Wilson’s intellectual stink bomb.

Pastor Doug Wilson is clearly a smart and learned man.  At times I greatly appreciate his insight, as with his explanation of Luke 22:35–38.  But at other times Wilson stumbles in his writing, and when he is challenged to defend weak ideas he manages to dig himself in even deeper.  You can see a recent example of this with his response to critics of his 21 Theses on Submission in Marriage. Wilson’s response to his critics is titled:  And Now a Brief Word for the Wife Beaters.

Accusing men who disagree with him of being wife beaters is tantamount to intellectual surrender, and Wilson is so eager to do this he does so in the title of the post.  The internet is a big place, and I have no doubt there were some who disagreed with Wilson’s neutered form of headship and offered wife beating as a superior alternative.  But Wilson is clearly using this as an opportunity to pop an intellectual stink bomb to cover his retreat from criticism he isn’t equipped to rebut.

The key words here are enforce and make. No mortal can force such a thing. It does not come from right-handed power. But husbands can love and lead their wives. A husband can love, and Scripture teaches that this kind of love is efficacious. Love bestows loveliness. Husbands cannot duplicate the Lord’s substitutionary atonement, but husbands are most certainly commanded to imitate it. And when they imitate it as they ought, the results are not—work with me here—a beating for the little missus. And a man who thinks it is just demonstrates how far away from the spirit of the gospel he actually is.

Wilson explains that his prescription of love her sacrificially and she will follow is not to be confused with the complementarian servant leader model:

At some point in every husband/wife relationship, there will be a clash of wills. When that happens, it is often the case that the husband gets owned and he loses. Let us be blunt, and call it what it is. However, we live in flattering times, and he has been given sufficient cover by the church to retreat demurely into his designated background, and to call what he is doing “servant leadership.”

Having set his prescription apart from other forms of neutered headship, he closes the piece with a rebuttal to the men he most wants to respond to, the men who disagree with his form of neutered headship but aren’t advocating wife beating.  These men, he explains, are meanie chauvinists:

That kind of weakness is not what I am commending. It is not how Christ loved the church. But it is a mistake of the highest order to think that the opposite of this kind of cowardly coyness is to stand on the recliner in one’s man cave beating one’s chest. That is not how He loved the church either.

So authority flows to those who take responsibility. Authority flees those who seek to evade responsibility.

I now understand why Wilson’s defenders so strongly prefer the shut up form of argument.  Just like his opening accusation that those who disagree with him are wife beaters, this is carefully crafted to make further discussion impossible by sowing strife.  The tactic is easy enough to utilize, but it betrays an inability to defend his arguments.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Disrespecting Respectability, Domestic Violence, Headship, Pastor Doug Wilson, Servant Leader, Submission. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Wilson’s intellectual stink bomb.

  1. Pingback: Wilson’s intellectual stink bomb. | @the_arv

  2. RecoveringBeta says:

    Wow he argues like a woman

  3. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘A husband can love, and Scripture teaches that this kind of love is efficacious. Love bestows loveliness.’

    When it comes to God it does…and that’s the imporant distinction. Couples who are not following God’s will when it comes to marriage be it the woman, man, or both…is going to throw a wrench in the love bestows loveliness formula. Both choosing to love and receive that love is a free will choice…not a vending machine transaction.

  4. The Question says:

    “Pastor Doug Wilson is clearly a smart and learned man.”

    Yes, but a wise and humble man knows when to admit he’s wrong or has made an error.

  5. craig says:

    Leaving out the straw man of corporal punishment, are there any disciplinary measures a husband could employ– limiting finances, to name just one– which Wilson would not also consider abuse?

  6. earlthomas786 says:

    I wonder if even husbands using Scripture to wash the wife in the Word when she goes into sinful rebellion would be considered abuse in his world.

    I still dont know if he thinks wife beating is giving her a black eye or disagreement with her.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    My suggestion is to read the comments on that posting as well as the preceding “21 points” and the following “basketballs”, a very unintentionally ironic title. Note that some who post are in the “guest” category and some are “members”. There are some sincere people who live in a tradcon bubble, the usual women who equate any form of “discipline” directed at women as “abuse” (but who have no problem with “discipline” directed at men, as usual), a possible MGTOW trolling them, and so forth.

    Wilson seems to be pretty lenient about comments, and there’s some evidence he reads or at least skims them. In the “wife beater” comments there’s a list provided by a man of contentious behavior, it is pretty mild – wife tearing husband down in public, rolling her eyes when he corrects the children, telling “jokes” about him to her friends on social media, minimizing her own work in the home while expecting him to do more – pretty much standard behavior for a whole lot of modern American women under 40, including the churchgoing ones. Even that mild list seemed to jar one or two of the regular women posters, which simply confirms how tight the tradcon bubble is.

    I wonder who will show up to try and jam discussion on this thread?

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    My favorite part of Wilson’s Christian Namecallling posting in his defesne was this:

    I am far from denying the biblical truth that a rod is for the back of fools (Prov. 26:3). Nor do I deny that a woman could be numbered among such fools. But such a woman would be far gone in her folly, and the only fool bigger than that would be the guy who married her. So before we beat her for her uppity rebellions, I would suggest we flog him for being such an idiot. If he were to object that this is mean-spirited and unjust, I would reply that it sounds to me that he has been influenced by the spirit of egalitarianism. Must be one of those new softie men.

    Again we see the standard tradcon / feminist blame game, “If she behaves badly it’s all his fault”. While there is a grain of truth to this, that grain is only visible to a man wearing The Glasses, a man who has digested the Red Pill, a man who knows far more than any tradcon about women, a man who knows more about women than Doug Wilson to be specific.

    If Wilson wrote the mirror image of that, blaming women for the bad behavior of men, “If he beats you, then we should beat you also”, he would bring a firestorm of feminist ire down on his head. But it’s just great to “joke” about beating men whose wives have become contentious. Because of the tradcon / feminist double standard that loads more responsibility onto a husband while removing his authority and giving it to women and the state.

    Rereading that paragraph, I am struck by the snarky, feminine, passive-aggressive tone of it. Tradcons really do argue like women, I don’t know if they are lower T than other men, or if the church Beta factory works really well on them, but that paragraph would fit in just fine at some site like Jezebel or Feministing or Everydayfeminism.

    A man who claims to oppose feminism, but who writes like a feminist, has some confusion he should clear up. The first step to wisdom is to call things by their right names. I don’t see Wilson doing that, and I don’t see any of his followers or other ankle biters doing it either.

  9. Trust says:

    @: “But such a woman would be far gone in her folly, and the only fool bigger than that would be the guy who married her. So before we beat her for her uppity rebellions, I would suggest we flog him for being such an idiot’
    _________

    A major flaw in this thinking is that it assumes a rebellious wife behaved the same before marriage as she does during.

  10. Dry Holes says:

    We in the west have been openly trained in rebellion, love of self, and advancing our personal passions over the good of our families, Churches & communities for some time. From Rousseau (at least) we have made idols of self-determination and democracy. Thus Wilson cannot imagine a husband forcing a wife to act against her will. The Horrors! To allow a man to have real authority over his wife endangers foundational goals of the Enlightenment (equality, fraternity, ideological freedom, liberty, etc.).

    Such Enlightenment ideals were and remain largely incompatible with scripture and every form of historic Christianity. This was intentional as Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, et. al, were seeking to build a new world to overthrow and replace Christendom. Their effective battle cry – “I WILL NOT SERVE GOD” (as first said by Satan, then Eve, and ultimately all that will be lost).

    God disagrees with our self-determined, stiff necked rebellion against his Divine order. He shows no “respect” for self-willed people who “vote” against the Divine will. You disagree with God? Too bad- you lose- only His vote counts.

    Gen 3 showed His order: God —> Man —> Woman (and later) —> children. Satan reverse this order in the Garden (Satan over Eve over Adam over God). Satan reversed order worked to end Paradise, and today works to destroy western civilization.

    WIlson does not intend to be acting in the role of Satan in the Garden (overthrowing God’s divine order) but he is here, nonetheless, reading the deceiver’s part.

  11. Bruce says:

    Spanking disobedient wives used to be common among Christian husbands and (most) Christians still spank their children. By using the word “beating” he makes it sound like the only physically punitive option is beating the crap out of her (“beating” sounds like punching or hitting with an object hard enough to do serious physical damage – most people imagine blood, blackened eyes, severe brusing and lacerations). Most Christians don’t “beat” their children, they spank them.

    I’m not saying a return to spanking wives is the way to go, but if he were interested in being intellectually honest (as opposed to ad hominem debate tactics) he could write “wife spankers.” But “wife beaters” will get the emotional response he wants in his readers.

  12. Cane Caldo says:

    Some people just can’t bring themselves to say, “Submission means to do what you’re told. So wives, obey your husbands.” Instead them hem and haw and whirl and twirl and do anything but get speak the epitome of submission because the center of that fruit is bitter to sinful and rebellious women; which is all of them.

