Harkening back to the golden age.

Cane Caldo hilariously describes Pastor Doug Wilson’s new post Masculinity without Permission.*

Even when he tries to avoid blaming men–for one post!–he has to caveat that he would really rather talk about the bad men…but he won’t do it here…even though he thinks he should.

The segment Cane is commenting on is (emphasis mine):

As we confront this disaster—and it is a disaster—the definition of masculinity that I believe we must return to is this: masculinity is the glad assumption of the sacrificial responsibilities that God assigned to men. Now this is the point where, in normal times, if I were not writing in a culture that was not so well-advanced in its pathological condition, I would hasten to add that masculinity was not bluster, bullying, self-seeking aggrandizement, abusive behavior, and so forth. I would qualify against the counterfeits. All that is quite true, but I don’t want to emphasize it right now.

The reason for not yelling up that particular rain spout is that it has been counterproductive. We have been doing that in an unrelenting way for a generation or more, and by doing this we have helped to create and shape the awful conditions that we so lament.

Note that Wilson is nostalgic for the days when feminism was powerful enough that whenever masculinity was discussed the feminist heckler had to be preemptively placated, but not so far down the line that the damage of decades of placating feminists had already produced an undeniable disaster.  This is the same kind of nostalgia conservatives have for girls wrestling.

For it is not normal to reflexively bash men as he says he wishes he could do, indeed as he does while claiming he will not.  This is an artifact of feminism.  And as Wilson explains, as gratifying as it was to reflexively bash men for decades, doing so has lead us to our present disaster:

The sincere Christian men, who falsely believe they are being taught in accordance with the Word, will dutifully disarm. They will abdicate their essential role of actual leadership in the home, and they will call it servant leadership, leading from behind, or “just-what-I-was-going-to-suggest-leadership.” But there is a vast difference between real servant leadership, the kind Christ practiced and enjoined, and the kind that requires men to stand down whenever mama ain’t happy. By so emphasizing servant leadership, the church has not succeeded in establishing more of it, but they have succeeding in giving men a noble-sounding name as a fig leaf for their cowardice.

Note also whose fault it is that we can no longer afford to coddle feminists.  It is the good men who listen to Christian leaders.  If these men were better, they wouldn’t take what they were being taught seriously.  These cowards, these weak men, are screwing feminism up!

*H/T Hmm, The Question.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cane Caldo, Pastor Doug Wilson, Servant Leader, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Harkening back to the golden age.

  1. Pingback: Harkening back to the golden age. | @the_arv

  2. Nathan Bruno says:

    I appreciate his definition of masculinity. We have from the parallel definition of femininity – the glad assumption of the responsibilities that God assigned to women – that we have a crisis today of femininity.

    Women are assigned the responsibilities for bearing children, being a good wife, ensuring the children receive good moral instruction, being modest in appearance, and submitting to their husbands as Sarah submitted to Abraham.

    If we had women who were actually feminine per this definition, we would have a healed country.

  3. King Alfred says:

    Following Wilson’s reasoning just one very small step further, we must conclude that pastors such as himself are ultimately responsible for the mess he laments. In fact, he practically states outright that the teachings (and therefore the teachers) are wrong when he says Christian men “falsely believe they are being taught in accordance with the Word.” Two questions for Wilson: Who is doing the false teaching? (Hint: look in the mirror). And, who carries greater responsibility: the person who teaches falsehoods, or the person who mistakenly believes them when taught by individuals he sincerely believes to be reliable sources of truth?

    If men applied the same standards of headship for pastors presiding over their congregations that pastors apply to headship of husbands presiding over their families, the number of pastors retaining any adult male parishioners would be vanishingly small.

  4. OT, but man, I hate being right all the time,…

  5. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    Why can’t they just say leadership? That men should lead? Why are they still, to this day, using this servant leadership weasel word?

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, a quibble: Hmm posted a link to Wilson’s article earlier in the same thread, perhaps he should get a hat-tip along with Question.

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

    @King Alfred: those are key questions. There might even be quotes in the BIble along those lines. If so, perhaps Doug Wilson would be interested in seeing them.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Rollo
    When feminist insanity is expected, Trust vox.com to always come through.

    I am a humanities professor who teaches feminist theory, models feminist behavior for my students and my own children, and has achieved success in a male-dominated field. Last year, my teenage son and I chanted in support of women’s reproductive rights at the Women’s March in Washington. And yet for years I submitted to unwanted sex from my husband, leaving me sexually traumatized long after I ended that marriage.

    It’s almost at the self-parody level but not quite.

  8. B says:

    “My way or the highway” works very well when you’re a realized, self fulfilled master of the universe. Until then you do not deserve to be married.

  9. feministhater says:

    Yeah sorry. They can try and put the genie back in the bottle. It’s just a shit show now. Men were sidelined, told they were evil, told to shut up and take it like a man. Women were promoted, empowered and given tools to turn men into wage slaves for life, destroying marriage and childhood in the process.

    By so emphasizing servant leadership, the church has not succeeded in establishing more of it, but they have succeeding in giving men a noble-sounding name as a fig leaf for their cowardice.

    Yep, everything is men’s fault, even when women and feminism did it. More shaming, more male bashing. Whatever, it matters not, let him get off his arse and fix it, he can listen to the wailing and moaning of the female brigade. I’m so over caring about saving this society.

    Note also whose fault it is that we can no longer afford to coddle feminists. It is the good men who listen to Christian leaders. If these men were better, they wouldn’t take what they were being taught seriously. These cowards, these weak men, are screwing feminism.

    He’s saying we shouldn’t listen to him at all as he was one of these men who did this for years, berating men and dragging them down and telling them they are abusive and evil. He did exactly this and now….., the damage is done. And yes, don’t listen to him, he’s full of shit and always has been.

  10. feministhater says:

    The reason for not yelling up that particular rain spout is that it has been counterproductive. We have been doing that in an unrelenting way for a generation or more, and by doing this we have helped to create and shape the awful conditions that we so lament.

    Just waiting for Wilson’s lapdog Ilion to come and say that Wilson didn’t really mean what he said here because that would mean that Wilson did something so awful for a generation or more that was the direct cause of all that he laments that has gone wrong and yet…… still needs to do it.

  11. BillyS says:

    Nathan Bruno,

    If we had women who were actually feminine per this definition, we would have a healed country.

    That is necessary, but not sufficient. We also need men to step into the roles they were forced out of, including in the churches that claim to only have male leadership.

    Some of this is due to weak men, but I agree with FH that it was primarily the leaders who went along with the world to force the Godly male role out. That role is also vital to a proper functional society.

  12. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    But there is a vast difference between real servant leadership, the kind Christ practiced and enjoined, and the kind that requires men to stand down whenever mama ain’t happy. By so emphasizing servant leadership, the church has not succeeded in establishing more of it, but they have succeeding in giving men a noble-sounding name as a fig leaf for their cowardice.

    Doug Wilson seems to understand a part of the problem, yet he fails to establish a path of correction and repentance. He still won’t call on the church and especially women to repent. When it comes to repentance only men need apply.

  13. feministhater says:

    Following Wilson’s reasoning just one very small step further, we must conclude that pastors such as himself are ultimately responsible for the mess he laments. In fact, he practically states outright that the teachings (and therefore the teachers) are wrong when he says Christian men “falsely believe they are being taught in accordance with the Word.

    If we follow his reasoning to the ultimate conclusion, it means that we shouldn’t be listening to pastors like himself at all. That they were wrong, refused to correct themselves, refuse to apologize now and refuse to make amends and to call women out for their outright rebellion. In a nutshell, he’s saying he’s full of it and not to be listened to at all. In other words, a false teacher.

  14. Mitch says:

    This Doug Wilson post from Dalrock and the Tucker Carlson post about girls wrestling before it bring up good points. But I wonder if we may be looking at a gift horse in the mouth. After all, these men are finally looking at what all the male bashing has wrought and Carlson did invite Jordan Peterson on his show. They may never swallow the red pill but at least it seems like they are re-assessing the wisdom of the blue pill. Progress, n’est-ce pas?

  15. Bee says:

    Rollo, Anonymous Reader,

    “When feminist insanity is expected, Trust vox.com to always come through.

    I am a humanities professor who teaches feminist theory, ……. ”

    Feminism encourages slutting it up when women are young, but it causes frigidity when they get older:

    https://www.henrymakow.com/000441.html

  16. squid_hunt says:

    Wilson’s definition of masculinity is false. God does not withold manhood if you don’t accept and act on all responsibility as directed by the Bible. This is a ridiculous and impossible standard. It’s more carrot and stick preaching.

    A man is a man if he 1. Makes his own decisions. 2. Accepts the consequences of those decisions.

    This definition goes all the way back to the judgment in the Garden of Eden. The entire “real man” argument is a farse. The state of manhood is assumed, like the existence of God. You either are a man or you aren’t. There’s no phase changing between.

    But it does bring up an interesting parallel to Wilson’s argument. You have the right, authority, and responsibility as head of your household to rebut false teaching to your family from the “man of God”. If he’s teaching wrong, you need to correct it and teach your family right.

