilson has had great success with this sort of belief, and like so many folks, believes what works for him should work for others. To his credit, he is willing himself to live what he believes, but his success is probably due to his natural gifts and a good wife – and not a little of God’s blessing. By his description, he has had an easy time of it. It’s like a parent who has had compliant children, and cannot understand what kind of parent would allow his child to throw a tantrum in the mall.
Perhaps it never crosses their mind that women have free will. They can choose what path they take be it submission or rebellion.
It’s close to that. It’s more like they think that women have diminished moral agency vis-a-vis men. That is, they will admit that a woman may commit a sin, but they also mostly think that there is some man around (father, boyfriend, husband, or even “men in general”) who is more responsible for the sin than she is because of some failing or sin on his part which “causes” the woman to sin. So even though women sin, their sin is seen as being (1) the product of a man’s prior sin and (2) therefore of less moral gravity than the man’s prior sin — the idea being that if the man hadn’t sinned beforehand, the woman never would have sinned. Because women only sin in response to male sins, per this view.
It’s a curious view, and typically unstated, but seems to be exceptionally deep-seated in American Christian views.
Novaseeker,
The view you refer to is curious, but in my experience it is not unstated. I have heard it taught openly and vociferously in the past, especially in regard to wives.
I would also like to ask Wilson what Adam should have done in the garden. If he was present when Eve was tempted, should he have removed her from the situation, physically if need be? If he came upon her after the tempter had spun his lie but before she ate, should Adam have physically restrained her from eating? When she offered him the fruit, should he have refused and rebuked her? According to Wilson’s teaching Adam did exactly what he was supposed to…. he refused to discipline his wife and force her to obey.
I don’t know if they are the same commenter, but Feather Blade has also just shown up on Vox Day’s blog. Looking at the linked blogger account, that one is a woman.
@Hmm
It reads to me that Wilson doesn’t believe federal headship should be actually practiced. He puts the fault of the family on the husband, but puts the responsibility (over the husband and his fault) on the wife; like a sheriff is authorized to round up a posse. She’s authorized to bring into disputes pastors, fathers, brothers, etc. Wilson doesn’t write that husbands should practice such responsibility or authority.
Presumably because to write that would make him chuckle.
‘It’s a curious view, and typically unstated, but seems to be exceptionally deep-seated in American Christian views.’
I have heard the theory before that Eve sinned because Adam wasn’t there or didn’t step in…even though there’s no biblical basis for that. It explains exactly what Eve’ s sin was and what Adam’s was. She thought it looked good and he listened to her
@earlthomas
It’s hard to be strong when your proper authority is constantly undermined by various usurpers. Now the usurpers have all the incentives and those in authority have all the risks.
That’s why I pointed at the counterfeit. The room for complacency is vanishing, the counterfeit is being found lacking and is going to be violently swept away. God’s people are going to cry out due to their cruel bondage, it’s on it’s way.
@Hmm, that makes Wilson look rather solipsistic, in the sense of “My life is like this, I do these things, so any other man who does these things can live like me”. Playing “marriage” on the Easy setting doesn’t make a man an authority on all settings, obviously. I wonder if Mrs. Wilson has ever yelled at Mr. Wilson, maybe for several minutes? I wonder if she’s ever done it, say, 3 days out of 5, every 28 days? Or thrown something at him a time or two? Locked him out of the bedroom? I know men who live with that. It’s just “how she is”, to quote one man, but “she’s not like that all the time, though”. If the role were reversed, that would clearly be “wife abuse” under Duluth and surely to Doug Wilson, but…it’s just “how she is”.
One would expect that any pastor who stays in one church for a few years would come to know about the contentiousness of women. Apparently that just isn’t the case. I don’t understand why. Maybe seminarians are slow learners?
PS: Wilson was attempting to be humorous when he posited that a man who made a bad choice in a wife is a “fool” who should be beaten in his posting
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/now-brief-word-wife-beaters.html
So before we beat her for her uppity rebellions, I would suggest we flog him for being such an idiot.
I get that. It must be marvelous to live on Planet Wilson where women never change due to childbirth, employment, death in the family, depression, etc. I’d like to visit there, just to see what it looks like. But it still just happens that Wilson is in fact saying this to men with contentious wives:
It’s a rather feminine approach to marital strife: blaming the husband for things he cannot control. Wilson’s digging a deeper hole for himself. The latest posting doesn’t improve his situation.
Hmm (and Cane),
“Part of Wilson’s problem with leadership in the home is the idea of “federal headship”, that the man represents his home before God, and therefore he is the one ultimately responsible when things go sideways.”
Even federal headship can still enforce its rule. Just ask any of the states that tried to go their own way in 1861. Those federals enforced their rule good and hard.
Another remarkable post by Dalrock!
The history of Israel seems directly applicable to the US over the last 50 years as men abandon frame over their women and then meekly obey pagan women who war against God.
First King Saul, an unserious pretty boy, abandons God plan under little distress & loses the Kingdom to David. David, a warlord king who holds frame against his wives and enemies, obeys God in a courageous way (man after God’s own heart) even as he is an adulterer and murderer. David was a man’s man, warrior king, 7 wives and 10 concubines, obeys God against his wives (Michal) and against the pagan enemies of God.
His son Solomon, wisest man in history, allows (non-exclusive) reintroduction of pagan worship, as he seduced by his foreign wives (700 wives, 300 concubines!) as they bring their native worship of Ashtoreth, Ammonite, Chemosh, etc. to Israel. Women overthrew the wisest man in history (let that be noted to all men)!
David held frame over his women, Solomon did not (as Adam) and by his lax hand allows his wives to compromise Israel (some similarities to Henry VIII as well)! Adam obeyed Eve’s rebellion to end paradise; Solomon obeyed his pagan wives to end the unified Kingdom of Israel.
Then, with King Jeroboam- the wheels come off. Jeroboam abandons Yahweh completely -turning instead to open and exclusive paganism and apostasy. He reestablishes worship of the Golden Calf, sets up alternative (counterfeit) priesthood and false fire sacrifices. 10/12ths of Kingdom of David is overturned and the God of David is largely forgotten.
It only took 1-2 generations to go from the height of Israel’s spiritual, political and economic history (David/Solomon) to outright apostasy and paganism (Jeroboam). The US is nearly the same- 2-3 generations from the Apostate Generation (Baby Boomers) to today’s effeminate Millennials to abandon 2000 years of Christendom!
Pastor Wilson seems to me something like a King Solomon-type. Wilson still believes in Yahweh on some issues, but “unlike his father David, he did not completely follow Yahweh” as Wilson wishes to allow the feminist to be have their pagan ceremonies side by side with Solomon’s Temple. God’s response to such adultery is to take away the Kingdom.
The Empire of the US will meet a similar fate as we too have abandoned the paths of Yahweh as we would rather prostitute ourselves beneath the Ashtoreth Poles.
Anonymous Reader,
Wilson’s remarks in the piece you linked are typical churchian AMOG game. The preacher calls the husband an idiot and threatens/offers to physically beat him. The preacher can safely do this because he’s in a church pulpit where he does not actually have to back up what he says. There is a complete disconnect between his words and any actual actions.
I think Cane Caldo coined a new phrase: “whore pension.”
“Whore pension,” as a succinct and accurate description of alimony granted to a woman who chose to divorce her husband, is a stroke of genius.
I have heard the theory before that Eve sinned because Adam wasn’t there or didn’t step in…even though there’s no biblical basis for that. It explains exactly what Eve’ s sin was and what Adam’s was. She thought it looked good and he listened to her
Yes, that’s the basis of it — they see Adam as being responsible not only for his own sin but also for Eve’s sin. That forms the basic underlying idea for their entire approach to female moral agency and male moral agency, both inside and outside marriages.
One slight issue with Cane’s paragraph: “slut” is a slobbish woman, “whore” isn’t (necessarily) a prostitute, and even “prostitute” doesn’t inherently mean one who sells sex at an hourly rate. That is a “meretrix” as I understand.