  13. BuenaVista says:

    He would have saved a lot of time by just typing “Happy wife, happy life, and you probably have a small package.” This is Jezebel-level rhetoric. I’m surprised he’s not aware of that.

  14. thedeti says:

    This issue of ‘what is the exact scope of what it means for a wife to submit to her husband’ has been floating around the ‘sphere since the days of Sunshine Mary’s old blogs, where the question of “what if your husband orders you to do something that is clearly unbiblical?” always arises.

    “What if your husband orders you to have an abortion?”

    “What if your husband orders you to help him rob banks?”

    The answers ranged from

    “you have an obligation to disobey him, because God’s authority supersedes that of the husband and a husband cannot biblically order a wife to do something clearly immoral or anti-biblical; and

    “you have an obligation to obey him, because even in your commission of sin you’re still covered with God’s protection when you obey the command to submit to your husband. You picked the man you’re expected to submit to, so you have no basis on which to complain, and this wouldn’t have been a problem if you had chosen more wisely. Wives have an obligation to themselves to thoroughly vet and evaluate the man who will be expecting their submission”.

  15. okrahead says:

    Deti,
    Yes, that question has been floating around even longer than SSM’s blogs. The actual problem, however, is that womynz object to being told to obey God’s word. The problem is not womynz being forced to abort their children, it is womynz aborting their children over the husband/father’s objection if he is ever informed at all. Would Wilson allow a man to physically restrain his wife from aborting their child, or would he condemn him for standing on his recliner and then call on the she-males of his church to flog him?
    Likewise, I have never known a man to order his wife to rob a bank; I have known many womynz who take out bank credit cards and rob their husbands, families and church by running up extravagant spending over their husbands direct objections. I suppose Wilson and his she-male churchians would also like to flog those husbands as well, while “protecting” the womynz from any discipline from their husbands.

  16. okrahead says:

    Consider the sad case of Andrea Yates,. a woman suffering from psychosis who brutally murdered her five young children. Her doctors had repeatedly warned her husband never to leave her alone with the children, yet he did just that, allegedly to force her to be more responsible.
    Should Mr. Yates have physically restrained his wife from murdering his children? Abuse! Wilson would scream. In point of fact, Mr. Yates apparently did exactly what Wilson advocates… He let his wife do whatever she chose to and did not interfere. So what about the five dead children? At least he did not physically restrain his wife, so in Wilson World all is well.

  17. okrahead says:

    The header for Wilson’s latest article, referenced here by our host, is a picture of Desi Arnez giving Lucy a spanking with his bare hand. According to Wilson this is “wife beating” and abuse.
    If it is abusive and assault to give a bare handed spanking to a grown adult, how much more so to a child? Can a father give his children a spanking, or will Wilson condemn that as assault and battery as well? Will he and his fellow she-male churchians start attacking fathers who discipline their children with a bare handed spanking? Inquiring minds want to know.

  18. earl says:

    I think the whole husband ordering the wife to do something unbiblical is just another straw-man argument to cover up what is more likely to happen. Adam listening to his wife was his downfall in being disobedient to God. Solomon…the wisest man on the planet had his downfall by listening to pagan wives and turning away from God. I’d make the argument it’s much more likely a wife will influence her husband to do something sinful than a husband ordering his wife to do something unbiblical.

    And it is much like the idea of husband abuse is thrown out to deflect the fact the bigger problem in marriage is wifey rebellion.

  19. Anonymous Reader there’s a reason Wilson’s followers are called Dougites

  20. okrahead says:

    Although I have asked before, I will ask again…. What should Adam have done in the garden? Should he have ordered Eve to leave and not speak to the serpent? Had she continued to do so, should he have physically removed her from the scene? If he came upon her just as she was about to pick and eat the fruit, should he have physically restrained her from doing so? Would Wilson and his she-male husband floggers not want to beat Adam if he did any of those things?
    No, Adam loved Eve completely, provided for her, did all for her…. and then went along with her…. Just as Wilson said ALL husbands should do. Wilson makes Adam’s agreement with and participation in Eve’s sin as the model which all churchian husbands should follow.

  21. RichardP says:

    From the original post – Wilson’s words: “So authority flows to those who take responsibility. Authority flees those who seek to evade responsibility.”

    Academics have defined various kinds of authority. So Wilson’s words are to no effect since he did not define what kind of authority he was referring to. However, consider his subject matter, we can infer that he is referring to the authority of the husband. That authority is vested by God in the position (husband), not the person (a particular individual). A person’s performance in the position can not and does not alter the fact that God vested authority in the position of husband – regardless of any particular individual’s performance in that position. Kind of like a President’s authority is vested in the office – regardless of the individual’s performance in that office.

    The quote from Wilson is proof positive that he does not understand this.

  22. earl says:

    “What if your husband orders you to have an abortion?”

    If that happens he’s a bad husband. Now what happens more in reality…how many bad boy boyfriends order the woman they got pregnant after fornicating with them to have an abortion? I’ve certainly read many more stories of that happening. The worst case scenarios of abuse and abortion people dream up in marriage actually occur when the couple isn’t married and living in sinful rebellion. A lot of times the worst case scenario that happens in a lot in marriages is divorce because of ‘irreconcilable differences’.

  23. okrahead says:

    Earl,
    I have never known of a man ordering his wife to have an abortion. I have know of a woman who got an abortion without her husband’s prior knowledge because she knew he would have objected. This is what really happens. The question for Wilson is, had the husband known ahead of time what she intended, should he have restrained her from doing so? I see no way in which Wilson can be consistent in his doctrine and say yes.

  24. okrahead says:

    Richard P,

    You are entirely correct. Wilson’s statement makes authority dependent upon the subjective view of the person(s) under authority… If a wife thinks her husband is not taking enough responsibility, then she can deny his authority. I wonder if Wilson would make this same application to himself and the members of his church. Likewise, would he use this to justify children rebelling against parents or citizens rebelling against civil authority?

  25. earl says:

    ‘So authority flows to those who take responsibility. Authority flees those who seek to evade responsibility.’

    ‘Wilson’s words are to no effect since he did not define what kind of authority he was referring to.’

    I noticed that too…along the vague authority statement he claims ‘responsibility’ is where authority flows and flees as opposed to God being the basis of authority. In fact reading it again…that vague statement sounds like something a usurper would say.

  26. thedeti says:

    I’d agree that the scenario of “what if my hubby orders me to do something really really double super bad? Do I have to submit then?” is very very unlikely to present itself in a Christian marriage, which is where Ephesians 5 and I Peter 3 apply anyway.

    I think Okra has it here – the problem is that women do not want to submit to God, or to husbands, or to anyone else. The problem is that women need to find a way around “submit to your husbands in all things”. So all sorts of exceptions are carved out, usually revolving around the husband’s character. I tell you, women come up with more hypotheticals than a law school professor can when it comes to submission to husbands and God’s command to wives that they submit.

    “I have to submit to my husband, UNLESS one or more of the following apply:

    –my husband is actively in sin (usually a sexual sin, porn or adultery, or criminal activity, or drug use) This reads into the requirement: Wives, submit to your husbands, but only if they are completely without sin. (And bonus: You don’t have to have sex with a husband who is in sin!)

    –my pastor/priest says I don’t have to. “Husband, if you’re doing something I don’t like, I’ll just go to the pastor/priest and have him overrule you.” The pastor/priest is then set up as a court of review to evaluate the propriety of the husband’s actions, thus eviscerating the husband’s authority. This reads into the requirement: “Wives, submit to your husbands, but if you don’t like his decisions, appeal them to the pastoral/priestly “Supreme Court”, which has the power to overturn decisions you don’t like.”

    –my husband is trying to lead the family somewhere I think is unwise, imprudent or might produce financial hardship. This reads into the requirement: “Wives, submit to your husbands, but only when they lead you where you have already decided you should go, and only if they are worldly wise, wealthy, and financially savvy.”

    –my husband isn’t properly submitted to God (he doesn’t read the bible enough, he doesnt’ do bible studies with the kids, he doesn’t go to church enough, he doesn’t go to men’s ministry stuff, he doesn’t have a relationship with the pastor, he doesn’t pray enough, he doesn’t pray with me enough). Wife then sets herself up as the sole arbiter of husband’s sufficient “Godliness”. She determines whether he is sufficiently Godly for her submission; and then and only then is she under any sort of authority to submit. This reads into the requirement “Wives, submit to your husbands when you have decided they are Godly and devout enough for your submission.”

  27. thedeti says:

    The issue is that women don’t want to obey God’s command to submit to their husbands.

    Like Okra I’ve never known a husband (even a nonChristian husband) to order a wife to get an abortion. I’ve never known a husband to order a wife to live a life of crime. If anything, many women have to be restrained from immoral conduct. I’ve never known a wife seriously living in fear that a Christian husband will order her to do something immoral or clearly in violation of Scripture.