    He may be the man of God in the church, but you’re the man of God in the home. Your authority supersedes his in nearly every area regarding your family.

  17. BillyS says:

    This Doug Wilson post from Dalrock and the Tucker Carlson post about girls wrestling before it bring up good points. But I wonder if we may be looking at a gift horse in the mouth. After all, these men are finally looking at what all the male bashing has wrought and Carlson did invite Jordan Peterson on his show. They may never swallow the red pill but at least it seems like they are re-assessing the wisdom of the blue pill. Progress, n’est-ce pas?

    I wish that showed signs of hope, but I expect we need people who will act, not just people who will talk about the problem. Years of doing the latter has led us to where we are now. You have to deal with the rot first, or your house will fall.

  18. feministhater says:

    The ability of men to get anything out of marriage that men actually want, like sex, is getting so low. I can’t help but laugh, do they know the level of damage they are causing? This attack has to be deliberate in its devastation..

    I’m not even talking about men like me who saw the writing on the wall. The average man seeing this going on has absolutely no reason to interact with women because there will be absolutely no positive reason to do so, no chance at a reward and every chance he will be called a rapist and abuser if he does so.

  19. Swanny River says:

    Mitch,
    Maybe, but like the wrestling post points out, conservatives seem to only want to keep the previous feminist gains. Real progress would be easier to see because it would likely require a sacrifice of the podium they now have. Is Wilson willing to fight, even if the harpies walk on him and he loses his spot? We’ll see.
    I did send his article to friends who argue about whether there is a problem or not with churches. That he acknowledges it will hopefully be part of a trend where pastors are also freer to admit their is a problem. I don’t think they’ll ever confront female rebellion though. Not because they are for it, but because they are stuck on superficial and the fight Dalrock gets into is out of their normal zone. They like the emotional lebel and can’t ever get to the depths that submission and repentance require. That will probably only happen through new leaders and culture.

  20. feministhater says:

    Sorry, I should add that the above should have come with a quote from the Vox article.

  21. American says:

    The tradcons don’t understand the epic systemic change ramifications to society which accepting fallacious radical leftist ideological constructs eventually results in as these fallacious (and immoral) ideologies are encoded into the rule of law.

    One of them, of course, is that the law is then used as the “moral basis” to persecute the moral on behalf of the immoral.

    It’s very bad all around, even for the immoral people it’s supposed to be helping though tradcons have no idea why this is, just as they have no idea that encoding fallacious radical leftist ideological constructs into law eventually results in the moral being persecuted by government on behalf of the immoral.

  22. Swanny River says:

    American,
    I think you may have said the same as me, when I asserted they operate st a superficial level, but you did so with better vocabulary and more emphasis on they fruits. Just enough oomph to feel like a church, but not enough to offend any woman therein. Wilson wants that time back. That is, “can’t we let me talk tough, yet be saltless? Because, those were good times.” “We could talk sports in the foyer, have small groups and yet have nothing more impactful than individuals choosing a social club.”

  23. princeasbel says:

    From Douglas Wilson’s Masculinity without Permission:

    When a false definition of servant leadership is mandated for the church, the only people who will simply ignore that teaching will be the dullards and pigs. The sincere Christian men, who falsely believe they are being taught in accordance with the Word, will dutifully disarm.

    Good for the dullards and pigs then, since, by his own argument, the only ones who won’t, “dutifully disarm,” are the dullards and pigs! lol

    On the other hand, if a proper definition of servant-leadership is taught, then how will the men not disarm when they’re taught things like this?

    The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives.

    That’s Wilson speaking right there. As you’ve pointed out on many occasions, Dalrock, this is the same stuff taught by Kathy Keller,

    Submission is something that a wife gives. It’s not something that a husband can demand.

    and Mary Kassian.

    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.(…)The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.

    Douglas Wilson has also said:

    There is a fundamental truth here. If you are talking with your wife and requiring something of her because you want something done, then you are wrong.(…)If you are demanding your rights, demanding your leadership, demanding your headship, it is all there. You can grab it if you want to. But it is not going to work the way it could if your were humbling yourself and putting others first.(…)Authority is the ability to lead, direct, and speak, and have people follow you willingly. So a person who is exercising a humble authority is going to speak and people are going to listen. He is going to direct and people will do. But this result is achieved without lording it over the flock.

    Yeah, we don’t want men demanding their leadership or headship, because…. Wait for it…. That would be LORDING IT OVER HER. Gasp* Perish the thought!

    According to Wilson, if a husband wants to rebuke his wife and demand she obey God’s Word, and therefore obey HIM, and submit to him without a word and in everything (which Douglas Wilson knows VERY WELL Scripture teaches), well, he’s not allowed to do that.

    If he is doing that, he must stop. STOP, says Wilson!

    His sincere non-pig non-dullard male Christian students will dutifully obey!…………….. Almost like they just… Disarmed themselves.

    Don’t get fooled, you guys. This is not a positive development in his theology. This is a man devising a means of escaping culpability. He still believes servant-leadership is biblical and proper. Notice in the first quote how he blames a false definition of servant leadership for the lack of Christian masculinity. It’s a twisted version of servant-leadership, he says!

    No, it’s a PROPER definition of servant-leadership that is the problem. But he can’t say that, because then that means he himself is the culprit. He would have to denounce himself. That’s why he can’t simply denounce the phrase altogether, because he knows the doctrine that phrase entails. It’s a doctrine that HE has taught. He would expose himself as the evil villain who disarmed sincere Christian men all over the world for YEARS.

    And he will work hard to avoid it at all costs. This is the theme of his writing, to obfuscate, and to blame those who “misunderstand” him. I guess he hopes everyone will keep falling for this tactic even now. Well, it’s not working on me.

    Such a shame that a brother in the Lord is willing to resort to such round-about deception to escape accountability. You would think a real man who truly understand biblical masculinity wouldn’t behave like the cowards he denounces so regularly. After all,

    masculinity is the glad assumption of the sacrificial responsibilities that God assigned to men.

    So why isn’t he gladly sacrificing his pride? Why not denounce his own false teachings since that’s clearly required of his responsibilities as a teacher? It’s almost like he’s a coward. It’s almost like he really is just one emasculated Christian teacher among many. It’s almost like his masculinity is a facade! It’s almost like he’s no better than any of the other men he has looked down upon over the years!

    Make no mistake, people. Douglas Wilson is terrified of admitting that. This article is not a positive development in his theology. It’s a round-about way of covering his own rear to preserve his pride. He has not stopped trying to obfuscate to sincere Christian men, and we had better not fall for his trick yet again.

  24. The Question says:

    Weak men are screwing things up, just not in the way tradcons suggest.

    Weak men won’t stand up to those who tell them to man up and enable feminism and women invested its false narrative. Weak men won’t tell the people who want to teach their daughter behave like a whore to get lost and die. Weak men won’t stand up to those who lie to their sons and daughters, including their own wives. Weak men won’t stand up for themselves or anything they claim to believe in that is fundamentally at odds with feminism. Weak men won’t stand up for those who have the courage to fight these enemies. Weak men won’t stand up against those who constantly bombard young men with hatred and malice. Weak men won’t withdraw from institutions that speak with forked tongues. Weak men won’t stand up for what’s right, good, true, noble, and beautiful.

    Weak men won’t stand up to their pastors and demand they call out the anti-male rhetoric in society, culture, and the church.

  25. masculinity is the glad assumption of the sacrificial responsibilities that God assigned to men.

    So masculinity doesn’t exist outside of sacrificing yourself for others? Oh, boy, no wonder men are filling the pews at every church in the land.

  26. Joe says:

    “Weak men won’t stand up to their pastors and demand they call out the anti-male rhetoric in society, culture, and the church.”

    So right. But I did. Several posts ago, I stated how my pastor started off his sermon on forgiveness with “stupid things men say or do”. Before launching into it, he also said “I’ll pick on the men. I don’t want to get on the ladies bad side”. Then he proceeded to bash and humiliate men in front of their wives and families about so-called stupid things we say. It was humiliating. I sat there being glad my adult son or daughter wasn’t there (both adults. Daughter goes to a different Church. Son, while a Christian, doesn’t go to Church. I don’t blame him given the current feminization of Church), and that my wife was helping in the nursery. I did tell her what happened. She was also pretty disappointed.

    A week later, I wrote him an email. After starting with a compliment (the sermon itself was good) I covered how men are marginalized and disrespected, and how it doesn’t help wives to respect their husbands when they here about “stupid things we say and do” from the pulpit. I then went on to say how I hope we are better than that, and how we need to build up and encourage men in their God given roles as leaders in the home and community etc .etc.

    It was kindly worded, but firm.

    I received no response. But I’m not giving up. If I hear it again, I’ll write again. If I see him, I’ll talk to him personally about it as well. I will continue to call out anti-men rhetoric.

  27. Daniel says:

    Wilson says some pretty good thing in this piece.