Don’t mean to nitpick an excellent comment.
I looked back at Kotter’s comment history and agree with the commenters who think he is a troll. Kotter is not welcome back.
Not even if he brings a note from Epstein’s mother?
@AR: ‘that makes Wilson look rather solipsistic, in the sense of “My life is like this, I do these things, so any other man who does these things can live like me”. ‘
It’s one of the common failings influential pastors have, projecting their own success into a system. Success that may largely be a function of their own personality, family, audience or location is distilled down into a marketing scheme of guaranteed success for anybody who does the same things.
At least Wilson ls not trying to sell his system (for money), like Willow Creek and similar megachurches have with their church growth programs.
Oh wait – one of Wilson’s books is “The Federal Husband”, so there’s certainly money involved…
when a woman in civil society finds herself in a leadership role over men.
Is that like the times when a woman finds herself stuck on a strange man’s dick?
Feather Blade
@ everyone else: If you want to know what Wilson thinks about marital relations et al. there’s an entire blog and hundreds of pounds worth of books that you could read to find out. No need to speculate or gossip like fishwives.
We’re reading his words, dearie. That’s what we are discussing, and why more than one man has included a link directly to Wilson’s site. However, I defer to you on the topic of “gossip like fishwives”, I’m sure you know more about that than I ever will.
Do go read your Bible on the topic of lying and get back to us as soon as you can, ‘kay?
Wilson says, “Since the difficulty was apparently found in my #11, let us discuss that for a moment.
“The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.”
The key words here are enforce and make.” https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/now-brief-word-wife-beaters.html
Multiple things to take on here, but let’s start with the obvious… Wilson denies that it is even physically possible for a husband can enforce or make a wife submit since it is a matter of the heart.
Now consider… ALL submission by ALL humans is a matter of the heart. My submission to civil authority is a matter of the heart for God commands it. If I rebel, the civil government can enforce its will and make me obey. Certainly my unwilling, forced obedience is not salvific, and thus does not benefit me; nevertheless civil authority is commanded by God to compel my obedience if I do not give it voluntarily.
Likewise children are commanded to obey their parents (Eph. 6:1). Some children will have to be made to do so by enforcement of a father’s authority. To be properly pleasing to God, however, the child must submit willingly. Nevertheless, willingly or no, the father must make his children obey and enforce his law.
Not all churches submit willingly to Christ… see the seven churches of Asia in Revelation. Nevertheless he will make everyone obey on the last day and will force that obedience…. Every knee will bow. Those that bow unwillingly will be lost, but they will nonetheless bow.
In the same article Wilson states that the husband of a rebellious woman should be beaten as a fool for having married her to begin with. One wonders then, what does Wilson think of God Himself? In Jeremiah 3 God lists his complaints against Judah and Israel… they were adulterous wives, and completely ungrateful for all He had done for them.
Now Wilson, being the good Calvinist that he is, cannot help but know that God certainly foresaw this rebellion. Shall we say then that He is a fool? Wilson perhaps would utter such blasphemy, I will not. Perhaps Wilson thought Christ actually deserved the beating He received from the Romans? Perhaps Wilson wishes he could have been there to administer a few blows himself. From the tone of his article it is clear he takes a perverse pleasure in the idea of beating other men in front of their wives to show himself the real AMOG. One wonders just how deep that perverse desire truly goes.
Pingback: Against the family violence industry [I Sam 25] | Dark Brightness
@Feather Blade
I’m not sure if you include me in “everyone else”, or if you mean just commenters. Assuming the former, this post is not gossip. It is out in the open. I link to his post and I quote his words for the parts I disagree with, and explain why I think he is wrong in the post. What more can a blogger ask for? He published “21 Theses”. Are you saying he shouldn’t expect a critical response by another blogger? Is Wilson too big to rebut? If so, you will have to argue with not just me, but Wilson himself:
“Trump Boy Scout Speech Is Nazi Hitler Youth Rally, Left Says.” ~ Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/hitler-trump-germany-nazi-president-641392
This is why you never capitulate to the Left. No matter what concessions you make, they’ll still accuse you of being a Nazi.
“I’ll add that the question of a truly abusive husband is a difficult one …”
Really? If a husband “truly abuses” his wife, deciding what she should do is “difficult”?
Some of the statements here are getting awfully close to condoning wife beating.
Oscar:
The Boy Scouts of America always invites the sitting president to speak at its National Jamboree which is held every 4 years, always the year after a presidential election. Most of the time they come. I saw Nancy Reagan at the ’85 Jamboree. President Reagan couldn’t come because of cancer surgery recovery. POTUS is also the honorary president of the BSA.
The only reason anyone thinks this looked like a Hitler Youth thing is because he was speaking to Boy Scouts and Scouters in their full uniforms, which are the same color as some military uniforms. And they don’t like Trump.
Yggdrasil:
You omitted the rest of the statement, which provides the proper context:
I’ll add that the question of a truly abusive husband is a difficult one, and while I’m not aware of any specific direction in Scripture indicating that elders should intervene, I believe that the general instruction regarding following civil authorities as well the instruction on church discipline can be carefully and wisely applied here. But we must be aware that:
1.The purpose of the intervention should be to help bring a brother back from serious sin, and to protect the wife. The purpose should not be to help the wife stand up to her husband’s authority, as Keller and Kassian teach, and as Wilson says he has done. The purpose should be Christian, not feminist.
2.Abuse has been redefined to mean anything that frightens or upsets the wife,
The rest of what Dalrock said is very important. The question is not what the wife should do in the situation of a truly abusive husband. The question is what a church pastor should do, and what elders should do. Pastors and elders should do it with an eye toward what Scripture says: confront and correct the sinner (abusive husband), protect the wife, and, I would add, do what can be done to bring about reconciliation. We also have to remember that a wife’s claim of “abuse” can’t always be taken at face value.
A wife has all sorts of remedies at her disposal. If a crime was committed, she can report it to the police and let them take it from there. But that is not the job of a pastor or a church elder. It is not the job of a pastor or church elder to sic the cops on a husband. It is not the job of a pastor or church elder to coach the wife on how to go toe-to-toe with her husband.
Preachers like this are doubleminded. They want to feel and project fidelity to scripture but love the world and can’t stand upsetting women. So they talk up submission but recoil in horror from husbands using their authority.
Their prime concern is not truth or rightousness but attendance and budgets. Causing feelbads amoung the women-folk is counter productive. That is the concious aspect of this. The unconcious part is enthroning women allows her to control the pocket book, and they’re more easily swayed by emotion to donate more.
“we are not yet much influenced by the feminist evangelical incursion”
I doubt that very much. If your members were raised in America (or the 1st world) they are influenced by feminism. Conservative Christians like to think they’re not feminist but thats because they were born into it and regard 1st/2nd wave feminism as Biblical. I’ve yet to see a not-feminist church (excepting one Amish church).
Not directly related, but any thoughts on this: http://gentlereformation.com/2017/07/20/a-high-view-of-marriage-includes-divorce/#comments
@thedeti
You apparently missed my point. The “question about a truly abusive husband” is not a difficult one and does not require any “context.” Physical abuse, whether committed against one’s wife or anyone else is a crime and is morally reprehensible. Anyone who contends otherwise or who makes excuses for it is not speaking in a Christian manner.
Bear in mind that I am referring to what Dalrock described as a “truly abusive husband.” I think it is reasonable to take that to mean a husband who physically abuses, i.e., strikes, beats or batters, his wife.
As for what is a pastors “job,” it is the responsibility of all Christians to look after one another, and that includes protecting one another from physical harm. There are so many examples of wives who are afraid to complain about their abusive husbands that I cannot imagine a Christian in good conscience remaining silent in the face of physical abuse. If you can, I suggest you read your Bible a little more carefully.
Yours is the kind of comment that really turns me off about Dalrock’s blog. You seem so troubled by the feminist corruption of Church that you appear to have become comfortable to a degree with ideas and attitudes that I suspect at one time you would have found contemptible. Yes, there are a lot of rebellious women in the Church, but that does not justify or excuse men who “truly abuse” their wives.