  28. Daniel says:

    I haven’t come across any article giving good instructions to a man on how to deal his wife when she is irreverent, contentious, unsubmissive or disobedient. The appropriate response might be different based on whether she seems to be a true believer that basically loves you and needs correction, or whether she is an unbeliever with whom you simply hope to live in peace.

    Recently I read Voddie Baucham’s “Family Shepards.” In his section on corrective disciple for CHILDREN, he notes that there is a whole continuum of biblical discipline. In an interview about the book he said

    • Level 1: Encourage proper behavior. We see them in places like Proverbs 3:13-15, 4:7-8.
    • Level 2: Inform our children of improper behavior.
    • Level 3: Explain the negative consequences of sin.
    • Level 4: We become persuasive. Gently exhort your children.
    • Level 5: Gently rebuke and reprove your children. Then, we get corrective.
    • Level 6: Corporal punishment that does not cause physical harm.
    • Level 7: Biblical corporal punishment that does cause physical harm. That’s when you go, “Praise God for the New Covenant”; amen?
    • Level 8: Death—“Take them to the city gates and stone them.” I’m so grateful that I was born under the New Covenant.

    Obviously, some of this is Old Covenant civil law, and we would agree that parents today are limited to Level 6 – corporal punishment that does not cause physical harm.

    I think that once your child reaches a certain age, spanking is no longer appropriate. Somewhere around puberty, most of us stop spanking our children and enact other consequences for disobedience.

    Now when ruling your WIFE, would any of this apply?

    Most of us would agree that Level 1 through Level 5 would be applicable to dealing with wives, including gentle rebuke and reproof when she is disrespectful. Examples of the Lord dealing with his Bride in these ways abound.

    If this does not bring repentance, what then?

    If your wife really loves you , then it is very effective to remove your attention. In the Song of Solomon, the woman gets lazy and is slow to respond to her husbands advances. So he makes himself scarce until she seeks him with all her heart. When she does she is restored to the joy of fellowship. This has been as far as I’ve ever had to take it. My wife is a sinner, but she really does love me.

    Escalating the separation might include kicking her out of your bedroom temporarily. That ought to get her attention. This one I’ve been keeping in my back pocket for a serious problem.

    If she fails to repent, it remains to be seen whether further corrective actions would have the desired effect. Would you take away privileges the same way you would treat a 21 year old daughter, living in your house? Would it be effective?

    I do not think any physical punishment is appropriate.

    If you have tried to get her attention, and she persists in rebellion… Take it to the church.

    If she won’t hear the church, or they won’t deal with her, you might have to resign yourself to treating her as you would an unbeliever. “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.”

    If she will not live with you Peacefully, only then send her away. “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”

    If she remains faithful to you, and does not file for divorce, then you should wait for her to repent and be reconciled. “But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.”

    If she commits adultery, then divorce her. “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.”

    This is the biblical order of escalating correction of a wife as far as I can tell. It may not be very practical in the current legal situation. It might not work. But it does seem to allow for harsher and harsher consequences designed to bring your wife to repentance. Which only God can effect.

  29. davidtaylor2 says:

    Okay…..take husbands and wives out of it for a moment, and let’s look at some things that the Bible says and that Christ personally said:

    Hebrews 12:8 KJV
    But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

    John 14:21a NIV
    Whoever has My commands and keeps them is the one who loves Me.

    Luke 9:23 NASB
    And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.”

    Hebrews 10:29 NIV
    How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

    Revelation 2:20-23 NIV
    20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
    21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.
    22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.
    23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

    …..so it seems like to me, the Bible says the following:
    -We can expect chastisement from Christ, that’s part of the proof that we’re really His and not illegitimate
    -Our obedience to His commands is the sign of our love for Him
    -Following Him requires daily cross bearing and self-denial
    -Disrespecting His blood sacrifice guarantees that we will be sorely punished
    -Walking in sexual immorality without repentance, and teaching others to do so, gets us cast onto a bed of suffering, followed by more intense suffering, and children struck dead.
    -We can expect to be repaid by Christ for our deeds/how we behave.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    Daniel
    A very sober and serious comment. I have one quibble:
    If you have tried to get her attention, and she persists in rebellion… Take it to the church.

    In a lot of churches, probably the vast majority, this would not work. In fact, it would probably worsen the situation, because between the Blue Pill older men and the women, a majority of the church would take her side no matter what. Any man who took a complaint such as contentiousness, sexual refusal, overspending to a church board or pastor would most likely be told he’s “not loving enough”. I write this based on what men have told me both in real life, via email and other electronic means.

    It still might be a useful step, but only if the man in question is prepared for blowback from the church / leadership of the “How Dare You!” sort, or her doubling down on contentiousness, or both.

  31. squid_hunt says:

    “Scripture teaches that this kind of love is efficacious.”

    Which scripture verses teaches this? Specific to a husband’s love for his wife, I mean.

    The Bible does teach that a woman’s submission can be efficacious. I don’t know of a verse (although you might argue a principle) that teaches the reverse.

  32. Daniel,

    I second Anonymous Reader. A very good comment that I have a quibble with.

    By going to an outside authority it shows that the husband does not have the authority he is demanding, rather like two siblings squabbling. They have to go the the actual authority to resolve it. If the husband did have authority, he could just make a decision and act. Even if that’s not the intent, it’s looks like a submission to a higher power.

  33. Novaseeker says:

    At some point in every husband/wife relationship, there will be a clash of wills. When that happens, it is often the case that the husband gets owned and he loses. Let us be blunt, and call it what it is.

    Really incredible stuff. It’s fascinating how it appears to never enter his mind at all that a wife who turns a marriage into a clash of wills is in full-blown rebellion against her husband and is sinning. Not a peep about that. One would have thought “calling it what it is” would have at least involved calling out the clear and obvious sin of the wife involved here — a wife who is contentious to the point of making the marriage into a clash of wills and “owning” her husband is committing serious sin, yet it goes entirely unmentioned.

    Why?

    Again, as was mentioned in the last few threads, the idea these guys have is that everything women do is reactive to men. So to the extent one may say that a wife who acts like this is not honoring her responsibilities to God in marriage (i.e., sinning), they would counter that this is only happening because the man is not leading her properly, and not loving her as Christ loved the Church, so that to the extent she’s even doing anything wrong (and they seem loathe to even admit that much), she’s only doing it because the husband sinned first by not being a good leader and not loving her sacrificially.

    It’s almost like a robotic view of female moral agency. If a man does X well enough/properly, why, a woman will always do Y, and the only reason she ever would not do Y is if the man didn’t do X well enough. Women are robots without moral agency, apparently, and therefore also without moral responsibilities, because everything they do, even things that may be seen by some as “bad” or “sinful” are only being done in response/reaction to some man’s prior sin.

    Craziness, and certainly not Christian. It’s a reminder that every heresy has rotten fruit. The widespread heresy about Genesis in American Christianity is the root here, and the fruit are thoroughly rotten and rancid.

  34. squid_hunt says:

    @Trust

    “A major flaw in this thinking is that it assumes a rebellious wife behaved the same before marriage as she does during.”

    The word fool in the Bible specifically means not fearing God. You have to perform sinful acts to be a biblical fool. Marrying a rebellious woman does not meet the criteria.

    @Daniel

    I don’t agree with taking marital discipline issues to the church. The church’s relationship to your wife is predominately through you. You are her head. You are basically giving up your authority and relinquishing your marriage to an outside agency. The only grounds I would reconsider was if I intended to file for divorce and had suitable standing.

  35. thedeti says:

    The going to an outside authority is derived from Matthew 18, which orders the escalating intervention Christians are to use when dealing with a person who’s clearly in sin.

    First step: Go to that person and explain it calmly yet clearly. If that doesn’t work, ‘
    Second step: Go to that person again, this time with a couple of other people, and let them help you work it out. If that still doesn’t work, then
    Third step: Take it to the whole church and have them help you. If that still doesn’t work and the person still won’t listen, then
    Fourth step: Cut them off. Excommunicate them. Have nothing to do with them.

    So it’s biblical. But in Matthew 18 it talks of dealing with “a brother or sister” who is in sin. Query whether that really applies to a wife or not….

  36. BillyS says:

    Truth,

    A major flaw in this thinking is that it assumes a rebellious wife behaved the same before marriage as she does during.

    I would have to admit my wife did act that way before we were married and kept it up throughout the marriage. My own strong will seemed to override that in my mind until she finally mustered the courage almost 30 years later to blow the whole thing up in spite of the Biblical commandments (which she claims to follow even now) against that.

    God put us together, but I still should have walked from it once I saw that she really did not want to be married. I paid the penalty for that and men like Wilson helped make sure it would eventually blow up. I am not sure I could have realized enough then to walk away, but I would if I could take my knowledge now back then. My own father ironically went through divorces twice, but he was still very blue pill so he could not give me solid guidance either.

    I do believe men and women going into marriage should watch for a lot of flags we don’t commonly note today. That should be a large part of what we aim to accomplish. Focus on the warning flags though, not the “all women are bad” thesis, even if some are convinced on that. People will ignore the latter while focusing on the warning flags has the most chance of making an impact.