    He gets half of a definition of Biblical masculinity:

    masculinity is the glad assumption of the sacrificial responsibilities that God assigned to men

    What he left out is that godly men are to enjoy the blessings of manhood as the Lord rewards their labors. Its not all sacrifice, it is supposed to be richly rewarding to rule well. Tell men not to expect any reward out of creating a family, and they’ll stop doing it.

    Another omission:

    the plague of fatherlessness has a three-fold impact—on the miserable women who see their children abandoned by the one who fathered them, on the wretched women who chase away the one who fathered her children, and on the children themselves, who struggle with a standing hunger and with no pattern or model to follow.

    He shows zero concern for the fathers who were divorced by these “wretched women” – the men who have been robbed own their own flesh and blood.

    “Servant leadership” is an oxymoron, invented to hollow out the authority appointed by God. You can’t literally assume the role of servant and lord at the same time. Every good ruler serves the needs of his subjects, but he is not their slave.

    It seems that the closest that he gets to calling out women is to blame “feminism.”

    When he tries to address women rejecting authority, he can’t bring himself to say it directly.

    Covenants are inescapably bound together by that thing called authority, and our generation, by abandoning the concept of authority, has destroyed the fundamental protection for women and children that God established in the world. … miserable women have to make shift. They still have a deep creational need to be in relationship with men, but they must come up with their own bonds to maintain that relationship.

    He says “our generation” has abandoned the “concept of authority” but he won’t actually say that western women have destroyed the western family.

    Women that “tart themselves up” are not “accepting a doctrine.” As if to imply that some false teacher has led them astray. No, they came up with that themselves against to protests of Christian men. Fathers are the ones trying to impose modesty on their daughters.

    I like his conclusions.

    They must decide before God that they are done cooperating with this demented program, and that they are going to walk away from it without permission.

    Dangerously close to MGTOW!

    Here’s the thing: it it nigh impossible for a man to have a successful marriage and family all alone. He needs a father-in-law to raise her in the fear of the Lord. He needs the church to hold her accountable, and to support and praise her when she does well. It is the rare man who has the force of personality too pull it off without those support. And we shouldn’t have to. God created the church to be that place where we have a counter-culture that values virtue. We have to do this together.

  28. Daniel says:

    Patriarchy or BUST!

  29. Hazelshade says:

    “The reason for not yelling up that particular rain spout is that it has been counterproductive. We have been doing that in an unrelenting way for a generation or more, and by doing this we have helped to create and shape the awful conditions that we so lament.”

    The Pastor should cut himself some slack and not sweat it. No one was listening then, and no one is listening now.

  30. earl says:

    Feminism encourages slutting it up when women are young, but it causes frigidity when they get older:

    It’s a little more nuanced than that.

    It encourages slutting it up when the man isn’t your husband, and then going frigid on the guy who is your husband.

  31. EmpireHasNoClothes says:

    Sounds like Pastor Wilson is all “bluster, bullying, self-seeking aggrandizement, abusive behavior, and so forth.”

  32. earl says:

    Eight years into our marriage, sitting in a therapist’s office with my husband, I mustered all my courage and said my deepest, darkest truth: “When we have sex, I feel like I’m being violated.”

    Why did she even get married? Talk about selfish and melodramatic.

    Reason #22311232 to never marry a feminist…don’t even date them. They have everything screwed up.

  33. jazzdrive3 says:

    This, and many of the comments, has got to be one of the more uncharitable readings of an article I’ve seen. If you asked the Pastor what “normal times” meant, he would in no way point to any time period where feminism had any sort of root or branch. I’d bet money he would point to Abraham and Sarah as more normal, because that’s what Peter points to.

    And the comments go back and forth between bitterly laying all the blame on women, to recognizing the fact that women need strong fathers so they don’t turn into feminist harpies. You can’t have it both ways.

    A weak father is responsible for how his daughter turns out, but that daughter bears her own guilt for her rebellion. They aren’t mutually exclusive. They both bear 100% blame in regards to their own God-given responsibilities.

    Some of these things are up there with the Cathy Newman and her “So what you’re saying is…” nonsense interview of Peterson. It just leaves me scratching my head.

  34. jazzdrive3 says:

    Weird, my name in that above comment is pointing to super-old defunct site. Real one is http://www.mattrob.com

  35. Pingback: Harkening back to the golden age. | Reaction Times

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    jazzdrive3
    This, and many of the comments, has got to be one of the more uncharitable readings of an article I’ve seen.

    You should stop sheltering yourself and read more widely in the androsphere.

    If you asked the Pastor what “normal times” meant, he would in no way point to any time period where feminism had any sort of root or branch.

    Two questions:
    1. How do you know this to be true?
    2. By your own definition, Doug Wilson is referring to some time before the late 18th century, is that really believeable?

    I’d bet money he would point to Abraham and Sarah as more normal, because that’s what Peter points to.

    How much money would you be willing to bet?

    And the comments go back and forth between bitterly laying all the blame on women, to recognizing the fact that women need strong fathers so they don’t turn into feminist harpies. You can’t have it both ways.

    Different men have varying experiences, leading them to different conclusions. Why does that bother you?

    Stick around and learn.

  37. JB Harshaw says:

    @ BillyS

    >> We also need men to step into the roles they were forced out of, including in the churches that claim to only have male leadership. <<

    True, but to do that, you'll need to first OUST the "hired hands" that have taken over the entire operation — the entirely UNqualified, NON-proven, non-elder, NOVICES who have falsely been called "pastors" — the coookie-cutter opportunistic, and generally LAZY, parasitical "seminarians" that are churned out by the (equally UNbiblical "seminaries").

    And to OUST them, you would need mature, "true" (proven) elders in the faith… who are few & far between, and generally NOT found within the wholly-corrupt things known as "churches."

    The entire system has been setup to PREVENT such men from taking any actual leadership roles within the church body — hence the unholy alliance between the seminarians (many of whom are, as Dalrock has pointed out, "New agers" & feminists if not outright atheists/anti-theists, at least as far as God the FATHER is concerned), and the women in the church, whom they pander to on an almost continual basis.

  38. The Question says:

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/08/the-hollywood-reporter-triumph-of-the-beta-male-cover-is-a-bad-sign/

    “there’s something deeply troubling going on Western countries when it comes to our men. Men account for 77 percent of the nation’s suicides, they more than twice as likely to become alcoholics, they are more likely to die of an overdose than women, and 90 percent of inmates are men. In a culture where greatness is measured not by courage or by strength, but by wokeness and materialism, it’s no wonder this superficial version of “success” is unappealing. While modern feminism and our educational system certainly have contributed to the demise of men, their struggle is emblematic of a larger problem. Our culture has lost sight of the good. That true success is determined not by comfort or the material goods in one’s possession at any given time, but by excellence and by temperance.”

    This woman seems to “get it” better than most men who claim to be true leaders of men.

  39. JB Harshaw says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite

    Doug Wilson seems to understand a part of the problem, yet he fails to establish a path of correction and repentance. He still won’t call on the church and especially women to repent. When it comes to repentance only men need apply.

    Of course he won’t… because FIRST he would need to REPENT HIMSELF — and a reminder “repentance” is not merely “asking for forgiveness” nor “apologizing”; it isn’t merely or ONLY “admitting that you were wrong/sinful” — those are only PART of repentance… TRUE repentance requires that AND more: a “turning around” (180 degrees from one’s former behavior pattern).

    Which in the case of any (so called) “pastor” of a church would require them to admit having TAUGHT FALSE DOCTRINE — they would need to HUMBLE themselves (and not just some “sackcloth & ashes” dogs & pony show) — and that would mean STEPPING DOWN from any & all “leadership” positions/offices (and no malarky about “begged to stay on”), meaning their “career” as a “professional preacher/teacher” (remember the FALSE DOCTRINE? Ayah) would need to end; and rather than continuing to be parasites on the Body of Christ they would need to take up some general “job” working for their own bread (most likely starting from the bottom somewhere as marketable skills of such “pastors” are virtually non-existent, to say nothing of their generally poor work ethic).

    How many of them will do that? Particularly the “high profile” types… the ones who have grown accustomed to not only a luxurious lifestyle; but of being honored and called “Rabbi” in the marketplace so to speak.

  40. Bee says:

    princeasbel,

    Great comment!

  41. Dalrock says:

    @Jazzdrive3

    This, and many of the comments, has got to be one of the more uncharitable readings of an article I’ve seen. If you asked the Pastor what “normal times” meant, he would in no way point to any time period where feminism had any sort of root or branch. I’d bet money he would point to Abraham and Sarah as more normal, because that’s what Peter points to.

    You are arguing that in Abraham’s day feminists had to be preemptively placated? In Abraham’s day, if you said anything about masculinity, you had to break into an aside straight from a women’s studies class and give a lecture about toxic masculinity? If you believe that, I won’t be able to convince you of anything. Feminism happened. That we are so immersed in we see it as only normal is one of our fundamental problems.