Looks like InsanityBytes / MeMe / yttik / etc. has a new handle.
Off topic. Homosexuals are opening a Temple to Oscar Wilde in New York’s Greenwich Village: http://www.artnews.com/2017/07/19/mcdermott-mcgough-to-open-temple-dedicated-to-oscar-wilde-in-new-yorks-church-of-the-village/
Forced to repress his homosexuality for the majority of his life, Wilde is presented in McDermott & McGough’s piece as a martyr of sorts — a soul who suffered because of what he believed and who he was….
“The Temple is to be a place free of religious doctrine, honoring a watershed historical figure who pioneered the long struggle for equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender peoples….”
…the chapel can be booked for weddings and other celebrations, with the proceeds from those events going to the LGBT Center’s programs that support LGBTQ children at risk of losing their homes.
A painting in the Temple depicts Oscar Wilde with a saint’s halo.
Talk about calling good evil, and evil good.
Yes, Anon reader.
Hi there, InsanityBytes!
I’ll repeat what I said earlier.
The question is not what the wife should do in the situation of a truly abusive husband. The question is what a church pastor should do, and what elders should do. Pastors and elders should do it with an eye toward what Scripture says: confront and correct the sinner (abusive husband), protect the wife, and, I would add, do what can be done to bring about reconciliation. We also have to remember that a wife’s claim of “abuse” can’t always be taken at face value.
A wife has all sorts of remedies at her disposal. If a crime was committed, she can report it to the police and let them take it from there. But that is not the job of a pastor or a church elder. It is not the job of a pastor or church elder to sic the cops on a husband. It is not the job of a pastor or church elder to coach the wife on how to go toe-to-toe with her husband.
Insanity:
Now. Go back and read what Dalrock wrote in the OP. Read what I wrote in my two comments. Read it carefully.
If a crime was committed, wife can call the cops. It is not the job of a pastor or elder to sic the cops on a husband or to coach a wife on “standing up to” her husband. They’re to help confront and correct sinners, protect those in harm’s way, and facilitate reconciliation. That’s it. They’re not law enforcement. They’re not therapists or marriage counselors. They’re not “life coaches” to teach the widdle wifey on how to be more “assertive”.
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s; render unto God that which is God’s.
Nice job moving those goal posts.
What exactly is abuse? Disagreeing with your wife is abuse in the eyes of many, as is having an unhappy wife. What exactly is physical abuse? Is any physical contact abuse? Keep in mind how wide that can be stretched. Most people think of horribly beaten women when “physical abuse” is mentioned, but these days holding someone’s arm briefly can be considered abuse. Bumping your wife if you accidentally trip could also be considered abuse by the standards many use today.
When everything is abuse, nothing is abuse.
My exwife claimed abuse and I asked the pastor why they never talked with me about it. They said that she could be really in danger and speaking with me could aggravate that. Thus they removed any obligation even to validate such charges. (I am not sure the exact extent of such claims and I am finding it hard to find out even now when I ask them.) They hid behind “legal requirements”.
Thus “abuse” is a club that can be freely used by any wife today, even in churches.
@Yggdrasil
”Abuse” is often misused. But there is true “abuse” that can be proven which is physical in nature. Like a man or woman bashing their spouses results in broken bones and drawing blood.
You would say that the issue of contentious women can be held accountable only by the church discipline and fellow believers which if continues results in shunning by everyone in the congregation?
And I would also think that such a reprehensible act is due to the lack of perceived alternatives to genuine rebellion.
*lack of perceived alternatives to deal with genuine rebellion.
As well as excommunication.
Okrahead: You’re nailing it over and over again. Well done. If only the unbelievers that troll the comments here would actually believe God’s word.
Earl, GIL, feministhater, GunnerQ, Spike, Opus, LP, RPL, Nova, Frank K, et al., keep up the good work for God’s kingdom.
We all have our differences at times – but they’re usually minor and easily straightened out. But some of the lurkers / trolls just don’t get it at the moment: we pray the Spirit of God will cause them to see and understand what He has given us to see and understand.
This post of Dalrock’s is golden, and we pray it will help expand God’s kingdom.
‘Physical abuse, whether committed against one’s wife or anyone else is a crime and is morally reprehensible. Anyone who contends otherwise or who makes excuses for it is not speaking in a Christian manner.’
What is your definition of physical abuse specifically? What is the legal definition? What is the moral definition? If you want to claim legality and morality…let’s start with what parameters you have.
‘Yes, there are a lot of rebellious women in the Church, but that does not justify or excuse men who “truly abuse” their wives.’
What justifies or excuses rebellious women in the Church then?
Snowy,
Thank you.
To the troll formerly known as Insanity Bytes, currently masquerading as a pagan wisdom tree….
At 4:01 pm you wrote, “Some of the statements here are getting awfully close to condoning wife beating.”
I call slander and suggest you be removed. If any statement here has condoned wife beating show it. Name the writer and the time and show the quote. Explain how it condones wife beating.
BTW, loved you in The First Avenger. Is it really true that if someone presses your hidden button you let them grab your magic box?
Earl,
Any physical contact the wife did not want would likely be abuse in her eyes. Many Christians have gotten sucked into that as well, unfortunately. They let the enemies of Christ and marriage define the playing field so they have to answer questions like “when did you stop beating your wife.”
@ okrahead
You’re welcome. You really are slaying it with the two-edged sword!
And your comment to Insanity Bytes, etc., et al. re The First Avenger: that’s very funny! 🤣
I wonder if this post of Dalrock’s will hit the 500+ comments? It probably would if he didn’t post for a while. Dalrock just keeps slaying it too. Way to go!
‘Any physical contact the wife did not want would likely be abuse in her eyes.’
Perhaps but I want the accuser to define it…since they were accusing the group of almost condoning wife beating. Heck in the last week alone I saw two seperate times a woman slap a guy upside the head in public. Is that abuse…or are we going to overlook that because of males instigating abuse?
@earl
What is your definition of physical abuse specifically? What is the legal definition? What is the moral definition? If you want to claim legality and morality…let’s start with what parameters you have.
No need to ask for parameters, she’s left it deliberately undefined. “Pastor” Wilson did the same thing, and probably for the same reason: Because when what we call “abuse” is as ambiguous as possible, you have the option of claiming just about anything your man did was “abuse.” That’s the real value in the word. It functions as an umbrella term covering a whole array of possible offensive behaviors without describing or even mentioning what any of them might possibly have been. If a man had been beating her, she could have said so (and a medical exam could have verified her claims). Likewise, if a man had locked her up and held her against her will she could have said that, and it also could have been investigated. But simply screaming “Abuse!” will allow her to make a nebulous claim that the man has somehow hurt her in ways that she doesn’t have to spell out and and therefore won’t have to worry about proving in a court of law, not when hearing that word will cause many a white knight to rush to her aid. In a sick way it mirrors the treatment a woman on a college campus can expect to receive if she claims a man sexually assaulted her. Since recounting her story and providing testimony that would then be examined could be traumatic for her, the authorities will be encouraged to simply “believe the victim” — and the fact that she accused a specific man of the crime will be all that is required to convict him.
It’s not about keeping the woman safe. It’s about making sure that she always has a “Get Out of Jail Free” card handy should she feel the desire to leave, and so that the authorities won’t have to feel any guilt over their role in potentially railroading an innocent man.
Well said, Darwinian Arminian. The “abuse” get-out-of-jail-free card that women hold under the Duluth model is certainly the Damocles sword hanging over every man’s head, whether he realise it or not. That such a sword would itself be abused by women is ironic, but not surprising. The Duluth model, while corrupt in itself, was designed to be abused by women.