  37. earl says:

    One of the best bits of advice I’ve read about marriage is…whatever flaw you see in your perspective partner multiply it by 10 when you get married. And in our day and age of widespread acceptance and promotion of female rebellion…it won’t take long to see if she subscribes to rebelling against you (and/or God) or not.

  38. Pingback: Wilson’s intellectual stink bomb. | Reaction Times

  39. Mocheirge says:

    So before we beat her for her uppity rebellions, I would suggest we flog him for being such an idiot.
    “And on a not-entirely-unrelated note, we have some might fine fillies available. Only slightly used and come with a free foal! Act now and you’ll get a discount on the future floggings!”

  40. SnapperTrx says:

    Had a discussion with my wife over something she is doing that I don’t approve of and got the typical “Christian woman” responses, the same ones that get drilled into women’s heads by pastors like this:

    1. Your not God.
    2. The bible says wives should submit, but that’s not all I am.
    3. I read the bible too and the holy spirit speaks to me, not just you.
    4. Your supposed to be leading in love and I your not acting very loving.
    5. Women are not just supposed to do whatever their husbands ask.

    The discussion was over her attending a women’s bible study, the same that likely helped drill these concepts into her head. At this point its point-less. Christian women are beyond gone. They have been raised with a dangerous mixture of Christianity+feminism that leads them to believe that men should serve God by serving women, and that THEY are Gods appointed indicator of a mans walk with Him in marriage rather than man being Gods appointed authority in marriage. Stick a fork in it until the return of Christ or the fall of the United States. At some point the pendulum will swing the other direction, and I feel bad for women in those days because it won’t be pretty.

  41. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    So the husband’s role is to be “loving”. “authoritative” and “responsible” and his wife will be drawn into submitting like deer to a salt lick? Has Doug ever interacted with humans outside a laboratory?

  42. PuffyJacket says:

    I think the evidence is pretty compelling that pastor Wilson is just a straight-up mangina.

    He does an absurd amount of mental acrobatics to explain away any and all wrongdoings of the woman as sins of the man. A normal, otherwise blue-pill man simply doesn’t “effort” himself this way. The more extreme the sin, the more ridiculous his contortions become (see his past statements on abortion as a guide). This “man” cannot be swayed by the evidence.

    At some point you just need to call a spade a spade.

  43. Dry Holes says:

    @ SnapperTrx

    I couldn’t agree more. As has been taught me by the brethren here – the Vagina is now viewed as a “receiver” of God’s Divine Will. She doesn’t need a man to tell her what the scriptures mean (1 Tim 2, 1 Peter 3, etc.) she knows God’s will because she is a woman (has the vagina receiver).

  44. Lost Patrol says:

    Dalrock points out weaknesses in Doug Wilson’s work, but also gives him his due as one who does in fact call out some things where most other pastor-writers fear to tread.

    Maybe I read too much into this, but I was intrigued to see his take on the Complementarian ethos of servant leadership contained in these quotes (my highlighted text, not his):

    sufficient cover by the church to retreat demurely into his designated background, and to call what he is doing “servant leadership.”

    That kind of weakness is not what I am commending. It is not how Christ loved the church. But it is a mistake of the highest order to think that the opposite of this kind of cowardly coyness

    These look like broadsides fired at Complementarian “servant leadership” to me, and makes me reassess my initial thought that he might be an adherent of that doctrine.

  45. earlthomas786 says:

    They have been raised with a dangerous mixture of Christianity+feminism that leads them to believe that men should serve God by serving women, and that THEY are Gods appointed indicator of a mans walk with Him in marriage rather than man being Gods appointed authority in marriage.

    It’s feminism. What you see from Wilson and the pastoral ilk is mental gymnastics around the Word of God to justify sinful rebellion in wives and hatred of husbands (hence the beating statements) so that the feminst laity will like him.

  46. Jim says:

    And now a brief word for the wife beaters

    Accusing men who disagree with him of being wife beaters is tantamount to intellectual surrender, and Wilson is so eager to do this he does so in the title of the post.

    Could he be anymore cowardly and transparent? Amazing how so many cucks place women over God.

  47. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    So a husband us to emulate the love of Christ in his love for his wife. Eph 5 would agree. But how does Christ love His own bride the church?

    “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.”
    Revelation 3:19

    Seems to me that the love of Christ is love that reproves a sinning wife and disciplines her to aid in her repentance. I have no doubt that if a husband emulated this facet of Christ’s love that husband would be charged with abuse.

    Not only does Wilson teach a man to be passive (by eliminating all alternatives) and irresponsible in the leading if his wife, he takes away the tools and lays the blame for heeding his wife (not leading) as Wilson teaches on the man. Wilson both blames the man for passivity and punishes him when he is not passive. The only way to not lose this rigged game is not to play. Wilson and others like him complain “where are all the men?” The answer us that the eunuchs stayed and those with testes still attached left the congregations of woman worshippers.

  48. cnystrom62 says:

    “what if your husband orders you to do something that is clearly unbiblical?”

    What should children do if their parents order that to do something that is clearly unbiblical? The point is that hatever answer you have does not mitigate the fact that children should obey their parents in the general case.

  49. Gunner Q says:

    Jim @ 5:46 pm:
    “Could he be anymore cowardly and transparent?”

    Oh yeah, baby. My favorite quote:
    “At some point in every husband/wife relationship, there will be a clash of wills. When that happens, it is often the case that the husband gets owned and he LOSES. Let us be blunt, and call it what it is.” (emphasis Wilson’s)

    Hear that, husbands? If your wife doesn’t obey you then Pastor Wilson says you’re a LOSER.

    Also:
    “The Bible does set before us a hierarchical world, but we are not to conceive of this as a cascade of commandments, flowing ever downward, drowning those at the bottom. Rather, it promotes and elevates those at the bottom. Remember what the gospel does.”

    The devil couldn’t have said it better himself. The Gospel I found in Scripture doesn’t put the servant equal to the Master so what gospel is Wilson talking about?

  50. earl says:

    Hear that, husbands? If your wife doesn’t obey you then Pastor Wilson says you’re a LOSER.

    Beware the male feminist who assumes a position of power in the clergy.

    Some people hear have called them tradcons…I think they are really male feminists. They hate men and promote rebellion in women.

  51. infowarrior1 says:

    @SnapperTrx

    I think your wife is an unbeliever. For no true believer persists in sin without repentance if corrected like King David.

  52. SnapperTrx says:

    They do when they have been told all their life that this is how things work. It angers me, but I try to keep my patience because up until recently I would have said the same thing. It took me 30+ years to finally stop believing what everyone told me the bible said and start seriously reading it myself. Everyone around us, from pastors to family members would agree with her because it’s the common belief in our “enlightened” era of equality and egalitarianism. That being said I have no clue what to do.about it other than do my part by pointing out her disobedience. Beyond that, in this age, I have little recourse.

  53. Kaminsky says:

    I think I would have a pretty good chance of ‘owning’ my spouse in a clash of wills too, if my spouse stood to lose EVERYTHING if the clash couldn’t be settled ultimately, while I had everything to gain by imposing my will without any compromise even to the point of my spouse asking for a divorce. Add in the fact that my spouse is exhausted after 60-90 hours of work/commuting while I’ve been home in leisure, stoking my willpower over a clash that my spouse doesn’t even know is coming, and that no matter what, I have a house, a pile of unearned cash and a monthly check coming my way for years if the relationship fails. Plus every aspect of the culture from media to the church will condemn, shame and possibly call for jail time for my spouse if said spouse happens to win the clash of wills.

    Imagine this exchange;

    Man; “Dear, if you don’t start obeying me, I will just have to divorce you.”

    Woman; “Bwaaaahh,ha ha ha ha ha. Oooh, are you gonna divorce me, tough guy? Oooh, I’m shaking. I’m so threatened by the concept of being given a house, 400k in cash, and a monthly salary for doing nothing. I’m shaking. Bwaaahaaaa. I’m gonna divorce your dumbass anyway. I’m just waiting until the numbers are right.”

  54. John Q Public says:

    Well, at the risk of the sowing more strife I have to observe that professional ministers are almost completely useless on every issue weather Islam, gender roles or anything else. There’s not a time is worth a difference between Doug Wilson, John Piper or Tom Wright

  55. RichardP says:

    @Snapper – we are not called to “save” people. God reserves that job for himself. We are only asked to present the word of God. It is up to the Holy Spirit, not us, to use that word to convict and bring to repentance.

    The following truth is unpleasant, but Biblical: few will find the narrow path to salvation; many will find the wide path to destruction. For that statement to have any meaning, “few” must be significantly less than 50%; “many” must be significantly greater than 50%.

    When I fully grasped that truth, Luke 14:26 made much more sense to me: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.”