    A better example though would be the time of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Peter and Paul could write about headship without the womens’ studies diversion. Pastors today (including Wilson), can’t. Pastor Wilson isn’t saying he wishes he could do it as the Apostles Peter and Paul did it, and teach headship and submission without the hand wringing. He tells us he wants to go into the feminist inspired diatribe, but he can’t, because he says decades of doing just that has made it so that we can no longer afford such idiocy. This is his whole complaint. Feminism has gotten so bad that we can no longer properly indulge it.

    Some of these things are up there with the Cathy Newman and her “So what you’re saying is…” nonsense interview of Peterson. It just leaves me scratching my head.

    Talk about uncharitable. Pastor Wilson has taught that men must be servant leaders who don’t tell their wives what to do. See the quotes above in princeasbel’s comment. Now Wilson is criticizing the good men he says foolishly took such teachings to heart.

  42. The Question says:

    I take the concept of “servant headship” as seriously as I do “born again virgin.” You’re either or the other, but you can’t be both.

  43. Robert What? says:

    Again the big question: if men must sacrifice for their wives and families – and they must and do sacrifice tremendously – what must wives sacrifice? Apparently nothing. Even asking the question will get you confused – if not hostile – looks.

  44. Spike says:

    ”masculinity was not bluster, bullying, self-seeking aggrandizement, abusive behavior, and so forth.”
    to which I say, ”So What?”
    Bluster gets quickly called out by other men. Bullying made sure we didn’t grow up a nation of snowflakes, which is now apparent. I was ”bullied” in school, what was actually a ”pecking order”.These ”bullies” had a rough justice or code which was understood. When I got beaten up really badly by a much bigger guy, that guy got his comeuppance courtesy of them, and I never got picked on again. So much for ”abusive behavior”.
    Doug Wilson should take a leaf out of Jordan Peterson, who defines masculinity as Male Competence: The ability of men to achieve competent outcomes in the areas they choose. That combined competence has produced everything we see, touch and use in Western Civilization*, is what is derided as ”The Patriarchy” and “Oppression”.

    *Western Christian culture has been the most advanced the world has seen in terms of living standards, technological and scientific advancement, art, music and tradition. It advanced and established with a minimum of deaths, unlike those of say China or India.

  45. thedeti says:

    Now Wilson is criticizing the good men he says foolishly took such teachings to heart.

    “I know we told you all these things. We were wrong. It’s all messed up now.

    Why did you believe us? You screwed up, you trusted us!”

  46. OKRickety says:

    princeasbel said: “Yeah, we don’t want men demanding their leadership or headship, because…. Wait for it…. That would be LORDING IT OVER HER. Gasp* Perish the thought!”

    In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus teaches the Twelve that they are not to lord it over  anyone under their authority but instead emulate His behavior. In 1 Peter 5:1-3, Peter exhorts the elders not to lord it over  those in their charge.

    Are you saying it is biblically acceptable for a husband to lord it over  his wife? Or, for that matter, for any Christian to lord it over  anyone else?

  47. feministhater says:

    Some of these things are up there with the Cathy Newman and her “So what you’re saying is…” nonsense interview of Peterson. It just leaves me scratching my head.

    That’s a pithy come back. It is just more shaming. There is no interview going on here, Wilson’s words are there for you to see. He directly said that his own actions caused the problem he laments. Take your Cathy Strawman argument have buzz off.

    You tradcons having nothing of substance anymore. The direct cause of this is female rebellion disguised as feminism and the inability of your master Wilson to call it out as that which it is. Instead he spent a generation or more trying to placate by cutting off men at the knees.

    Go on though, scratch your head some more, no one here gives a crap what you think.

  48. The Question says:

    @thedeti

    “Why did you believe us? You screwed up, you trusted us!”

    I’m not joking in any way when I say that this was very much the message I received from older men when I became an adult and realized how utterly false their “advice” was regarding women, dating and marriage. It was as though they respected men who called out their BS and rebelled, while despising the young men dumb enough to believe them out of a misplaced sense of loyalty and obedience. And then we wonder why young men abandon the church.

  49. TMAC says:

    I guess I’m not as much of a hater as some – I appreciate DWs comments. I can do this without saying I agree with everything he says.

    My main point of encouragement in what he said came along the line of his fourth “Hill.” He encouraged men to stay in the fight and not simply walk away from churches where some (if not all) of the elders/leaders might be trying to downplay or silence men who simply won’t buy into the foolishness of “SERVANT-leadership.”

    Stay put, tell them “No.” Make it clear that God has endowed you with the authority in your home, not them. Don’t walk away – fight it. Be an example to other (impressionable) men that no one gets to tell you to ignore God or His Word. Tell your wife that you’re determined to love her but it’s going to be based on Scripture, not her whims and/or insecurities.

    If apron-string elders scare you away from the Biblical mandate of corporate worship, you have much bigger problems than feminism.

  50. freebird says:

    The last generation that is putting %80 of the tithes into the collection plate will pass in less than ten years.
    Who will fund the church?
    Not the single mothers getting “help.”
    Bye now!
    Have a good day

  51. freebird says:

    The one commenter said “men account for %77 of suicides.”
    More specifically,middle aged white men account for near %70 of suicides.
    The spike starts up right after 50 years old.
    50-60 seems to be the sweet spot.
    Hmm Aren’t these the most demonimzed demographic,ya know the blue collar workers who built this countries infrastructure and now thrown on the trash heap.
    Fine thanks that is.
    Not one word from the church on this at risk demographic.
    Ironically,whom used to put the most in their collection plates.
    Now just the widows left,but not for long.

  52. princeasbel says:

    Are you saying it is biblically acceptable for a husband to lord it over his wife? Or, for that matter, for any Christian to lord it over anyone else?

    No, I don’t. I also don’t believe it’s biblically acceptable to steal cookies from the cookie jar. But they’re both pretty dang tiny by comparison to the unacceptable famine of masculinity in the church. If we had to pick one or the other, then clearly a teaching that only MIGHT lead to husbands lording their authority over their families is preferable to the guaranteed disasterous result of teaching of servant leadership. Douglas Wilson uses the fear of husbands lording their authority over their families as a scare-tactic, when in reality, the guaranteed side-effects of his teaching are far more ominous.

    There’s also no practical way to assert leadership or authority WITHOUT falling into Wilson’s category of lording-it-over. Re-read what he said:

    If you are talking with your wife and requiring something of her because you want something done, then you are wrong.(…)If you are demanding your rights, demanding your leadership, demanding your headship, it is all there. You can grab it if you want to. But it is not going to work the way it could if your were humbling yourself and putting others first.(…)Authority is the ability to lead, direct, and speak, and have people follow you willingly.(…)But this result is achieved without lording it over the flock.

    So you can’t even talk to her to require something of her- that’s wrong. That’s lording it over her. So, how exactly does Wilson propose men establish their authority? At some point a husband has to tell his wife that what he says goes, whether she likes it or not. That’s a given that I think even Wilson would agree with, but for all practical purposes, he has cordoned off even the most basic means of doing so. Even a husband talking about this to his wife leads him to declare, “you are wrong.”

    In short, anytime a husband would assert his authority in anyway, Douglas Wilson is there to condemn it. That’s what you get when you believe in servant-leadership.

  53. Hmm says:

    Brothers,

    My comments to Doug Wilson on his article:

    Doug,

    A few questions about “Without permission”:

    1. Are the men to blame, or are their teachers? In my 45 years as a Christian, I have seen a lot of pastors posturing as “the only real man in the room” as they continually blame the men for not measuring up – much to the delight of the women in the congregation (and to their own profit). I’ve seen men beaten down each Father’s Day, and women praised every Mother’s Day for much of that time.

    2. At the same time you are calling men to be servant leaders, are you calling the women to be servant followers of that leadership? Or are you placing women inadvertently in the actual leadership role by making them the sole arbiters of whether their husbands are leading them “right”, and giving them permission to disobey if the man is not serving (servile) enough?

    3. Do you realize that servile men are one of the most unattractive types for most women? That by encouraging the wrong kind of servant leadership, it leaves women open to the temptation to find someone else they can call “master”?

    4. What is your complicity in all this mess? Which of your teachings have contributed to this state of affairs? Which books will you need to disavow or modify to help men climb the four hills – especially the one of the church?

    We’ll see if he takes any of these on in his letters post next Tuesday.

  54. King Alfred says:

    This passage seems very appropriate in context of the current discussion:
    Ezekiel 34 King James Version (KJV)
    And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
    2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
    3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.
    4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.
    5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.
    6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them.

  55. Swanny River says:

    King Alfred,
    How much do you want to wager that today’s shepards see themselves doing a good job because they have emotions for single moms, hurting wives, and also the special interest groups of the democrat party/media. That’s why those verses won’t convict the Wilsons. “Hey, I have been railing against toxic men for years to protect the frail sheep, I strive to protect women weightlifters and wrestlers from unfair competition, and on top of it, I take flack from Redpill guys, what more can I do?”

  56. King Alfred says:

    Swanny River,
    I completely agree that most of today’s shepherds will respond exactly as you described. But the verses are nevertheless applicable. The inability of the current crop of “shepherds” to be convicted by the truth is the most damning argument against them. The old idea of the impossibility of educating someone of a truth when his livelihood depends on not understanding it comes to mind, but is unforgivable where the souls of men are at stake.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Hmm
    Good questions in a measured tone. It will be interesting to see what the response is.
    Thanks for doing this.