By the way, it’s interesting to put the search term “Duluth Model” into your search engine and see what turns up. Then put “Duluth Model Dalrock” in, and see what you get. There are some interesting results returned, taking note of those listed after Dalrock. I only get two and a bit pages for the “Dalrock” search, and perhaps squillions of pages for all the feminist / white knight / mangina / academia crap from the other search.
My ex-wife merely suggested, to our family-court-ordered relationship mediator, that she felt our two sons were in danger if I were to be alone with them; that is, should the court grant access orders. She was careful to not draw too much attention to herself by avoiding the claim that she herself was the subject of my “abuse”. Most importantly, rather than making a fully-fledged claim of child abuse on my part (because she knew it was an outright lie), she merely throws out the suggestion that it might be so. If we had not had children, she would more likely have then opted to claim that she herself was abused by me. Crafty. Sublime. Subtle.
Women need do no more than suggest such things, and the world takes their claims as gospel. Needless to say, I wasn’t hanging around to test the world’s metal at enforcing their BS laws, nor exposing myself to the mere possibility of fully-fledged accusations from my wife that would be taken as gospel by the powers that be.
A man’s only option is to run for the hills, and that’s what I did. Now, according to my young adult sons, I am a derelict dad who abandoned them.
I’m certain this is how many women destroy their husbands and families.
@ Dalrock:
No, I was referring to your commenters, not to the original post.
As follows:
Novaseeker July 24,2017 8:38 am: “I wonder — would Doug Wilson agree that women have no right to demand that their husbands love them as Christ loves the Church? I doubt it. “
Anonymous Reader, July 24, 2017, 9:53 am: “Bonus question: hypothetical middle aged man comes to Wilson and states his wife is in rebellion because she has refused him sexually for 6 months. No medical issues, he’s faithful, no porn use, just rebellious refusal. How would Wilson react? Most likely a fit of giggles.”
Red Pill Latecomer, July 24, 2017, 1:41 pm: “My guess is that Wilson would tell the man to “search his heart” to see if he’s truly so faithful to his wife. Wilson will interrogate the man, browbeat him, and find all sorts of examples of how he’s been unfaithful.”
Anonymous Reader, July 24, 2017, 3:11 pm: “there are enough co-eds and college men for Wilson to have had his ears filled with tales of the dastardly PUA cads from the no doubt intense club scene of Moscow’s Main Street.”
Anonymous Reader, July 24, 2017, 1009 pm: “It leaves me wondering what the actual situation is – wife that earns more than he does, or something else? Given his somewhat bombastic and wordy pronouncements on culture, headship, etc. one would expect him to have his own house fully in order, yet you say that is not the case?
If that all isn’t speculation and gossip, then I don’t know what is.
It’s stupid to guess at the answers to questions that one could find out by reading what the guy wrote.
*Shrug* I guess it doesn’t matter. To see the manosphere side of things swiping at Wilson just as hard as the leftist feminazi side of things does, on the exact same issues, is… The right word escapes me.
… and I don’t even necessarily agree with the guy…
Oh, and given the evidence I have presented above in support of my accusation of speculation and gossip, I will thank Anonymous Reader to retract his accusation that I am a liar.
It is interesting that InsanityBytes comes here, desperately trolling for gina tingles.
Remember, women like her get sexually aroused by being corrected by men who proudly discard her dogma. The sexual-psychological dynamic being exhibited by her is far more driven by the hind-brain than it may initially appear.
Yggdrasil said :
Some of the statements here are getting awfully close to condoning wife beating.
Translation : This female is getting awfully close to a crackling sequence of gina tingles.
Yours is the kind of comment that really turns me off about Dalrock’s blog.
Translation : My brain turns off but my gina turns on! It is the Fourth of July down there, after you men correct me like this! Remember, as a woman, my brain-gina interface is obsolete, so while what I am hearing conflicts with the feminism I was taught to memorize, my gina reacts under the natural parameters. This bothers me in the long run, but at present, the tingles are like lights on the Las Vegas Strip with ‘A Fifth of Beethoven’ playing in the background.
Gods opinion on punishments for spousal abuse can be found in Exodus 21.
@ Anon
Your comment re Insanity Bytes (or whoever the heck it is) is side-splittingly hilarious because…it’s true!
🤣😁😃😂😉☺️😃🤣😁
Yggdrasil says:
July 25, 2017 at 4:01 pm
“I’ll add that the question of a truly abusive husband is a difficult one …”
Really? If a husband “truly abuses” his wife, deciding what she should do is “difficult”?
Some of the statements here are getting awfully close to condoning wife beating.
– For several women colleagues in such circumstances from various walks of life – professional and sporting that I have known well enough to ask about their relationships, I have gotten the remark, ”I had to leave him because he was abusive…”. When I replied , ”That’s terrible. How long did this go on for?” I usually get the answer of several months to years. When I asked whether she got the police involved, she invariably looks at me very strangely and says , ”Oh no.Of course not…”
I admit that this is anecdotal, but from what I can tell, relationship breakdown and divorce due to ”abuse” doesn’t match prison figures. Are we really to believe that 35-odd percent of men deserve divorce because they are abusive, but their ex-wives do not charge them?
What follows then, is that they leave their husbands based on Duluth abuse, or Feminist abuse, but not real abuse. Thus the ”question of a truly abusive husband is a difficult one” isn’t difficult at all, since a truly abusive husband would be abandoned in a flash as a matter of self preservation.
And Snowy: I’m sorry to hear about the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of you marriage, mate. Awful.
Thanks Spike. My ex-wife put me through the meat grinder, in the process leaving a swathe of destruction that severely impacts the relationships among me and my sons. She couldn’t care less. Even though I have the attitude that it is up to me to go into damage control mode, because there’s not a darn thing that she is going to do to ameliorate the damage she’s done; and I do try to control the damage; thus far my sons are non-responsive to my efforts. My sons frustrate any of my efforts to get them to take an interest in me; to honour me; they ignore me and reject me as so much flotsam and jetsam. The last time I spoke with my eldest son on the phone a couple of weeks ago, I had no choice but to tell him that the ball is now totally in his court. My younger son follows his lead, and both of them follow Mum’s lead, no doubt. She always fancied herself the leader. I don’t know if I’ll ever hear from my sons, because they never contact me; I always contact them.
And all this because of the damage done by my ex-wife, who obviously continues to evade any responsibility for the damage she has done, takes on no responsibility for repairing the damage she has done, and likely encourages the situation to continue, if not worsen. I only have prayer left now.
This is how feminists work. The stretch the definition of a known crime to the absolute breaking point, to a point so extreme that many begin to question the definition. A feminist then responds that you are a ‘rape apologist’ or a supporter of domestic violence and so far. It’s standard operating procedure unfortunately.
So… what a feminist does is take things like verbal abuse, financial abuse, unwanted touching, the male gaze, unwanted comments, rude language, misunderstandings and many other daily occurrences and include them along with real physical violent abuse and make them one and the same. By doing this, they inflate the abuse statistics, get more funding and get more legal ammunition to further their agenda.
The question of a ‘truly abusive husband’ becomes difficult because the definition is no longer relevant. Feminists have made all men abusive in their quest to demonise men and get further funding and more laws passed. Sorry to burst your bubble but none of that is condoning real physical abuse and none was made by any commentator here. Go back to your feminist bubble, Insanity, we don’t need or want you here.
I’ll pray for your well being Snowy and for your sons, may you forgive them one day and hopefully they will reconnect with you when they realise the hell their mother put you through.
Thanks feministhater. That’s the trouble: I don’t have anything to forgive my sons for. They really haven’t done wrong. That’s the hopelessness: the damage has been done by my ex-wife, who recklessly abandons any responsibility, throwing it to the ether, to be left there, likely not even acknowledging that there’s been damage done, and if she does acknowledge it, relishing it. She cares nothing for me, or my sons. Not that I care that she doesn’t care: it’s the hopeless situation that she’s created that is itself hopeless. I care for the hopeless situation she’s created. I hope what I’m saying makes sense to you. I can’t think of an analogy at the moment.