    For some of us (many of us?), our significant other is bound to be part of that group of “many”. That is tragic, but it is the way God set up the world. Beyond sharing God’s word with them, and leaving it up to the Holy Spirit to convict and lead to repentance (something that will never happen for the “many”), our job is to focus on God, his call on our lives, and our primary responsibility to be the conduit through which he can minister his mercies to/on others.

    “Pick up your cross and follow me”, indeed.

  56. Hmm says:

    I’m going to get all spiritual here for a moment and try to work things out. I’m not trying to get Wilson off the hook – I’m just hoping to understand what he’s getting at (I come from a reformed background like him, and I have some insight into that world).

    It looks like what Wilson has in mind is a form of living by faith – doing what (he believes) God tells the man to do, and trusting God for the results. This may include laying down our own life for the sake of our wife. It is this form of exercising our faith that he sees as “efficacious”, in much the same way that the woman silently submitting to the man is said to win him over. I expect Wilson would not enjoin silence on the man’s part, but he certainly hasn’t been clear about what to say. If this were my situation and my belief, I would quote the Word and leave it there to work. The Word of God is what Scripture says is efficacious. And that is what the section from Matthew 18 that someone mentioned earlier is about: bringing the word to bear against the sinner.

    And I can agree with this to a point if it’s just me doing the suffering. But when children become involved, it is no longer only my cross to bear. It’s like the difference between my turning the other cheek to an evil person myself (which I am called to do) and not putting up any fight when it involves my family or my society. There’s no necessary hypocrisy involved when I let someone strike me, but tackle him when he is trying to take down a plane.

    Now if we have a theology of victory, this all sounds like losing. But that is what Christ did for us – he went to the cross, laid down his life for our sake, resisted the temptation to come down and save himself, and died forgiving his enemies. And this is what he calls us to. As Bonhoeffer said, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”

    Marriage is martyrdom – for both parties. Look at the marriage vows. Each partner is called to lay down his or her life for the other. The sooner we all understand that, the better. But not everyone can handle this teaching. Because martyrdom looks a lot like losing.

    Having said this, I will frankly admit that, like Wilson, I’ve had an easy time of it. I married under Marriage 1.0, and it has held up well in the intervening years. So what I said above is largely from what I have heard taught, and seen in a choice few others, and not from my own experience.

    And for Snowy and others (including a couple of friends) whose stories have torn at my own heart, all I can say is that, if we let it, this suffering can be redemptive.

  57. Anchorman says:

    C’mon, men!

    Who doesn’t want to sign up for that?!?! Plus, you get Church leadership, eager to sell you out/call you an abuser!

  58. Samuel Culpepper says:

    SnapperTrx:

    Sure you have recourse . . . put her ass out! Sounds like your wife has rode your good graces to a point where she feels confident that you wont/can’t find a young bride to replace her and just decide to put up with her shit. I found myself in the same situation mid-thirties and am just now jumping off the train at 42. I can still re-marry a young woman of child bearing years at 42, not so if I waste any more time with a contentious wife.

  59. Anchorman says:

    The key words here are enforce and make. No mortal can force such a thing. It does not come from right-handed power.

    And military leaders can’t (necessarily) force or make subordinates follow orders.

    However, they are in the role of appointed authority and carry with them the full authority of lawful orders.

    Equivocate all you want, but refusing orders is rebellion.

    Husbands cannot duplicate the Lord’s substitutionary atonement

    No, they cannot. And so we need to stop saying if husbands are less than perfect then wives can rebel at varying levels.

    For crying out loud, who joins a unit when they know their higher-ups will sell them out and berate them in front of the troops?

  60. earl says:

    I can still re-marry a young woman of child bearing years at 42, not so if I waste any more time with a contentious wife.

    That’s a noble thought but that’s also assuming the young woman hasn’t already developed a spirit of rebellion and contentiousness. It’s a zoo out there with this current society and what young women are being taught. Might just be better to trend at not getting remarried unless you happen to find one of the rare ones that isn’t knee deep in feminism and rejects it for the satanic ethos it is.

  61. Anchorman says:

    Might just be better to trend at not getting remarried unless you happen to find one of the rare ones that isn’t knee deep in feminism and rejects it for the satanic ethos it is.

    I’ve found there are two types of women at that age:

    Women who have been ridden hard for years by jerks and
    Women who blew up their families for EPL lifestyle dreams.

    Neither are wife material.

  62. Anchorman says:

    Some people hear have called them tradcons…I think they are really male feminists. They hate men and promote rebellion in women.

    I suspect they are men trying to send a message via the pulpit to their dominating wife.

  63. Pingback: Shoot The Messenger | Donal Graeme

  64. Tom C says:

    It’s like the traditional example of the loaded question: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

  65. okrahead says:

    You really have to read the whole thing to get the effect, but here is Wilson actually justifying himself acting as a white knight to rescue “trapped wives”… https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/109900.html
    In addition, Wilson states that even if the husband admits guilt and repents, he is NOT to be believed, nor is he to be forgiven, and his wife may continue her new single lifestyle with the blessing of the church, and she is not to be disciplined for doing so…. “One last thing. The church is required to lean in her direction when what she is doing is simply protecting herself. She is a refugee.” Wilson’s assertion that the church is to “lean in” (where oh where have I heard that prepositional phrase before? It seems so familiar) is made within out any scriptural justification whatsoever.

  66. okrahead says:

    Wilson, once again writing as a white knight to a “trapped wife”…. his actual words… “But there are also situations where husbands are simply beleaguered men, constantly and unrelentingly disrespected by everyone close to them. His periodic outbursts are the railings of an impotent castrato.” https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/open-letter-to-a-trapped-wife.html
    Now, in this letter he admits to not knowing “Jill” personally, not knowing her husband at all, and having heard only her side of the story… and then describes her husband to her in the terms above. This is what a PUA would call “boyfriend destroyer” game run by a “pastor” at “Christian” women to annihilate husbands. And Wilson’s choice of words leaves me very much convinced there is some sort of sexual aspect to these goings on.

  67. okrahead says:

    An additional note…. Wilson allows divorced women to remarry, even if (especially if?) the divorce did not involve adultery… “All this, together with the other scriptural passages, leads me to conclude that adultery need not be present with all remarriages. But when it is — as the Lord’s teaching shows that it can be — it is adultery in the sight of God, and He will judge it.”
    https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/marrying-your-first-husband-again.html
    On this point he is utterly inconsistent with his teaching in the articles on “trapped wives”, but since he is all about leaning in for the wife I think I know which way he will head if and when he has to reconcile the two doctrines.

  68. okrahead says:

    Additionally, in these various articles by Wilson, it seems he ONLY applies being able to leave your spouse in the absence of adultery, and occasionally being able to remarry even in the absence of adultery, to women. He makes no mention whatsoever of a man ever being able to leave and remain unmarried under 1 Corinthians 7, nor of a man ever being able to remarry in the absence of adultery.

  69. okrahead says:

    What Wilson is selling to men is a version of the fallacy of Eliphaz, who assured Job that if Job was righteous only good things would happen to him, and if bad things happened to him then of course he had been unrighteous.
    It should be noted that although Job was the most righteous man in all the Earth his wife turned on him and “spoke as one of the foolish women.” Hence I suppose Wilson and his troop of she-males would like to flog Job for being so foolish as to marry a foolish woman.

  70. feeriker says:

    Well, what is there to say, really? Dougie Wilson has shown his true colors, which weren’t very well concealed underneath the churchian black anyway. It takes willful ignorance, sillfully blind eyes and deaf ears not to see and hear the truth.

    In Dougie’s defense, he’s not really any worse at apologetics than any other run-o-the-mill churchian, whose response to a challenge to their assumptions of faith is usually cut from the same boult of ad hominem cloth.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    It looks like what Wilson has in mind is a form of living by faith – doing what (he believes) God tells the man to do, and trusting God for the results. This may include laying down our own life for the sake of our wife. It is this form of exercising our faith that he sees as “efficacious”, in much the same way that the woman silently submitting to the man is said to win him over

    I would find that more convincing were it not for his suggestion that certain men should be flogged, i.e. beaten with whips, for the bad behavior of their wives. Said beating to be administered by church leaders, I assume. While on the other hand there is no behavior by a wife that he finds worthy of more than words, words and more words. Also I don’t see anywhere that Wilson actually agrees with women remaining silent at all, rather the opposite in fact he’s quite eager for women to voice any and every concern they may have about all the many shortcomings of their husband. He talks “her submission” but walks “beat him”. Therefore that 1 Peter Bible quote does not appear to be his bookshelf. I leave it to you whether the represents “Cafeteria Christianity” or not.

    And I can agree with this to a point if it’s just me doing the suffering. But when children become involved, it is no longer only my cross to bear. It’s like the difference between my turning the other cheek to an evil person myself (which I am called to do) and not putting up any fight when it involves my family or my society. There’s no necessary hypocrisy involved when I let someone strike me, but tackle him when he is trying to take down a plane.

    Oh, but you are supposed to just pray for the hijacker, right? Taking direct action would be abuse.
    (Yes, this is sarcasm.)