  58. OKRickety says:

    Hmm,

    You said to Wilson: “At the same time you are calling men to be servant leaders,…”

    I find it significant that you have changed your tune about Wilson. You previously said: ‘Finally – Doug Wilson takes down “servant leadership”’ and ‘Pretty much red pill all the way.‘. You have now made a complete about-face and decided that he is “calling men to be servant leaders“. What happened?

    As far as I can see, Wilson roundly denounces “servant leadership” in Masculinity without Permission. Did he specifically call men to be “servant leaders” elsewhere? Or are you interpreting his words to be, in effect, supporting this concept, but couched in a way that would allow Wilson, if pressed, to claim he is opposed to “servant leadership”? What is the basis for your current position?

  59. ray says:

    I second Jubal Harshaw, supra.

    Young Douglas shows that he gets it, but has to toss in about how modern culture is ‘pathological’, then goes on to connect this with the ‘bluster and bullying’ nature of masculinity.

    Then I go look at ‘pastor’ ;o) Doug’s picture, and… looks like somebody who got bullied in school, any school, didn’t train for athletics, chicks didn’t dig him (but the Bullies and Athletes they did, damn them!). Doug ma-trick-u-lated straight to bible college/ministry school/etc., and then graduated to a pastor-ship somewhere. Life experience? Bah, he can read about it!

    Never been in the military, never got hit on by a girl, never lived alone (w/o women) for an extended stretch. Never been in jail, probly not a real fight either. Close? No? Well if I misjudge, then God can correct me of it. Wouldn’t be the first time.

    So Doug it’s like this, the game is up basically, your resentment bleeds through all your ‘sermons’ which you have no business preaching, heck even Reverend Harshaw could tell you that.

    You should take the Reverend’s advice, get some real humility, learn your place, and instead of resenting what God gave you, and resenting your betters, instead learn from them, and thereby improve yourself and please God, as opposed to your current strategy of accusing the brethren. There’s no future in that.

    It will be difficult. Do let us know how it works out.

  60. Hmm says:

    OK,

    As I read it, he still wants to redeem the term “servant leaders”, just not defining them the way others have. Notice these two paragraphs:

    “We need to be done with what we have come to call servant leadership. Servant leadership, as it has been defined in evangelical circles, has done to masculinity what the liberals want to do to AR-15s. What do I mean? I am here following the common sense wisdom of the bumper sticker that says when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

    “When a false definition of servant leadership is mandated for the church, the only people who will simply ignore that teaching will be the dullards and pigs. The sincere Christian men, who falsely believe they are being taught in accordance with the Word, will dutifully disarm. They will abdicate their essential role of actual leadership in the home, and they will call it servant leadership, leading from behind, or “just-what-I-was-going-to-suggest-leadership.” But there is a vast difference between real servant leadership, the kind Christ practiced and enjoined, and the kind that requires men to stand down whenever mama ain’t happy. By so emphasizing servant leadership, the church has not succeeded in establishing more of it, but they have succeeding in giving men a noble-sounding name as a fig leaf for their cowardice.” [Bold text mine]

    In the first paragraph, he rejects “what we have come to call servant leadership”. In the second, he calls it a “false definition”, and mentions “real servant leadership”. He’s not rejecting the term, but the usage. He wants men’s servant leadership to be actual leadership, which I can go a along with – Jesus was a servant leader who was an actual leader.

    So he is taking down servant leadership as detailed in Dalrock’s previous posts and trying to re-establish his own (prior) definition.

    Also note that my questions indicate that, due to Dal’s comments and the meta of the earlier post where I first introduced Wilson’s column, I have changed my tune about “pretty much red pill all the way”.

  61. Hmm says:

    Ray,

    Doug did time in the Navy. He holds a BA and MA in philosophy. He has been at the forefront of a great many controversies surrounding his church and writings: https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-controversy-interview.html

    Please do some research before you assume the worst about someone by their picture. There’s that commandment about false witness, and the proverb about books and covers…

  62. OKRickety says:

    Hmm,

    I see that Wilson does advocate “real servant leadership, the kind Christ practiced and enjoined” while denouncing the more-common false “servant leadership”. It seemed to me that you believed Wilson was a proponent of the latter usage.

    Personally, because of the false teaching usually accompanying it, I strongly dislike the phrase “servant leader” and believe that, when speaking of a Christian man, “leader” should be sufficient to mean one who leads in a godly manner.

    Based on the presumptions I see in your questions, I don’t think you are familiar with Wilson’s positions on those matters. I hope he will respond.

    You confirmed my suspicions about your change of position when you said it is “due to Dal’s comments”.

  63. Luke says:

    Hmm says:
    March 9, 2018 at 9:29 pm
    Ray,

    “Doug… He holds a BA and MA in philosophy.”

    So, no real college degrees (e.g., ones that required Calculus)? So, he’s basically a high school graduate, albeit probably with some respectable training while he was in the Navy.

  64. Hmm says:

    Luke,

    I think it’s his philosophical training (pre-feminist) that has helped Wilson take the strong stands against many of the other cultural movements for which I admire him – he understands logic and can read the cultural tides (which are rooted in philosophical ideas). He was at the forefront of the classical Christian school movement, and a strong encourager of homeschooling. His church and their influence in Moscow, Idaho have riled up all the right people over the last couple of decades. In the current #MeToo times he has taken a strong stand for due process and the presumption of innocence.

    I admire him for this, and that is why I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on sexual issues. But my resonance with the red-pill has allowed me to cast a jaundiced eye on some of his teachings that I previously accepted wholesale. My strongest deconversion is from the idea that if there’s trouble in the family it’s the responsibility of the husband – that in a truly Godly household if the man is faithful to God his wife will be loving and faithful, and his kids will all grow up loving God and following Christ.

    It has worked for him, and for his church elders, who are under the same standard. But I also know that things are more complicated than this. This kind of thinking is often the result of successful Marriage 1.0, and will likely not survive his generation (which also happens to be mine).

  65. Barnie says:

    Wilson had to get rid of his comments section because he refuses to construct a decent argument and his reasoning is seriously undermined with stale progressive assumptions. He was being clowned by realtalkers. He does touch on something important here, though. As the churches spiral further into liberal ideology in what Vox Day calls “convergence”, only low agreeableness rebels and the unchurched will maintain any semblance of classic Christian thought.

  66. That kind of “gotcha” logic (“you shouldn’t have listened to us”) is what almost led me to go something like mgtow before I ever knew that that meant. There’s a dissonance in that world of Complimentarianism that didn’t make sense to me as a young man, even though I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. The “man up” sermons from the likes of Driscoll and Bauchum and Wilson are full of subtle internal contradictions. But they were the ones to be looked up to and learned from. They came close to destroying me instead.

  67. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    I find it significant that you have changed your tune about Wilson. You previously said: ‘Finally – Doug Wilson takes down “servant leadership”’ and ‘Pretty much red pill all the way.‘. You have now made a complete about-face and decided that he is “calling men to be servant leaders“. What happened?

    You confirmed my suspicions about your change of position when you said it is “due to Dal’s comments”.

    You strongly suggest that it is the mark of a lesser man to reconsider his position based on the arguments of others. I disagree (quite the opposite), but either way I think it is unlikely that either you or I will change the other’s mind. With that in mind, I’m interested in understanding where you disagree with my post. I think the crux of our disagreement on this specific post of Wilson’s is his claim that the mark of “normal times”, or sane times, is a reflexive diversion about bad men whenever discussing masculinity. Wilson argues that this is the mark of sanity:

    …in normal times, if I were not writing in a culture that was not so well-advanced in its pathological condition, I would hasten to add that masculinity was not bluster, bullying, self-seeking aggrandizement, abusive behavior, and so forth.

    I argue that the reflexive need to preemptively assuage the feminist heckler whenever discussing masculinity is in fact quite the opposite of an indication that a culture is on track, as the hooks of the feminist are already in quite deep at that point.

    Am I right that this is the crux of our (your and my) disagreement, that like Wilson you also see such reflexive diversions as the essential mark of a healthy culture?

    I’ve written this as a response to OKRickety, but would also be interested in hearing the answer to the same question from any other readers who disagree with the OP.

  68. Dalrock, we do not live in a sane time. The cancerous rot of feminism has metastasized into every single aspect of Western Civilization.

    Its over.

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    My strongest deconversion is from the idea that if there’s trouble in the family it’s the responsibility of the husband – that in a truly Godly household if the man is faithful to God his wife will be loving and faithful, and his kids will all grow up loving God and following Christ.

    This assumption is a common one, especially among older men who lived a long time in a Marriage 1.0 world. It is a false assumption, however as you note. Ironically it is fairly easy to demonstrate the falseness from parts of the Bible, such as Proverbs.

    There’s also a kind of Prosperity thinking involved as well, but no need to run down that rabbit trail.