Snowy, how old are you? If age, interest, and finances allow, you could conceivably start over family-wise. That doesn’t just mean becoming 100% vulnerable to another Ameriskank woman, either. While I’m not at all a fan of adoption (single or married), many are. Then, there’s expatriation and marrying a foreign woman, never bringing her to the U.S. My preference remains the Toban Morrison method, of egg donor + gestational surrogate while then, or subsequently, having no marital or habitational link to any woman, nor ever letting one adopt your child.
One thing missing from Rev. Wilson’s essay. Women DO submit.
They are consensus driven, so they will always submit to something or someone. In North America, they submit to their social circle, the women’s prayer group,the commercial marketplace (in advertising every husband is a dolt), they submit to Oprah, they submit to Dr. Phil, they submit to Cosmo, they submit to Vogue, Christian women will submit to ‘Boyfriend Jeeeesus’. There is no submission remaining for husbands. In fact the prevailing zeitgeist, seems to be an almost universal contempt for husbands and fathers. Submission to the zeitgeist again?
Pastor Wilson or any other Protestant pastor, or Catholic priest, all seem terrified to remind women that God expects submission of wives to husbands. I would love to see a pastor ask wives to pray for a spirit of submission, and to tell wives that rebellion against their husbands (which is also a rebellion against marriage) is a sin.
Wilson is correct that submission has to come from an interior disposition and that it is not mere obedience. He is incorrect that it is entirely the responsibility of husbands who have to fight a lonely battle against all of the other persons, and things that claim their wives’ submission. Husband receive very little support from the pastoral care of the churches.
The former minister in the church I attend was also the Superintendent Minister for the local Methodist circuit. He viewed sermons are ‘proclamation of the Word’ and not as teaching, which he said should take place in house-groups. He never recommended to people that they join a house group as part of their church membership, but saw them as entirely voluntary add-ons.
A few years ago the house-group I attend had a week before a break when the previous series had finished and we did not wish to start another series for one session then break for six weeks for the summer, We decided to look at one of the minor prophets, probably Nahum. More than one member of the group remarked that they had never read this book because it had never been preached on in church. I felt that this was an example of a failure in the leadership of that local church, which now arranges Bible Reading notes on a subscription basis for all members who want them.
That minister’s is a local preacher. I can remember one social event when the conversation turned to wives being submissive to their husbands and this wife proudly proclaimed that she was not submissive towards her own husband, who was taking part in the conversation with a beaming smile while she said this. When local church leadership has this attitude, there is little hope for the ordinary member in the pew learning what the requirements of Scripture are for certain situations. Then again, the Methodist Church in Britain is the fastest declining denomination in this country. Could my experience and this fact be connected?
The last paragraph should begin, “That minister’s wife is a local preacher.”
Pastor Wilson or any other Protestant pastor, or Catholic priest, all seem terrified to remind women that God expects submission of wives to husbands.
Again, yes, they are terrified of women because they havr NO faith in God (they’ll deny this furiously, but their behavior makes it obvious).
Incidentally, I wonder if women realize that by not having any expectations placed upon them, the implicit assumption is that they are incapable of functioning as sentient adults? Even children (including mentally retarded ones) have expectations placed upon them and are held to certain standards. Would women really relish the idea that they are ranked below mentally retarded children in terms of the expectation that they can function as sentient human beings held to a basic behavioral standard?
UK Fred, what I would have much desired to have had someone say to that rebellious wife is this:
“You have obviously torn out of your Bible and thrown in the garbage the books of Proverbs, Corinthians, Ephesians, Peter, Titus, Timothy, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Revelation. How long til your Bible also loses the book of John as well?”
‘I can remember one social event when the conversation turned to wives being submissive to their husbands and this wife proudly proclaimed that she was not submissive towards her own husband, who was taking part in the conversation with a beaming smile while she said this.’
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
@ UK Fred:
The Methodist church everywhere was converged and compromised decades ago. However, the siuation you describe (i.e., pastors refusing to teach and relying on “home groups,” etc., to pick up the slack) is common in pretty much all Protestant denominations. It’s difficult to say why this so prevalent, but this writer strongly suspects, based on what he’s heard proclaimed from more than a few pulpits, that the typical pastor isn’t significantly more biblically literate than his congregation (the purpose of seminaries and bible colleges would be what again?).
As for your example of “Christian” wives proudly bragging about not submitting to their husbands, this just confirms the obvious: that something close to 100 percent of self-proclaimed “Christians” are no such thing.
The last paragraph should begin, “That minister’s wife is a local preacher.”
Another travesty.
feeriker says:
July 26, 2017 at 7:42 am
“The last paragraph should begin, “That minister’s wife is a local preacher.”
“Another travesty.”
In a Christian, church, it’s a literal impossibility. A pulpit with a women claiming to be clergy is apostate from the moment she is there purporting to be what she can only masquerade as. It ceases to be such only when she has been removed from that position and role, the church has unreservedly accepted that this was sin, prayed to God for forgiveness, and vowed never to again fall into the Devil’s path on that issue, instead of God’s.
@ Luke
I’m 50 years of age. I’m Australian, so I didn’t marry an Ameriskank. You mention foreign women, which I still think has some merit, even though my ex-wife is Indonesian! I was more naive when I met her than I am now. I foolishly dreamt that she was an idyllic island 🌴 girl who knew nothing of the ways of the feminist west. Indeed, expatriating and never bringing them back to your homeland has a lot of merit. It is something that I do consider for the medium term future. I would like to visit Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines to see how I like it. There’s an excellent website called “Happier Abroad” which provides huge amounts of information on the subject of expatriating. Check it out.
@FeministHater
Christian marriage is a disaster, there’s no way around that. You get nothing but a shit sandwich, which is force fed to you, and then forcefully removed from your ass once the marriage ends.
Marriage is terminal, it’s dying. Doug is merely a symptom of the disease.
————————————————————————————————–
I say ditto for the Church as well. If the Church can’t deal with the reality of something so basic as marriage then it is truly hopeless. Not just for marriage but for the church as a whole. It’s over……….
God is nauseated and ready to heave……………. It’s over so don’t waste your breath any longer…..
@Snowy
Now, according to my young adult sons, I am a derelict dad who abandoned them.
You are always their father. Forever. Stay in touch. Keep your hope in the restoration that Jesus brings. If you stand true to your sons and keep on in truth and faith they may turn around. Maybe on their own or maybe after the meat grinder has chewed them up. It doesn’t matter. Try anyway. Even when it seems hopeless. Prodigal sons do return.
I know it’s frustrating and agonizing. I’m glad to hear that you don’t fault your sons.
Sometimes we turn away from God our Father. It’s heartbreaking for him as well. He stands faithful and will kill the fattened cow if we return.
Peace be with you Brother. I’m sure there are more than a few here who will keep this in their prayers.
@snowy
“I foolishly dreamt that she was an idyllic island 🌴 girl who knew nothing of the ways of the feminist west.”
I think Eddie Murphy did a skit on this in the early 80’s. Went and got his “African bush bi*ch” with a “big plate lip”. Didn’t matter. Skit ended with her demanding “HALF EDDIE!!”
“I foolishly dreamt that she was an idyllic island 🌴 girl who knew nothing of the ways of the feminist west.”
I’m not going to dog on you because I’ve made the same mistake before projecting my ideals onto a woman…but we really need to stay focused on what they say and act. It’s hard to stay objective when emotions are involved but it helps a lot.
Feather Blade@ 1:05 am:
“If that all isn’t speculation and gossip, then I don’t know what is. It’s stupid to guess at the answers to questions that one could find out by reading what the guy wrote.”
Maybe you could quote what Wilson wrote that refutes us?
Yours is the kind of comment that really turns me off about Dalrock’s blog.
….not seeing a downside here….
@ Gunner Q says:
July 26, 2017 at 10:50 am
“Maybe you could quote what Wilson wrote that refutes us?”
The burden of proof rests with the accuser, so whomever accused Pastor Wilson of saying or believing something bears the burden of proving his/her accusation true, not the other way around.