    A contentious wife pollutes the entire household. A contentious wife teaches her son(s) to be scared of women and to defer to their every whim; and her daughter(s) to be controlling, screaming harpies. If that’s what Wilson thinks children should learn, then there’s no problem. Otherwise, women’s emotions need to be controlled one way or another.

    Finally, I will point out again that Wilson’s notion about submission is very specific. He is certain the men must submit to the church – with a flogging, if need be. As far as I can tell he’s certain that children should submit to parents. But somehow, when it’s wives, they may submit if their heart tells them to do so, but it is not required. At least that is the impression I have after reading multiple rather pompous articles at his site. I could be wrong. I’m secure enough in my man-card to admit that.

  72. Spike says:

    ”….And when they imitate it as they ought, the results are not—work with me here—a beating for the little missus. And a man who thinks it is just demonstrates how far away from the spirit of the gospel he actually is…”. -Doug Wilson
    This is a very common ploy used by the proponents of obsequious goddess worship. If you do not agree to such, you are violent, you condone violence and abuse, you are a horrible person with ”phobias” and ”isms”.
    What is unfortunate about such a view is that it is secular and in not in any way a Christian argument. It is designed to stop debate, cut off the criticism and prevent analysis.
    It is not surprising, as we expect the secular and the churchian to merge. What I do not understand is, why?
    Why do men mature in so many areas of their faith go weak at the knees when it comes to women and feminism. Wilson certainly isn’t the only one. Many elders in my church are. My father certainly was. I can only explain it as their weakness as lack of complete faith in Christ, who did say that if anyone places anything ahead of Him, they are not worthy of Him (Matt 10:37). What other explanation is there?

  73. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    In Dougie’s defense, he’s not really any worse at apologetics than any other run-o-the-mill churchian, whose response to a challenge to their assumptions of faith is usually cut from the same boult of ad hominem cloth.

    Yes. He is just a cookie-cutter pastorbator.

    He assembles the church fatties in the pews and then tells them they are ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’ (three times). He is hence a mangina, and on top of that exhibits a complete lack of genuine faith.

  74. Anon says:

    Hear ye, hear ye!

    The Official National Review Cuckservative Cruise is coming up in just one month!

    http://www.nrcruise.com/speakers.htm

    For just $6000, you can spend a full week immersed in cuckservatism, amidst fellow travelers who are 80% male, and 100% over 50. The all-star lineup includes Rich Lowry, Brad Wilcucks, and Jim Gay-ratty. Nowhere else can you get so much; this is truly the superconductor of cuckservatism. And at just $6000, this is a steal! You will also be expected to spend another $6000 to cover one of the female attendee’s tickets.

    Plus, you might get even luckier. The ship could hit the rocks and start sinking. Then the cuckservatives will out-cuck each other in deciding which men should die to for the satisfaction of the female 20% of the passengers (even though 100% of the passengers can escape with ease since the boat is never more than 50 miles from the Eastern Seaboard). You will have the opportunity to die heroically so that Rich Lowry and Jim Gay-ratty can escape with the fat women on the cruise, and lecture other men on how to become attractive for years to come! The opportunity to die with such decorated honor and for the core cause of cuckservatism does not arrive often.

    A once in a life-time opportunity that is not to be missed!!

  75. Anon says:

    Meet Kathryn-Jean Lopez. They have a typo in her title, though. It says she is ‘Editor at Large at National Review’, when in fact it is supposed to be ‘Editor is Large at National Review’.

    She is one of the keynote speakers on the upcoming NR Cuckservative Cruise. You will be expected to die under Rich Lowry’s direction when the schedule boat-sinking exercise takes place, even if you can easily escape even after letting Ms. Lopez board the escape boats first.

  76. infowarrior1 says:

    @SnapperTrx
    ”Everyone around us, from pastors to family members would agree with her because it’s the common belief in our “enlightened” era of equality and egalitarianism.”

    Pray for God at least to save the soul of your wife and for yourself that he may guide you.

    As for the situation.

    “The whole world is against you!” said a colleague of Athanasius when he spoke out against Arianism

    “Then it is Athanasius against the world.”( in Latin: Athanasius contra mundum)

  77. Pingback: Quote of the week. | Dark Brightness

  78. pathfinderlight says:

    Pastor Wilson clearly sees himself as preaching something like a middle path between opposing sins.

    Dalrock’s insistence of wifely obedience isn’t just an absolute and forever article of faith, it’s born out of observable facts in our day that men are more likely to have well formed consciences than women, and societal pressure is easier to exert on men than it is on women. The fact is, in our culture, men just don’t ask their wives to do clearly immoral things, so using these edge cases in an attempt to redefine the rules is disingenuous.

    What IS universal is that women tend to create morality and social acceptableness around their feelings, rather than universal laws or the bible. Remember, the conscience is a student, not a teacher.

    The best argument for absolute wifely obedience that I’ve seen is the prevalence of a certain one-two punch against biblical male authority of feminism taking over the church, then the wife “feeling” that her husband is immoral, then insisting on going to the church to sort it out. This double whammy itself is enough to effectively disable male headship. So, it seems the solution is either:
    1) it is a moral imperative that the wife must obey the husband in all moral direction, even if it contradicts her sensibilities AND the church.
    2) it is a moral imperative that the wife must accept the husband’s choice of church

    Your thoughts?

  79. BillyS says:

    SnapperTrx,

    My ex-wife was more passive-aggressive than that, but she used my reading of “those sites” and talking about things to justify leaving.

    The comment about Kaminsky makes about the guaranteed paycheck is spot on. We didn’t have the pile of cash and she wanted to leave the area to be near to her mom, but she gets a monthly amount from me just because we had a long term marriage. Quite immoral even though it is wrapped in care.

  80. Hmm says:

    @AR:

    You may have misunderstood my comments on withstanding evil. I may decide not to resist evil done to me alone. But I will certainly not extend that to when evil is done for others – I would tackle the hijacker. I would fight the false abuse charges for the sake of my children.

    And I think you are making too much of Wilson’s words about flogging. I an quite sure he means that in a purely figurative and (to him) humorous way. After all, he believes in the Westminster Standards, which insist that all authority in the Church is “ministerial and declarative” – the worst penalty the church can officially inflict is excommunication.

  81. Spike says:

    Since we are on the topic of wife beating, there is this gem in The Land of The Ugly Feminist – Australia,

    Complete with references to Bradford Wilcox!

  82. feeriker says:

    You will be expected to die under Rich Lowry’s direction when the schedule boat-sinking exercise takes place, even if you can easily escape even after letting Ms. Lopez board the escape boats first.

    If all the women on that cruise are like Mizz Lopez, there won’t be any lifeboat space for any of the men anyway. Worse still, if the Cuckservative Cruise is like any other, the food service will be non-stop, meaning that Mizz Lopez will need a bigger picture before it’s over.

  83. feeriker says:

    Since we are on the topic of wife beating, there is this gem in The Land of The Ugly Feminist – Australia,

    Is there any such thing as a Land of The Non-Ugly Feminist?

  84. feministhater says:

    For just $6000, you can spend a full week immersed in cuckservatism, amidst fellow travelers who are 80% male, and 100% over 50. The all-star lineup includes Rich Lowry, Brad Wilcucks, and Jim Gay-ratty. Nowhere else can you get so much; this is truly the superconductor of cuckservatism. And at just $6000, this is a steal! You will also be expected to spend another $6000 to cover one of the female attendee’s tickets.

    I believe Rebel Media has their own cruise coming and it’s even better than that. All the old people you can handle, all ogling Faith, all the time.

    Cruise includes Funny Hour with Ezra at 20:00, being droned to death by Sheila’s voice at 21:00, striptease with Faith at 22:00 and getting drunk with Gavin at 22:30 to 03:00 in the morning. The rest of the time you can spend between lounging on the deck, buying outrageously priced mixed drinks and contemplating suicide by the ship’s railings in honour of reliving the Titanic movie moments.

    Not included is a good time, any young people, any artistic painting of nude ladies and money in your bank account when the cruise is finished.

    All aboard!

  85. Hmm,

    Yes excommunication is the worst official punishment the church can inflict, but you don’t understand the dynamic out there. Effectively Wilson’s displeasure freezes you out of everything. It’s like being in a cult.

    If you noticed Feather Blade on the other thread coming over here to attack us, imagine living in the same town with her. Going to the store she runs. Grabbing coffee and her niece serves you and so on and so forth.

    It’s the same dynamic as when SJWs point and shriek. Suddenly the swarm descends as you’ve been outgrouped.

  86. feministhater says:

    Ah yes, Brad Wilcox. He probably tried to use that study to increase the amount of men who would attend Church regularly by harping on about how it brings down domestic violence. Instead, the stats he created were used to demonise Christian men throughout the world for close to 25 years. Lol! These cucks..

  87. Novaseeker says:

    Why do men mature in so many areas of their faith go weak at the knees when it comes to women and feminism. Wilson certainly isn’t the only one. Many elders in my church are. My father certainly was. I can only explain it as their weakness as lack of complete faith in Christ, who did say that if anyone places anything ahead of Him, they are not worthy of Him (Matt 10:37). What other explanation is there?