  70. ray says:

    Hmm —

    Credit due, Doug was in the Navy. Degrees in ‘philosophy’? I am supposed to acknowledge the merit in this? You cannot be serious.

    As for your accusation concerning false witnessing, you might just keep that in mind yourself, there, Saint Pious. I have read Doug’s ‘sermons’ at considerable length, including at this site, which has published his works on multiple occasions. I did not base my conjecture on his picture alone, but also on his works, which Christ Himself uses to judge us all, and which we also use to evaluate one another.

    But, thanks for claiming otherwise about me. I’ll look forward to the acknowledgment of your error.

    Combining Douggie’s works with his photo, I will retain my opinion of him as possessing approximating the physicality and presence of the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Make that Doug(h) boy.

    You don’t like it? Tough.

  71. ray says:

    Dalrock — “I’ve written this as a response to OKRickety, but would also be interested in hearing the answer to the same question from any other readers who disagree with the OP.”

    Despite Doug’s waffling, I thought his latest comments as published in the OP suggested an inching away from prior positions of the man bad, women good standard pastoring in America. So I thought you could have encouraged him a little, to jump in the water rather that testing with a toe.

    However, it’s a subtle point involving personal predilection. Aside from this possible addition, I found the OP fair.

  72. Hmm says:

    ray,

    I only argued with two of what I took to be your statements of fact: that Doug had no military service, and that he slipped right into the Bible College and the ministry right after school, neither if which is true. Hence my mentioning the commandment. But a closer reading of your post really classifies them as opinion. So please accept my corrections to those statements.

    Whether you find his Navy service and philosophy degrees impressive is not a matter of fact, but opinion. If you have read Wilson and not just judged him by his picture, that was not evident from your post. I drew what I thought was the natural assumption.

    And if you want to see him in action to check out your “Doug(h) boy” hypothesis, he goes up against Christopher Hitchens in debate in the video “Collision”. No doubt clips are available on YouTube.

    On my part, we’re done here. I can agree to disagree. And looking at your response to Dal, we are pretty much on the same side anyway.

  73. Hmm says:

    Doug Wilson’s charge to a newly married couple (today’s post):

    “Micah, as you prepare to take these vows, your charge is this. In the Christian life, all right doing proceeds from being. There is a perennial temptation that men have, and that is the temptation to reverse this. We want to achieve, or strive, or earn our way into a particular status. But the status you will have in just a few moments—that of being a husband—is a status that is being given to you, and all by the grace of God. When that status is given, a husband is what you will then be. You want all your activities to proceed from the fact that you are a husband. You are charged to flow out into your marriage, and most emphatically not to try to fill up from your marriage. This is just another way of urging you to a life of giving, and not taking. Of course, because we are creatures, we must be filled, but get your filling from the Spirit of God, who rests upon you. Kelsey will give to you more than can possibly imagine, but the best way to receive it will be the result of you giving her more than she could possibly imagine.

    “Kelsey, as you prepare to take your vows, the charge is this. Together you and your husband are to reflect the glory of God. Individually, you are to reflect the glory of your husband. And because of how God designed this, when you reflect your husband’s glory, this goes not make your glory dim and derivative. Rather, because God designed it to work in this way, your glory is given to your husband in order to amplify it. That amplification means that it is occurring in time; it is not static, not fixed. And that means that glory, like grace and peace, is going to be multiplied to you, and through you, to him.”

    Comments?

  74. princeasbel says:

    Comments?

    Yeah, how about…. The heck did he say??

    I went to his blog and read it in its entirety. Half of what he wrote is vague and unspecific. Honestly, I don’t know how he gets away with this. Maybe because most people who read him are afraid to speak up and say, “Dude, talk like a normal person!”

    Reading this article is like watching Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens. There’s tons of missing information that would explain what was said. I’m sure the Wilson defenders, like Star Wars 7 defenders, will be quick to claim that this post is incomplete. That this is not a stand-alone piece, and that Douglas Wilson would flesh this piece out by mentioning particular details about submission, authority, etc.

    If that’s their defense, then I say, “Case closed.” You just proved my point for me. This article is vague and unspecific. And this is coming from a man who has written for decades about marriage. Decades. And this is what he comes up with after all that? What an embarrassment.

  75. Barnie says:

    “My main point of encouragement in what he said came along the line of his fourth “Hill.” He encouraged men to stay in the fight and not simply walk away from churches where some (if not all) of the elders/leaders might be trying to downplay or silence men who simply won’t buy into the foolishness of “SERVANT-leadership.”
    Stay put, tell them “No.” Make it clear that God has endowed you with the authority in your home, not them. Don’t walk away – fight it. Be an example to other (impressionable) men that no one gets to tell you to ignore God or His Word. Tell your wife that you’re determined to love her but it’s going to be based on Scripture, not her whims and/or insecurities.”

    OK, but be aware of the possible consequences. Make it clear to Jason Meyer that you are the authority in your own home and he would immediately turn the power of the state against you. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/a-complementarian-manifesto-against-domestic-abuse

  76. PokeSalad says:

    He holds a BA and MA in philosophy.

    So does my barista at the corner Starbucks.

  77. Hmm says:

    Dal,

    In your last comment you replied to OKR, but I think the post you’re responding to was aimed at me: Hmm.

  78. Luke says:

    Hmm says:
    March 10, 2018 at 4:25 pm
    “Doug Wilson’s charge to a newly married couple (today’s post):

    “Micah, BLAH BLAH BLAH ad infinitum….”

    Comments?”

    Not one Scriptural direct quote in over 20 lines of sermonizing. Without even reading it for content, IMO that strongly predicts for Churchianity at best, and outright heresy is not unlikely these days for such writers.

  79. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock,

    “You strongly suggest that it is the mark of a lesser man to reconsider his position based on the arguments of others.”

    You presume incorrectly. I have no problem with changing position if it is moving to the correct position. The Bible teaches that it is wise to accept counsel, but also that not all counsel is good.

    “How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!” [Psalm 1:1 NASB]

    To be clear, I will say that I am not of fan of Doug Wilson’s writing style. It is not easy to read and excessively lengthy, tending to obfuscate what he wishes to communicate.

    I think Wilson’s perspective on the “times” is that today we have so-called “servant leadership”, whereas before (in what he unfortunately calls “normal times”) we only had feminist claims that normal masculine behavior often (always?) led to bluster, bullying, etc. I presume you agree that the latter behavior is indeed unacceptable for Christians. I hope you also agree that teaching against such behavior is acceptable. In reality, such unacceptable behavior does occur and is the basis for feminist claims of “toxic masculinity”. However, I agree that it is not necessary to always make such statements whenever the behavior of men is discussed.

    It is my perception that there is a tendency to a herd mentality on this blog. Only certain people, such as those on your blogroll, are considered approved  and their pronouncements are treated as gospel  by most readers. Any disagreement with them is basically shouted down by the majority, and many comments are little more than repetition of the party line for the post. I think this leads to the supposition that certain statements must be true because they come from approved sources and there is no stated disagreement.

    In much the same fashion, there seems to be an assumption that an unapproved person is probably guilty of blue-pill behavior. In this case, Doug Wilson. I would argue that this type of response also qualifies as what you call “reflexive”.

    I think the crux of our disagreement is that I think Doug Wilson’s post is indeed quite correct in regard to Christian masculine behavior, but your post makes great effort to throw shade on Wilson. I just don’t understand why you and others are so nitpicky about Wilson’s post, seemingly having a greater desire to find fault than recognizing the ample positive. Sure, I’d like for him to be perfect in his statements. I’d also like it for you and all of the commenters here, but I have not found that to be the case.

    On top of that, it is my opinion that many claims of Wilson’s red-pill failure display poor reading comprehension or faulty presumptions about his motives. In other words, the claims are faulty.

    In my opinion, Wilson is on the same side as you and most of your readers even if you don’t like his playbook or style of play.

    Since I’m straying outside the party line, I expect the flaming to begin shortly.

  80. Cane Caldo says:

    @OKRickety

    It is my perception that there is a tendency to a herd mentality on this blog. Only certain people, such as those on your blogroll, are considered approved and their pronouncements are treated as gospel by most readers.
    […]
    Since I’m straying outside the party line, I expect the flaming to begin shortly.

    As it was my comment which at least partially inspired the OP, let me take the opportunity to tell you, you big outsider you, that’s right: Dalrock, Anonymous Reader, Ray, feministhater, innocentbystanderboston, Pokesalad, thedeti…they all agree with everything I say, and me with them.

    Just kidding. That is a list of commenters with whom I have argued; some viciously. I started blogging when Dalrock let me write a guest-post to the effect that he was wrong. Some of those people still don’t care for what I say. Some of them ignore me all together.

    Doug Wilson did not have to write,“Now this is the point where, in normal times, if I were not writing in a culture that was not so well-advanced in its pathological condition, I would hasten to add that masculinity was not bluster, bullying, self-seeking aggrandizement, abusive behavior, and so forth. I would qualify against the counterfeits. All that is quite true, but I don’t want to emphasize it right now.”