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
@Yggdrasil
My biggest error in my previous marriage was that I did NOT ‘beat my wife.’ She certainly had it coming and my lack of laying wood empowered her to ‘put her big girl panties on’ and falsely accuse me of sexually abusing my daughters and subsequently alienate them.
The sordid truth in your red-herring comment is that precious few Womynz in this society are actually physically beaten by their legal husbands. Their husbands choose instead to go the the lake, the bar, the garage, the golf course or anywhere else she’s not at.
Womynz that are being physically ‘beaten’ are typically being ‘beaten’ by their bad boy boyfriends that they have chased and are attempting to capture.
Riddle me this; with the prevalence of smart phones and audio/video of literally everything happening around us where is the video (or audio) of these frequent physical abuses by married men of their wives??? {It doesn’t exist}
@Snowy
I am sorry for your journey. God will use this fire as a way to make you a stronger better person, I can empathize, my three daughters were very effectively alienated from me by their host. Check out ‘Ryan Thomas Speaks’ on Facebook. (he was alienated from his Dad and has great encouragement and actionable tips).
Pingback: Wilson’s intellectual stink bomb. | Dalrock
‘Womynz that are being physically ‘beaten’ are typically being ‘beaten’ by their bad boy boyfriends that they have chased and are attempting to capture.’
Other stats have shown that more domestic abuse episodes occur with cohabitating unmarried couples than married couples…and that married women have the least risk of domestic abuse. Basically living in a rebellious state tends to produce worse results in the abuse department too. (but don’t let rebellious women signing up for fornication and cohabitation know that, it’ll offend them…just blame all the men)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cohabiting-couples-far-more-likely-to-suffer-from-partner-abuse-statistics
Has an accusation been made I’m unaware of? I will agree that speculations have been made on Wilson’s motives and possible answers to questions that could theoretically be asked of him. Saying he is wrong is not an accusation. Besides the article linked to by Dalrock, which is a critique, not an accusation… what accusations have been leveled against Wilson?
All critique of Mr Wilson has been made on the article at hand. If there is parts of Wilson’s work we need to look at that would shed light on his writings, wouldn’t it be prudent to have it linked to by Feather Blade. Are we all expected to read all Mr Wilson’s books, blog posts and whatever other articles before he can be critiqued on a specific article he made?
It’s funny, the stats prove that the safest place for a Christian women is with her Christian husband. Yet all we hear about are how evil, abusive and wicked Christian men are. This was one of the reasons I chose to never get married. The disconnect is unreal but the drumbeats kept high and women buy it hook, line and sinker.
@ feministhater says:
July 26, 2017 at 1:03 pm
“Has an accusation been made I’m unaware of?”
I can’t know what you are aware or unaware of.
“Besides the article linked to by Dalrock, which is a critique, not an accusation… ”
My comment was not directed at Dalrock. I made that very clear by addressing it to a specific commenter.
“… what accusations have been leveled against Wilson?”
A partial list was provided for you above. Also, you made a few.
“Are we all expected to read all Mr Wilson’s books, blog posts and whatever other articles before he can be critiqued on a specific article he made?”
No, we’re supposed to obey the commandment given to us by the Holy Spirit through Paul.
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
Feather Blade trolled with these horrible fishswife comments
Anonymous Reader, July 24, 2017, 9:53 am: “Bonus question: hypothetical middle aged man comes to Wilson and states his wife is in rebellion because she has refused him sexually for 6 months. No medical issues, he’s faithful, no porn use, just rebellious refusal. How would Wilson react? Most likely a fit of giggles.”
Thanks for confirmation that you are female, Feather Blade. Only a woman would regard this very legitimate and all too common question as “gossip”. Search Wilson’s site on this topic and you will find nothing. If the “fit of giggles” is what’s bothering you, that merely proves you did not read the Original Posting, have no clue what Wilson has written, and are just another female trying to jam the signal.
You stormed in here wagging your virtual finger, as if we men are a bunch of boys on a playground; “Now you boys stop throwing sand at Dougie this minute!”, then when challenged to back up your claims with facts you flounced away. The interesting thing is how you have rarely or never posted here before. You didnt’ show up when we were dissecting Mark Driscoll, you didn’t show up to jam discussion of John Piper or Tim Keller or other celebrity preachers. You and other female posters just happened to pop in here, now. It is interesting that the last few comment streams have attracted more signal jammers, all female, than we’ve seen in months and months.
As the old bomber pilots used to say, “When the flak gets thick, you must be over the target”.
Now your “SHUT UP” approach is not an argument. It is an emotional screech, on a par with some toddler who has just had a toy taken away. All you bring to this thread is something like a bossy girl child running, “I’m tellling MOM!” to make her brothers stop being boys.
You have no facts or logic or reason or Bible quotes on your side, either. Your emotional reaction to criticism of Wilson suggests that he’s something or someone special to you; perhaps you attend his church, perhaps you are related to him – the feminist niece, hmm? It doesn’t matter. Either bring facts, or expect more laughter.
FInally, in order to collect your shocking list of horrible bad questions that mere human men dared to ask of Wilson, you had to scroll past multiple comments in which Wilson’s words are quoted / linked to, then challenged. You know we are serious, you know we are arguing from fact, because you have to have seen the words yourself to collect your little quotes.
Therefore you know this is argument, not gossip. Yet you claim again it is gossip.
Feather Blade, you lie again. You are a liar. Anything you write could be just another of your petty little lies.
Do come back. Your empty posturing, self-righteous preening and feminine emotional screeds are mildly entertaining. Mildly.
Oscar @ 12:08 pm:
“1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”
He’s a published author. His lies are on his blog for the world to read, linked in the OP. Do we really need two or three guys to say they witnessed him type his “21 Theses” into Microsoft Word?
If your problem instead is our speculation of his motives then understand we speculate because we still have a hope of unplugging Wilson from the Matrix.
Which is why I asked. I’m unaware of what accusations you are talking about. The stuff linked by Feather Blade are not accusations, they are not leveling a charge against Mr Wilson. It is a speculation of his motives. That is not an accusation. The best case of myself making an ‘accusation’ against Mr Wilson is that of him calling men who discipline their wives ‘wife beaters’. Which is exactly what he did. His article heading and linked article is there for all to see, thus fulfilling your witness needs as well.
My reason for bringing that up is not because you’re directed anything towards Dalrock but to mean that I’m specifically addressing the article of Wilson’s that Dalrock linked to. That is the basis of criticism of Mr Wilson. His article.
Guess we’ll have to stop commenting since any questioning of someone will now be considered an accusation.
@ Gunner Q says:
July 26, 2017 at 1:40 pm
Oscar @ 12:08 pm:
“He’s a published author. His lies are on his blog for the world to read”
Then quote them.
“If your problem instead is our speculation of his motives then understand we speculate because we still have a hope of unplugging Wilson from the Matrix.”
Your speculation is an accusation. Unless you have evidence to support your accusation (that’s what witnesses are – a form of evidence), like a linked quotation, then…
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
@ feministhater says:
July 26, 2017 at 1:46 pm
“The stuff linked by Feather Blade are not accusations, they are not leveling a charge against Mr Wilson. It is a speculation of his motives. That is not an accusation.”
Speculation on motives is definitely a form of evidence-free accusation.
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
Witnesses are called when an investigation has started. Not before. This is not some tribunal or court. Questioning is a natural thing to do when discerning the motive of someone’s actions or writings. This happens before, during and after an accusation has been made.
An accusation is an accusation, whether or not one has witnesses. Speculation is something entirely different. It is questioning a person’s motives or even a reason why something happens. Or speculation until something can be proven. An accusation with witnesses that can provide testimony merely becomes an accusation with corroborative oral evidence.
What I wouldn’t do for an edit button…
“It remains speculation until something can be proven.”
Would you prefer us to just keep our mouths shut instead?