    It’s primarily cultural. The culture, particularly taking steam in the mid to later 19th, has been very much about women as “more pure”, “better”, and so on. These attitudes were particularly prominent in the church, and were carried into the 20th. They are persistent, and have persisted the massive rebellion of women in the form of feminism 1.0, feminism 2.0, feminism 3.0+ and the sexual revolution in general. In all of these cases, the more “progressive” churches were on the side of the rebellion from the beginning, while the more conservative churches, as conservatism tends to do in our political culture, at first drew a distinction between virtuous women and rebellious ones, but then gradually accommodated themselves to the rebellion (because over time that’s what conservatism does … it adapts to the new status quo and then defends that status quo, even though its grandfathers protested against the changes that created it — one of the main reasons why conservatism, in a fundamentally liberal political order, is useless in the long run), eventually leading to a place where they embrace much of feminism 1.0-2.0, and critique bits of feminism 3.0 for the time being until it gets to the point where that also becomes accepted as being a part of the status quo that the conservative mindset seeks to defend.

    There is nothing about Lauren Southern, Faith Goldy, Lahren or the others that is not reflective of feminism 1.0 and feminism 2.0, as well as much of feminism 3.0. Yet “conservative” fathers, including Christian ones, just love raising daughters like these. They love it. It’s because these attitudes towards women are deeply ingrained at this point and are a fundamental part of the conservative worldview, outside of a small group of relatively powerless die-hard traditionalists whom the remainder of conservatism views as eccentric at best. Heck most mainstream conservatives view Wilson as being too traditionalist — Wilson!!

    Christian conservatives are mostly feminists, they just don’t use the label and they use the abortion issue to demonstrate that they are not feminists (although that, too, is eroding, see the Lahren case). Apart from abortion, they are feminist in every other major feminist issue, really, there is no distinction, either politically or culturally. They have imbibed the culture more or less fully, and this is not a new process, it’s a process that has long roots, and will therefore be very resistant to being overcome en masse.

  88. earlthomas786 says:

    Ah yes…the abortion issue. Somehow they think they can be a ‘pro-life feminist’ and still retain their Christian card. I’ve talked with these types before and you’ll soon find that it’s just children they like but still hate men and the Patriarchy. And while the leaders of my faith (Catholicism) have at taken somewhat of a stand against it (artifical birth control mostly)…the followers of the faith have largely ignored it in favor of going with feminism. Basically feminism mutated from equal rights to women giving up motherhood to become the other breadwinner at the expense of the family.

    ‘Is Feminism a Heresy?’

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/is-feminism-a-heresy

    Good part about this article is it has also test to see if you are a closet feminist.

  89. earlthomas786 says:

    This woman also wrote this book ‘Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism’. Seems like from the description she finds out how it causes a loss of faith. Now compare that with these pastors who do everything to justify feminism to their flocks.

  90. Daniel says:

    Some of you said that the church should not be involved, or that it should be involved at a later stage. Fair enough. Most churches today would not side with a husband against his wife’s open rebellion. So it may be impractical in most churches. But biblically, what would be ideal?

    For the sake of discussing the IDEAL way to handle things biblically, assume you had a solid church that would recognize a wife’s rebellion as sin.

    Would you go so far as to be divorced without involving them at all? Would it not be prudent to involve them when you have done all you could to no avail? Church discipline is designed to “establish every word” and to bring other voices into calling for repentance.

    The levels of child discipline that I mentioned were originally from Paul Wegner in an article found here: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/48/48-4/JETS_48-4_715-732.pdf

    Punishment at level 7 (stripes and strokes) as described in the referenced article was to be carried out by the civil authority. The father’s authority over his child was not undermined by the involvement of the civil authority, but rather underscored. So the involvement of another authority and public humiliation was warranted. I suppose that involving the whole church to call a rebellious wife to repentance roughly corresponds at this level of corrective discipline.

    Punishment at level 8 (death) was instituted in the Old Economy so that this kind of sin would be purged from Israel, and all Israel will hear and fear. In dealing with a rebellious wife, this might correspond to divorcing an adulteress, or to excommunication by the church. Your thoughts?

  91. bdash 77 says:

    this is the same doug wilson that writes articles on Desiring God and works with people like Jared Wilson who is a full on feminist
    http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Stay-at-home-dad-primer

    Churchian instruction for men is no different to Sheryl Sandberg’s lean in

    Dalrock as always NAILS it!

  92. Gunner Q says:

    Anon @ 1:58 am:
    “Meet Kathryn-Jean Lopez. They have a typo in her title, though. It says she is ‘Editor at Large at National Review’, when in fact it is supposed to be ‘Editor is Large at National Review’.”

    Good one!

  93. Gary Eden says:

    @pathfinderlight

    “The best argument for absolute wifely obedience that I’ve seen is the prevalence of a certain one-two punch against biblical male authority of feminism taking over the church”

    You are onto something there. I arrived at a similar conclusion from a different direction:

    1. The husband is the spiritual head of the wife.
    2. He therefor decides what church they attend and can change churches at his whim.
    3. IF it were so that she could go above his head so to speak to the elders, nothing prevents him from switching churches to one sympathetic to his point of view.
    4. It is his job to teach her and instruct in holiness. On questions of ‘what is sin’ the person she goes to is her husband.
    5. You are therefor left with the rare case of a husband doing something he agrees is sin and her appealing to a church that likewise agrees that he actively attends. Not very well likely.

    The bigger problem is that Eph 5 directs her to obey him in the same way as she is to obey God. One could also translate it obey her husband ‘as if’ he is God. Same end result; it leaves no room for disobedience. Unless of course you are a rebellious churchian who doesn’t feel compelled to obey God; which is most of them.

  94. earlthomas786 says:

    From the book I mentioned. You can pretty much substitute the denomination and get a good perspective of male clergy such as Mr. Wilson.

    Most of the mistaken or mutinous theories that brought American Catholicism to its present state originated with male theologians. Nevertheless, male revolutionaries tend to retain in their rhetoric some semblance of Catholic doctrine. Even when they reject discipline and morality and distort doctrine to rationalize a personal agenda, they rarely discard the entire substance of the Faith as female revolutionaries are apt to do. And women are prominent among today’s religious rebels, notably professionals in religious orders, academia and the bureaucratic positions that proliferated as religious communities dwindled.

  95. earlthomas786 says:

    I think we’ve talked about this too…but another reminder:

    Their ultimate rebellion, against God the Father and his Son, the male Savior Jesus Christ, has been disguised for public consumption as a campaign for “inclusive” liturgical language. On its face, it is a child’s complaint against grammatical convention, to be addressed in an introductory course on the structure of the English language. But in private, and in their own publications, feminist theologians reveal, behind that mask, naked denial of the objectively existent, transcendent Father God. They hope to replace him with a gnostic deity, androgynous, immanent and worshipped in themselves. Chesterton’s prediction “that Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones”, is as true of Catholic feminists as of other gnostics.

  96. Pingback: Wilson, Lewis, and Pseudo-Christian Pedestalization Game | Dalrock

  97. earlthomas786 says:

    Again you could probably substitute the denomination and it’s still vaild.

    But among contemporary assailants of the Church, the female of the species is more spiteful, irrational, unscrupulous and destructive than the male. Unlike most men who cease to believe in the truth of Catholic teaching, religious feminists will not, by choice, move on to a different way of life. They are tenaciously committed to their careers, frequently unqualified for secular employment of equal prestige, usually unmarried and often unattracted to marriage and intent on building a new feminist religion in the ruins of the Church. Even those who leave their religious orders tend to remain in Church employment and organizations. Authentic Catholic teachings will not get a hearing while they remain at the control centers of Catholic institutions.

  98. Pingback: Wilson, Lewis, and Pseudo-Christian Pedestalization Game - Top

  99. Jim says:

    Basically feminism mutated from equal rights to women giving up motherhood to become the other breadwinner at the expense of the family.

    That was inevitable. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. It was a terrible idea to begin with.

    Some of you said that the church should not be involved, or that it should be involved at a later stage. Fair enough. Most churches today would not side with a husband against his wife’s open rebellion. So it may be impractical in most churches.

    Of course the church shouldn’t be involved. They’re not worthy of it. I’ve seen atheists with far more honesty and sense regarding women than these pussy cucks.

  100. squid_hunt says:

    @Daniel

    “Some of you said that the church should not be involved, or that it should be involved at a later stage. Fair enough. Most churches today would not side with a husband against his wife’s open rebellion. So it may be impractical in most churches. But biblically, what would be ideal? ”

    It’s irrelevant to the issue of who the church would side with. The church has very little authority inside the family. As I said, the husband is the head. To the point that looking at a man’s wife is looking at his nakedness. Why would you think you could split the head from the body?