    He could have left it out altogether–as he left out fathers from the list of people hurt in fatherless families–but he didn’t. He must at least take a swipe at “toxic males” on his way to talk about all those other bad preachers out there who preached the wrong servant leadership and not the good servant leadership Doug Wilson really meant all along.

    Whoops! Thought we were done with that, but here’s Doug again, writing about the toxic males: “Now he would be a fool who said there was no such thing as a toxic, overdone masculinity—there certainly is. I myself have seen some remarkable specimens of it.”

    Churches have one-hundredth of a problem with blustery, bullying men than they do with wimps cowed by their wives. Yet Wilson’s posts are filled with recriminations against regular men.

    Here is a lengthy quote from the first of three suggested posts marked “Related”, titled, “A Woman’s Body and Fatherlessness”, from 2011. I chose this post because I had confidence that I could take the first recommendation and find it loaded with servant leadership typical of most Christian preaching, and also some weak men screwing up feminism . Here we go:

    “What are fathers for? The biblical answer goes far beyond the answer provided by Darwin. Fathers are more than inseminating carbon units. God has established and ordered the world in a certain way. God commanded Adam, and all fathers after him, to provide and to protect (Gen. 2:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). That is what fathers are for. Provide for and protect whom? The answer is their wives and children. Unprotected children are fatherless children. Unwanted children are fatherless children. Aborted children are therefore the final word in fatherlessness.

    Someone might interject and say that surely aborted children are motherless as well. This is true, and tragic. Motherlessness, the fierce suppression of the mothering instinct, is the immediate cause of an abortion. But that motherlessness is, in its own turn, a function of fatherlessness. This all happens because fathers have believed the lie that it is possible for them to opt out of the creation mandate. That mandate is assigned to every man who is ever given the tremendous privilege of making love to a woman. First the pleasure, then the provision and protection. The privilege of planting seed in a garden brings the necessary responsibility of tending that garden.

    Apparently, neither fathers nor gardeners are actually in charge of families or gardens; just provide and protect them. Leading is left out of his post entirely except when a man leads a woman to commit motherlessness and kill his children. And where’s the mandate for a woman to provide a child for the tremendous privilege of making love to a man? I am forced to consider that perhaps he’s never been confronted with that situation.

    I’ll tell you one thing: If any of his male readers get the idea to be masculine and take his tremendous privilege without permission, he’s gonna hear about it from Doug Wilson!

    He continues:

    Any man who thinks that a wonderful time in bed must be necessarily linked to a lifetime of responsibility is written off as a hopeless dweeb. Faced with a choice between not being mocked and having a backbone, far too many men choose the option of not being mocked. But fathers who wilt in the face of such sneers and mockery are just sperm-delivery fathers. They have all the backbone of a wet napkin. They deserve the mockery, certainly, but from the other direction.

    Of course, there is the problem of old-fashioned selfishness. Convincing men to take the sexual pleasure, and to not feel responsible for any resultant child, has therefore not been a difficult argument. It has been a downhill argument. The moral authority of Western civilization spent a number of centuries persuading and convincing males that they should take up responsibility for their progeny. That was the uphill part of the argument, and it was made possible by the growing influence of the gospel. Unfortunately, we have decided to all head back downhill again, and us with no brakes now.

    So abortion happens for the following reasons:
    1. men fail to provide
    2. men fail to protect
    3. causing motherlessness
    4. men aren’t grateful enough for the “tremendous privilege” of sleeping with their wives
    5. men are wet napkins who deserve to be mocked, especially by moral Christians
    6. men are selfish
    7. men are out of control

    And here I thought abortions happened because mothers paid medical experts to skewer their babies. Turns out it has been toxic male Christian fathers all along.

    Enough of that post. From here I’ll surf to the Related link, “Father Hunger”, from 2006. It is a defense of himself from a “local critic” who did not like his attitude towards homosexuals.

    But how a call for Christians to stop demanding civil reform as a substitute for reformation in the family and the church can be read this way is a mystery to me. What we have called for is for Christian fathers to repent first, and for the church to get its own house in order first, instead of turning to politics as some kind of savior. Politics will be saved, but politics is no savior. We have argued that the current epidemic of homosexual activism is the result of disobedient Christian fathers, and so we have substantial work to do within out own ranks first. Our culture is in the grip of a profound and disorienting father hunger. This is no less true within the church.

    No less true in the church? WOW! Christian fathers are so bad, so unrepentant, that they turn their children gay!

    Father hunger is around us in countless ways, and results in far more than struggles with sexual perversion. Father hunger causes loneliness, aggression, rebellion against authority, hatred of kindness, lack of self-control, legalistic pietism, religion based on fear instead of love, and much, much more.

    Father hunger isn’t caused by missing fathers ejected from their homes by their wives over 70% of the time. No, no: Bad Christian fathers even in the home (maybe especially in the home) cause pretty much every sin and every pit of the human condition. The word “mother” doesn’t appear once in the whole post.

    These are his words, from his posts, which his site referred to me. How long could I go on, from one to the next, and find the same pattern of blaming men for everything, excusing women for anything, and always framing a father’s and husband’s job as service, but never command? I bet a long time.

  81. Hmm says:

    Trying to plumb the difference in perspective between OKRickety, with whom I largely agree about this site’s view of Doug Wilson, and Cane Caldo, who certainly highlights perhaps the main cause of father hunger in the larger society: men being booted out of their own families in divorce.

    Judging by my own experience in a similar Reformed environment, I think Doug may be blinded to issue of divorce because it doesn’t happen often in his own church – and maybe never in the form of frivorce. It’s a strange thing that, even though Reformed churches in general allow divorce for cause (adultery, abuse and desertion), I have seen very little of it even for those reasons in my own PCA presbytery. And church leadership, being solidly male, doesn’t have much patience with unhaaaapiness as a cause. Wilson may not realize the magnitude of the problem outside his microcosm, and so concentrates on what he can see.

  82. DrTorch says:

    Wilson may not realize the magnitude of the problem outside his microcosm, and so concentrates on what he can see.

    So Wilson has cloistered himself in some remote community in Idaho so he doesn’t know the broader culture, yet he still feels qualified to write about the broad culture? That’s a pretty flimsy defense.

    If Wilson doesn’t know the subject matter, then he needs to repent of his pride and dishonesty for writing about it, and that includes removing his misguided and ill-informed pieces.

    Furthermore, I seriously doubt that his accusations are lining up with what he can see in remote Idaho. That’s one of Caldo’s points, that Wilson is making all of these assertions about men who go to church, when they’re already bending over backwards to meet the high standards that these AMOG are pushing.

    Wilson has been bashing men at least since the early-to-mid 90s when I first encountered his writing. But I didn’t really recognize it then b/c that was SOP in Christian churches even then.

  83. ray says:

    OKRickety —

    “I think Wilson’s perspective on the “times” is that today we have so-called “servant leadership”, whereas before (in what he unfortunately calls “normal times”) we only had feminist claims that normal masculine behavior often (always?) led to bluster, bullying, etc. I presume you agree that the latter behavior is indeed unacceptable for Christians. I hope you also agree that teaching against such behavior is acceptable. In reality, such unacceptable behavior does occur and is the basis for feminist claims of “toxic masculinity”.

    I grew up during those ‘normal times’ and Doug Wilson did not.

    Let me assure you that ‘normal masculine behavior’ RARELY led ‘to bluster, bullying etc.’ as you as young Mr. Wilson presume. Either in the pulpits or in everyday life.

    Yes yes, straw men, bullying by those claiming to pastor for Christ is ‘unacceptable for Christians’ etc. But you base your suppositions on something that simply was not true of those ‘old days’. Yes, humans being human, occasionally blustering/bullying came from a pulpit. But that was not normal nor common, and it is NOT the ‘basis for feminist claims of toxic masculinity’. This is your, Doug Wilson’s, and Pastorate America’s fantasy of how ‘the old days were’, apparently. Then in come . . . why, yourselves! riding on white horses to champion Christianity and Save the Damsels. Seen that movie. A lot.

    Feminists claims masculinity is toxic for the same reason they spreads lies about every other aspect of masculinity — it arises from satan, and it’s desire is to destroy fatherhood, masculinity, and the sons of Adam. Same as it ever was. You and Doug assume what feminists assume because you are immersed in a feminist society and breathe feminist air. Tho you’d both argue not.

    Feminism is NOT a modern phenomenon and did NOT arise from uppity males in the Fifties and Sixties abusing the pore wimmins and bullying their way through life.

    As far as this blog goes, I say whatever I wish and I come and go as I please. If I take issue with something or somebody here, I’m not real shy about expressing it. You can ask around if you think otherwise.

  84. BillyS says:

    I would agree that men have a great deal of responsibility for the situations in their lives, though if and only if they also have the authority over those same situations. This is the same problem as that of a project manager in the IT/business world. You can hold someone accountable all you want, but that individual will regularly fail if he does not have the authority to control the elements involved with the situation. Some, perhaps even many, succeed in spite of the limits because things come together well, but a great many will fail. Blaming the project manager for the problems is stupid and merely making a scapegoat for other issues.