Oscar,
Do you consider the information I linked to about Wilson disreputable? Do you consider my personal witness of his interference in marriage to be disreputable? I consider him to have failed in his duties as an elder, and I do not address him as such. I’m glad Dalrock writes these articles, so more people can see how full of holes Wilson’s thinking is.
Oscar, do you believe Mr Wilson has sinned by undermining the authority of husband’s in their homes?
@ feministhater says:
July 26, 2017 at 2:51 pm
“An accusation is an accusation, whether or not one has witnesses. Speculation is something entirely different.”
Not necessarily. A statement can be BOTH an accusation AND speculation. In which case…
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
I didn’t write the book. I’m just quoting it.
@ Laboris Gloria Ludi (@wraithburn) says:
July 26, 2017 at 2:59 pm
“Do you consider the information I linked to about Wilson disreputable? Do you consider my personal witness of his interference in marriage to be disreputable?”
If you were being accused by an anonymous commenter online, would you consider that credible evidence?
Sure, if it contains an actual charge made against the person. You still have no charge that has been made against Mr Wilson. What is the accusations you talk of?
So Oscar didn’t read Natalie Greenfield’s account. I’m unsurprised by his contention and suggest you don’t bother arguing with him feministhater.
@ feministhater says:
July 26, 2017 at 3:11 pm
“Sure, if it contains an actual charge made against the person.”
I wasn’t asking you. But, since you answered, an accusation by an anonymous person is not evidence. It has to be independently verified. In other words…
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
What is the charge made against Mr Wilson that he could be found guilty or not guilty of? The charge for which he is being judged for?
@ Laboris Gloria Ludi (@wraithburn) says:
July 26, 2017 at 3:17 pm
“So Oscar didn’t read Natalie Greenfield’s account. I’m unsurprised by his contention and suggest you don’t bother arguing with him feministhater.”
I read it. I also read Pastor Wilson’s response. I’m also aware that women sometimes accuse men falsely. I believe this is one of those cases.
I was referring to your “personal witness of his interference in marriage”, which in non-verifyable, and therefore not evidence.
@ feministhater says:
July 26, 2017 at 3:18 pm
“What is the charge made against Mr Wilson that he could be found guilty or not guilty of? The charge for which he is being judged for?”
Some of them were already listed for you above.
There has been no accusation made against him, Oscar. By the way, you forgot to make your quoting again. Lazy man, lazy.
Where is the court room, Oscar, the one that Mr Wilson is standing in under the charges for which he is apparently being accused of? The charges for which we require witnesses to corroborate the accusations so that we can find him guilty and pronounce judgement on him and deliver the punishment.
Dear Feministhater,
Wilson is:
1) Denying the authority of husbands to run their own homes
2) Encouraging wives to rebel against the rightful, God-ordained authority of their husbands
3) Slandering men who run their homes in a way he disagrees with and/or men who question his teaching
4) Rebelling against the authority of God by rebelling against God’s designated rulers. See the rebellion of Korah.
I could go on, but really, what would be the point?
@ feministhater says:
July 26, 2017 at 3:26 pm
“There has been no accusation made against him, Oscar. By the way, you forgot to make your quoting again. Lazy man, lazy.”
There have been plenty. As for the quotation, my mistake. I thought you’d finally got it. Here you go.
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
Earl,
I agree that the one making the charge is intentionally making it vague.
Women will never be held to the same standard that men are “because reasons.”
Oscar, if she was accusing him falsely, you’d think that Wilson would not have needed to try and cover the matter up. And since you’re unable to verify anyone’s identity or even follow up on any claims either way, you’ve successfully moved any “evidence” you search for into the realm of impossibility.
@ feministhater says:
July 26, 2017 at 3:29 pm
“Where is the court room… ”
Where is the courtroom in 1 Timothy 5:19?
@ Laboris Gloria Ludi (@wraithburn) says:
July 26, 2017 at 3:31 pm
“Oscar, if she was accusing him falsely, you’d think that Wilson would not have needed to try and cover the matter up. And since you’re unable to verify anyone’s identity or even follow up on any claims either way, you’ve successfully moved any ‘evidence’ you search for into the realm of impossibility.”
Pastor Wilson addressed Natalie Greenfield’s account publicly in multiple venues. That’s not a cover up.
I can’t verify your identity. Once again I ask you; if an anonymous commenter accused you online, would you consider that evidence?
The court room, Oscar, is the setting in which the Elder is being judged for having sinned. The accusations are against him having sinned and the public having to rebuke him. Those are the accusations that required so many witnesses, not the speculations made beforehand. In those days it would have been a Town center, a Church or something akin to such, I don’t know exactly. The point though is that Mr Wilson is not being judged. We are discussing and critiquing his blog post and finding fault with it.
Okrahead, those are the points on which Mr Wilson is being critiqued, yes, but no accusations have been made against him. A case can be made that he is doing all of that I’m sure. He is not an Elder being accused and then made to repent for his sins by the public though. We can’t even get to such point without actually discussing the blog post first, which is what everyone here is doing but apparently that is akin to making accusations.
Oscar just needs to sit up the meeting place where we can collect our witnesses and other evidence, have the trial and judge Mr Wilson and publicly rebuke him. Before that, no one is taking our hearsay seriously.
Oscar, what do you call an attempt to shift blame to Natalie’s father? http://www.moscowid.net/2016/05/20/a-brief-vindication-of-gary-greenfield/
Or his attempt to threaten her father with ostracism?
https://natalierose-livewithpassion.blogspot.com/2015/09/when-doug-wrote-to-my-father.html
As for me personally, unless you want to believe I’m a bit of software I am still a person saying Wilson has failed in his duties. That makes me and Natalie. Two people. Why aren’t you looking into Doug Wilson?
FH,
Well, I suppose I could just accuse Wilson of being a false teacher based on the points above. I do find it interesting, however, that Wilson can use his position to attack an entire class of Christian men, use blatantly feminist reasoning to do so rather than the Bible, make accusations of abuse along with threatening violence, and then his supporters are upset that anyone dares critique or refute his accusations.
@ feministhater says:
July 26, 2017 at 3:46 pm
“The point though is that Mr Wilson is not being judged.”
He’s not? The two lists provided sure read like accusations and judgement calls to me.
Even if he isn’t being judged, 1 Timothy 5:19 does NOT state, “do not judge an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses in a courtroom”.
1 Timothy 5:19 states; “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.” We’re not even supposed to entertain an accusation against an elder without evidence, much less judge him for it.
If you want to point out where Pastor Wilson’s writing or statements are illogical or un-Biblical, by all means, do so. I’ve done so on his blog. If, however, you speculate on statements he never spoke or wrote, you’re making baseless, evidence-free accusations, and disobeying 1 Timothy 5:19.
@Anonymous Reader
Catty.
You didnt’ show up when we were dissecting Mark Driscoll, you didn’t show up to jam discussion of John Piper or Tim Keller or other celebrity preachers.
*Shrug* Defend the hometown, defend the hometown boy. Be true to your school and all that jazz.
Oscar, they are people’s opinions of him, they are entitled to have them. It doesn’t say ‘do not judge..’ because an accusation comes before a judgement can be made. The accusation must first be made, witnesses brought forward, then entertained, evidence heard and then judgement made… that is the order of things.
We’ve already done so. We’ve pointed out that responsibility cannot go without authority and that authority requires discipline to wield correctly, in direct contrast to Mr Wilson’s statements that make anyone who disciplines their wives into wife beaters.
I asked you before if you believe Mr Wilson has undermined husband’s authority in the home with his blog posts. No answer yet..
You’re too invested in this. I’m going to get some sleep. Good Night.
Spike,
Are you working with my exwife?
Enough women like that situation and stick with it, whatever their claims otherwise, to give cover for those who try to equate anything a woman dislikes with abuse. The truly abusive get faithfulness. Those who do nothing close to abuse get maligned.
Snowy,
My last in person conversation with my mother was bumpy because I have been having the fact she was not as innocent in her issues with my father as she claimed. It was much milder than your situation, but I still wanted to resolve it with her and the closest she could come was to admit “it takes two” type reasoning. I wish it hadn’t been that way, but she did not want to face what she had done.