    “and all Israel will hear and fear”

    That’s some interesting wording. It’s similar language to what Ahasuerus said when he put away Vashti. Maybe that’s the appropriate discipline to use.

  101. Gary Eden says:

    Most humorous to me is how Wilson makes a better case for physical discipline of wives than I’d heard its purported proponents make.

    “A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, And a rod for the fool’s back.”

    So in God’s eyes taking a rod to a foolish wife is akin to the equine use of a bridal or riding crop? In other words, its not only not abusive, but wholly necessary, especially for less well behaved fillies?

  102. Darwinian Arminian says:

    The key words here are enforce and make. No mortal can force such a thing. It does not come from right-handed power. But husbands can love and lead their wives. A husband can love, and Scripture teaches that this kind of love is efficacious. Love bestows loveliness.

    I’m still trying to figure out how something like this doesn’t qualify as prosperity gospel. Supposed “conservative” pastors like Doug Wilson and John Piper will scream bloody murder about how ministry figures like Joel Osteen are peddling a false message when they promise audiences they can make themselves healthier, wealthier, and happier by seeking after God and following Biblical instructions. The true gift of God, they insist, is the presence of God Himself, and if you obey Him only to receive blessings that He gives along the way then ultimately you’re not worshipping God. You’re worshipping His blessings.

    But when the same pastors want to insist on a higher standard of virtuous behavior from the men in their congregations while also avoiding the awkward step of demanding it from the women as well, what do they do? They tell the men that if they behave like good boys it will make God bless them and their marriages, as well as magically transforming the hearts of women so that they will now have more respect and affection for their men. Maybe I should be surprised that the church now champions doctrines that they freely admit are false when others preach them, but then I would’ve had to ignore that we’re already long past the point where they invited women to have a seat in the throne that was supposed to be God’s.

  103. Dale says:

    Re Daniel at July 26, 2017 at 3:38 pm:
    Overall, a very good and detailed review of dealing with a rebellious wife. I have copied it; thank you for writing it out.
    One omission I wish to correct. The three Proverbs passages below show that leaving a bad wife is not only a permissible option, but is a BETTER option than continuing to live with her.
    Prov 21:9 Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.
    Prov 21:19 Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and nagging wife.
    Prov 25:24 Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife. (Perhaps repeated by God’s word (Prov 21:9) for emphasis?)

    Re RichardP at 8:52:
    Very good point; many will enter through the gate leading to destruction. It would be nice if those rebelliously going to destruction were unusual in the “church”, and completely absent from the clergy, but with a split of “few” finding life and “many” going to destruction, perhaps my wish is foolish.

  104. SkylerWurden says:

    Ahh yes, us perennially rejected, unmarried, celibate uber-nerds are just constantly beating our wives… Or I guess we would be if any woman ever married us… Which according to people like Wilson will never happen… Because we’re wife-beaters. But then we can’t help notice the endless stream of articles demanding young men to step up, and an even greater torrent of blogs from “young, beautiful, smart, Godly, ladies” (notice the lack of “celibate” as a descriptor) demanding to know where all the good boys have gone.

    Now we know that we are not the type of “good boys” they want, but one can’t help but wonder exactly which type they do want? Not in reality, but even in their own twisted fantasy world. What exact qualities do Wilson and his hens demand? Are they even sure?

    I really wish I hadn’t quit drinking…

  105. Snowy says:

    Pastor Wilson seems to think he’s the AMOG. He obviously thinks way too highly of himself. I don’t like him at all.

  106. Snowy says:

    Jonadab says, “Wilson both blames the man for passivity and punishes him when he is not passive. Excellent point. That’s exactly what Wilson does. It’s exactly what feminists do. It’s exactly what every woman I’ve ever known does. It’s what every woman (and cuckservative blue-pill mangina) does. Funny that.

  107. Boxer says:

    Dear Snowy:

    Pastor Wilson seems to think he’s the AMOG. He obviously thinks way too highly of himself. I don’t like him at all.

    That’s exactly it. He games the wives and daughters of his congregation from the pulpit. It’s incredibly disrespectful, not only to the fathers and husbands in the audience, but to Preacher Wilson’s own father and grandfather.

    If it’s any consolation, I believe these creepy preachers are motivated by a desire to compensate for the lack of intimacy they get from the frigid harridans to which they’re married. No normal man with a healthy marriage would indulge in such behavior.

    Best,

    Boxer

  108. earlthomas786 says:

    But then we can’t help notice the endless stream of articles demanding young men to step up, and an even greater torrent of blogs from “young, beautiful, smart, Godly, ladies” (notice the lack of “celibate” as a descriptor) demanding to know where all the good boys have gone.

    I think you mean virginity…because a lot of these ladies are in fact celibate in the fact they are unmarried. Nonetheless…if they give that up it’s usually covered up by the descriptor that she’s amazing, educated, and assertive. In fact the more descriptors they use…the more skeptical I become.

  109. Gary Eden says:

    @Dale, that is a good observation I hadn’t seen made before. However there was a notable change on grounds for divorce between the old and new covenants.

  110. They Call Me Tom says:

    Most argument from the left runs the same way. It’s either ad hominem, non sequitor or shut up. While there are plenty on the right who have in the past considered marxism of all forms, I don’t think most of the left have considered liberty at any point in their lives. It puts the left at a disadvantage in making good arguments.

  111. infowarrior1 says:

    @SkylerWurden
    Drinking doesn’t really make the problems go away. But quitting drinking ensures that the person in the longer term are able to endure and deal with more adversity.

    Its beneficial despite the crapsack world. But this world is crapsack because of the fall. So it cannot be helped until the 2nd coming.

  112. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dry Holes
    Maybe the root of the problem in the church is that maybe too many “Christians” in the West are not really saved or born again.

    Attracted by fleshly means and not by the spirit perhaps that’s why the pews are full of false believers.

    Only the miraculous will save the lost souls. It calls for much prayer and fasting.

  113. infowarrior1 says:

    @Earl
    Maybe “Equal rights” in many ways constitute heresy:
    http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/91765.htm

    Especially if it conflicts with scripture.

  114. feeriker says:

    Maybe the root of the problem in the church is that maybe too many “Christians” in the West are not really saved or born again.

    This is the problem. The same rule applies to churchians of both sexes that applies to women: pay no attention to what they say; observe instead what they do, especially outside of the church building for the other six and three quarter days of the week when you don’t ordinarily see them. It is nearly certain that the behavior you will observe from them will not differ at all from that of the non-believers surrounding them. Sand rather than salt.

  115. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    You may have misunderstood my comments on withstanding evil. I may decide not to resist evil done to me alone. But I will certainly not extend that to when evil is done for others – I would tackle the hijacker. I would fight the false abuse charges for the sake of my children.

    I understood just fine. I repeat: why wouldn’t you just pray for the hijacker to fail, sitting passively in your seat? Isn’t that exactly what Wilson urges men with contentious, even abusive, wives to do? Passively take the contempt, the abuse, the mistreatment, the foul example for children in silence with an occasional bleat of Bible quotes? If a woman overspends the house budget, certainly you can’t reduce her credit line, that is tantamount to wife beating. Just one example – and notice as you read Wilson how he clearly has internalized the Duluth power wiheel. Not overtly, but look how he tiptoes around wifely rebellion so delicately while thundering against anything that feminists label as “abuse”? There’s Duluth, buried deep in his mind. No surprise given his age; he’s got to conserve that 70’s feminism he came of age with, and Duluth is part of that.

    And I think you are making too much of Wilson’s words about flogging.

    Then Wilson made too much of a handful of comments about men spanking wives, right? Or are you holding me to a higher standard than Wilson? Do you want to try to have it both ways? That’s rather feminine, you know.

    I an quite sure he means that in a purely figurative and (to him) humorous way. After all, he believes in the Westminster Standards, which insist that all authority in the Church is “ministerial and declarative” – the worst penalty the church can officially inflict is excommunication.

    This is not my first interaction with TradCons, nor my 10th. The contempt for ordinary mere men that TradCon preachers carry with them is obvious once you see it a few times. Wilson reveals much in his purely figurative and ha-ha-ha-just-kidding remark that urges men who won’t submit to his rule, and therfore to their wives, to be physically beaten. Again, you and I both know he would never, ever make such a figurative and (to him) humorous remark about women – it would upset the dearies, result in a torrent of verbal abuse and last but very much not least likely reduce the contents of the offering plate on Sunday. Double standard? Yes, thanks for asking. Wilson may talk a lot about holding women responsible, but he reserves actions for men who won’t obey him.

    Here is the TradCon ladder of behavior:
    If a woman is behaving badly, the nearest man is to blame; either her father, or husband, or brother, etc. Therefore punish the nearest man in the expecation that this will serve to lead to changed behavior on her part. Continue the punishment in appropriate form until women shape up, while ensuring that the men have zero authority.

    The beatings must continue until the men’s attitudes improve.

  116. Pingback: Wife beaters and the prairie muffins who love them. | Dalrock

  117. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/07/30) - Social Matter

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s