I am glad she did not get to see what my wife did for me, but she was guilty of similar things with my father. I don’t know if your own sons will ever come to that realization, but it is possible that life will take them that way.
Oscar,
I have seen quite a few quotes in this and other discussion threads. Dalrock usually starts it off with quite a few quotes. But 2 or 3 witnesses are met if it is publicly posted and therefore read by more than that many people in almost any case. (We would not be discussing it here if it was not read that much.)
Publicly posting or saying something opens anyone up for evaluation of what they are publicly posting or saying.
Yes, he’s not. I will provide the same answer to you that I give to those that quote the ‘let he who has not sinned cast the first stone’ passage to me.
Nobody here can judge anyone else, we cannot throw stones at them, we cannot publicly call them to task. We can only lay down a case for why we think they are sinning.
You perceive a judgement call to be the same as a judgement that carries with it a punishment. These are not one and the same. Not even close.
Quote your passage again though, I’m sure it will work this time.
Anyone who wants to follow Dalrocks quoting method can use [blockquote] and [/blockquote] around the quoted section. That keeps the original content, but indents the material. Some formatting might be lost and can be manually readded (such as bold), but that helps.
Substitute a less than sign for [ and a greater than sign for ] to make it work.
Oscar,
Repeating the same verse does not make it applicable if it was not originally.
Oscar @ 2:45 pm:
“He’s a published author. His lies are on his blog for the world to read”
“Then quote them.”
With pleasure:
“3. Natural revelation teaches us the natural submission of the wife to the husband. These realities are in our bones, and the revolt against them lies at the foundation of our current cultural madness.”
Humanity’s first sin is Eve heeding the devil in defiance of both her physical and spiritual husbands, even when Adam was standing next to her. Women have never been naturally submissive.
5. “Nor does Scripture require a new absolute submission to her husband. No authority in this fallen world is absolute, and includes the authority of a husband. When the authority of a husband turns rancid, a wife should receive the help of fathers, brothers, friends, and/or elders to help her stand up against it. I have been involved in this sort of intervention more than once.”
Directly contradicts 1 Peter 3:1-6, which commands women to obey even unbelieving husbands.
“7. The requirement of submission within marriage does not prohibit the occasional circumstance when a woman in civil society finds herself in a leadership role over men. Deborah, Esther, and Lydia come to mind.”
None of those women ever held authority over men. God never once appointed a woman to lead a man. In fact, a man following a woman’s lead is the second sin in the Bible.
“11. The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.”
That is not what Ephesians 5 teaches. Verses 28-29: “In this same way [that Christ loved the Church], husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church”. Just as caring for the body involves discipline, so does caring for a wife.
Christ’s example for us to follow does NOT REPEAT NOT involve crucifixion, literally or metaphorically. To punish a husband for his wife’s crimes is to punish an innocent man. Christ Himself was an innocent man wrongly put to death. Gratitude for the Cross is appropriate; intentionally destroying more innocent men so the guilty can run free in Christ’s name is blasphemy, a worship of evil triumphing over good.
The Cross was not a good idea to be endlessly reenacted upon the innocent! Why does this even need to be said?
“13. The relation of head and body is a constant relation, one that does not come and go. It is not the case that the husband has mere tie-breaking authority.”
This is both a claim that wives can disobey her husband and that believers can disobey God.
Therefore, I accuse Pastor Doug Wilson of lying about Scripture and teaching rebellion against God the Father by the proxy of undermining male authority & leadership in marriage.
Test. I never knew the format here to do that.
Feather Blade
*Shrug* Defend the hometown, defend the hometown boy. Be true to your school and all that jazz.
…and then the bear said, “You don’t come here for the hunting, do you?”
Women hate being charge. If the men around them allow it, they will go to any length to find another kind of man.
Islam, in other words.
The Christian world has swallowed poison.
They hate being in charge…but they seem to like being in the usurper role even though it ends badly for them.
Pingback: Shoot The Messenger | Donal Graeme
Snowy,
Your comment re Insanity Bytes (or whoever the heck it is) is side-splittingly hilarious because…it’s true!
🤣😁😃😂😉☺️😃🤣😁
Thanks. This video below is an accurate portrayal of the nature of her gina tingles as I described them :
Snowy, my condolences on the strained relationship. Hopefully as they mature they may forgive or see things clearly.
Oscar: In my humble opinion, there is a line between critical discussion and fully-fledged accusation. I don’t believe fully-fledged accusations have been levelled against Pastor Wilson in the discussion as yet. Do not university academics critique the published works of others? Do not politicians critique one another? Are you saying that Christians are not permitted to critique the public works of other Christians? I’m sorry, I’m not really understanding you on this one. Of course, opinions are like arseholes: everyone’s got one; so I might be wrong.
Thanks to all you fellows for your encouragement re my relationship with my sons. As it turns out, I had the idea that when I get my financial act together (it is definitely happening) I’ll offer my sons a holiday with me. I could encourage them to engage by asking them where they might like to go, and what they might like to do. I can only throw the idea out to them, and see what happens. I think it’s a great idea, and it came to me after your prayers. Thanks again, gentlemen! 😃
What.
The.
………
Pingback: The Obsession with Wife-Beating – v5k2c2
Bullshit. Wilson defaults to the same masculine shame and pathologizing the male sexual response that feminists have been using for decades. If you look at the marriage rates, marriage ages, abortions stats, 42% of births being out of wedlock, ambiguous rape and consent laws, divorce settlement laws, men’s paternity testing limitations, father’s being held financially liable for non-biological children, etc. since the Sexual Revolution anyone can see women’s liberation’s primary function is to unilaterally optimize women’s control of Hypergamy.
But hey, blame it on the libertine guys, all they wanna do is get laid all the time.
I’d also add it helps to lessen the consequences from the destructive actions of rebellious women. That my friends is called injustice…but that is known to happen in this world.
And then all these pastors, pundits, and Christian guys in the “cool club” will wonder why:
*Young men are leaving ‘the church’ and instead having Bible studies on Skype / through a “meet up” with a few friends and using resources on line for prayer, devotionals and testimony
*Men don’t want to get married.
*MGTOW in a “general sense” is growing by leaps and bounds
You even mention a “bit” of what is touched on in this blog…..and out comes the typical pharisitical answers of “On what authority?” and “i went to such and such seminary” and other conversation enders
Dear Jason:
That’s exactly what they should be doing, and we should encourage this whenever we can. Herbert Marcuse called it “the great refusal,” and it’s the only effective form of protest.
Dalrock blog does a good job of pointing out the foolishness of donating time and money to feminist preachers. It’s so much more sensible to study the work with woke bretheren, and I hope some of the students will eventually start their own churches.
That’s correct, and very well put. Note that the feminist preachers don’t even pretend to be inspired men of the people, any longer. The ideal of being a preacher now corresponds very closely with the way we think about technical professions, like doctors or engineers. They’re company men, who subordinate function in the pursuit of an immanent material goal. They have no connection to the text or its underlying ideals. As Anon and Feeriker like to put it, they demonstrate a complete lack of genuine faith which is both laughable and pathetic.
Regards,
Boxer
Why should they? They’ve swallowed the ethos that woman worship is good and men are evil. Rather than worshipping Jesus, interpreting Scripture correctly and understanding our sinful human nature.
Excellent comments from Rollo, Jason, Boxer, Earl. They should be (re?)written into history. Well done.
Pingback: Two additions to the men’s sphere lexicon. | Dalrock
Pingback: Two additions to the men’s sphere lexicon. - Top
Pingback: Wife beaters and the prairie muffins who love them. | Dalrock
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/07/30) - Social Matter
Pingback: Wife beaters and the prairie muffins who love them. - Top
Pingback: Some Christian conservatives bow down for feminists
Pingback: Defenseless | Dalrock
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Have you stopped beating your wife? | Dalrock