    We will not see a change in this area until we start to enable the authority element for men along with the responsibility. Failing to address the real issue – female rebellion, is the error of many, including Doug Wilson.

  85. OKRickety says:

    ray,

    “Let me assure you that ‘normal masculine behavior’ RARELY led ‘to bluster, bullying etc.’ as you as young Mr. Wilson presume.”

    You misunderstand me. I don’t think this behavior is, or ever was, common in the Christian community, but I suspect it is more common elsewhere. However, this is a common claim  which, because it is false, it needs to be addressed.

    My interest is in following Christ with the belief that, because of feminist influence, the emphasis should be on restoring respect for men, not in “saving” women.

    I fully agree that feminist belief arises from Satan. Of course, that is the root cause for claiming “toxic masculinity”. But its proponents, especially in the church, are not going to claim that, are they? Instead, they are going to falsely claim that masculinity is inherently toxic and will lead to bluster, bullying, etc. unless feminist values are inculcated into all societies and all individuals. The “Christian” feminists will claim to have biblical support. I think the war against feminism must be fought on individual battlefields, one of them being this issue of “toxic masculinity”. I have my doubts that this battle will be won by saying their claim comes from Satan.

  86. Pingback: If you only knew Wilson like they know Wilson, you would know he does not mean what he writes. | Dalrock

  87. AnonS says:

    I’m of the opinion that people need more skills transfers and understanding cause and effect, not weasel word moralizing. “To be a better husband, you need to man up” tells you exactly nothing, it is a waste of words and just confuses people.

  88. OKRickety says:

    Cane Caldo,

    “you big outsider you”. I tend to feel like an outsider in most venues. It’s rather a personal issue. I think it’s partly my incorrect assumption and partly due to my own behavior. Overall, I know I have much in common with most here, but I seldom enjoy disagreements.

    Thank you for the effort you spent in creating your comment. I agree with some of your perspective and disagree with some of it.

    In the end, though, I think, even though he does not always perform up to par, Wilson is on our side even if you don’t like his playbook or style of play. Would a good coach bench him or kick him off the team and complain to the press and/or the rest of the team, or would he deal with the player directly to resolve the problem and improve the team?

  89. AnonS Your 10:36 comment efficiently describes what so much communication has come to,, be it written or spoken. Empty slogans are created because they allow truths to be bypassed. It is not uncommon to have comedic dialog where someone asks, “What does that even mean?” after vague expressions like the one you cite. And people yuk yuk yuk and then go on using these topic killers that are designed to cause a feeling of accomplishment while actually filling the air with empty words.

  90. BillyS says:

    OKR,

    I bump heads plenty on here as well, but that is neither here nor there.

    Wilson’s problem is that offers too much support to the enemy and does little to really push people toward the goal, especially with all the disclaimers and such.

    He is like cuckservatives in the field of politics. No progress is ultimately made and the people with that stance end up helping the opposition with all the harping on the dangers of going too far in the right way. They also fail to address the true underlying issues. How many times has Wilson posted against female rebellion? Would he have stood against the made up claims of my exwife or instead counseled me that I caused the failure of the marriage? The latter is far more likely, as he sounds like most who did nothing to correct my wife, but who were happy to point out any flaws I may or may not have had.

    I am open to many pushing the right way, but giving so many disclaimers and avoiding the true root issues does no one any good and can even cause harm.

  91. Cane Caldo says:

    @OKRickety

    Keep in mind that the comment of mine which Dalrock quoted in the OP was wrote in the first place because, when I mildly praised Wilson (“On the Doug Wilson post: Good to see. I would like to know what brought him around.”), Ilion replied: “Nothing “brought him around” … you silly little men in your foolish echo-chamber have been so busy calling everyone else “cucks” and “betas” that you haven’t been paying attention to what he has actually been saying for years.”

    Ilion’s statement was nothing more than residual evidence that someone had cleaned a pig because Wilson:

    1) only recently begun to change his tune.
    2) only changed his tune a little bit.
    3) cannot yet choose to miss an opportunity to disrespect Christian men even when his topic is sin committed predominantly, reflexively, and flippantly by women.

    I have my doubts that this battle will be won by saying their claim comes from Satan.

    We’ll see.

    DrTorch was right when he wrote: “Wilson has been bashing men at least since the early-to-mid 90s when I first encountered his writing. But I didn’t really recognize it then b/c that was SOP in Christian churches even then.” For over twenty years there was no real pushback from Christian fathers against the lie of men’s hyper-agency over women. Those of us who saw bits of the problem here and there were not sure of ourselves, not sure of what we saw, nor what we disliked about it. All the while, Christian pastors and leaders–including Wilson–kept up disrespect of men.

    Now they’ve experienced a few years of mild pushback from a titsy-teeny portion of Christian men, and some Christian leaders, like Wilson, begin to take a little bit of notice. Unfortunately, they believe their new stance sprung unaided from their own precious minds, and that all along they thought this new-yet-same way. It’s typical of us humans to make that error.

    ___________________________________________________________________

    Everything above that line I wrote before your latest response, and before Dalrock’s latest post (which I haven’t yet read).

    Thank you for the effort you spent in creating your comment.

    You’re welcome.

    In the end, though, I think, even though he does not always perform up to par, Wilson is on our side even if you don’t like his playbook or style of play. Would a good coach bench him or kick him off the team and complain to the press and/or the rest of the team, or would he deal with the player directly to resolve the problem and improve the team?

    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the team and its various roles. Wilson is a coach. I am not a coach. Neither are you. We players don’t get to coach the coaches. In his case–since he started his own church, denomination, seminary, schools, etc.–he’s not only a coach, he’s an owner, general manager, and front office all-in-one. He’s the Jerry Jones of church.

  92. PokeSalad says:

    Would a good coach bench him or kick him off the team and complain to the press and/or the rest of the team, or would he deal with the player directly to resolve the problem and improve the team?

    What does this even mean? Given the actual situation, this analogy doesn’t seem to apply. Who is the “coach” here? The “coach” has authority over the “player;” yet none of us have authority over Wilson. Didn’t the “player” (I assume that’s Wilson) disable comments on his blog (someone posted that a bit ago, I don’t know personally if that’s true)? If so, does that show a willingness to ‘improve the team?’

  93. OKRickety says:

    Since there is complaint about my analogy attempt, I will change it. First, let it be understood that Wilson has no authority over me through the church in any fashion. As far as I am concerned, he is another player.

    My changed analogy is this:

    Would it be good if a player wanted another player benched or kicked off the team? Would it be good if he complained to the press and/or the rest of the team about him? Would it be good if he interacted with the player directly to resolve the problem and improve the team?

  94. Cane Caldo says:

    @OKRickety

    First, let it be understood that Wilson has no authority over me through the church in any fashion. As far as I am concerned, he is another player.

    No! That is not reality! Doug Wilson really is a coach. He really is a founder and leader of a church, a seminary, a denomination, schools, a publication house, and other various organizations. He is not YOUR coach, and he is not MY coach, but he is a coach. You and I are players. Start your questions from that truth; seriously, for your own benefit. So let’s make an apples-to-apples comparison.

    New England Patriots’ coach Bill Belichick has been accused and investigated for cheating multiple times. He was found guilty and fined for it. During that time, while the cheating was suspected, was it wrong for the players of other teams to talk in the locker room about their observations of Belichick’s cheating? Was it wrong for other teams’ players to give evidence against Belichick because he is otherwise (aside from the cheating) an excellent coach of an excellent team? Does talking about Belichick’s cheating throw shade on his achievements, or does the cheating itself throw the shade?

  95. OKRickety says:

    Okay. Whatever, I give up for now.

  96. Caspar Reyes says:

    Cane is correct. And Doug Wilson is not the coach of just any team, but of a team that deliberately undermines the authority of fathers’ in their own houses under the guise of requiring “submission to leadership”, then reams them for being weak, spineless fuckups. That setup spawned the Natalie Greenfield soap opera, which by itself generated whole cadres of ex-homeschooled anti-patriarchy feminists, some right here in my own back yard. I thank God that I resisted the temptation/opportunity 20 years ago to get involved in a reformed denomination like his; good theological basis perhaps, but a disaster of polity.

  97. Pingback: For the Record | Things that We have Heard and Known

  98. Colt Lancaster says:

    Wilson is notorious for his double speak and fence sitting which he disguises with edgy language. Is this blog familiar with his Federal Vision resume? He has plagued the Reformed world for decades. The best men in leadership describe him and his writing on that topic as trying to nail jello to the wall. Sound familiar? He is not unintelligent. He has admirable writing skills and is a gifted speaker. So why are so many people so often confused by his communications? I would never trust anyone on any topic if he can be fairly described this way.

  99. sipcode says:

    Wilson is chicken. He is protecting his image of ‘the author of 40 books’ and his purported sophisticated understanding and articulation of scripture and logic.

    Naw, Wilson is chicken shit on marriage. But he has lotsa company, for essentially all other pastors, teachers, and authors somehow deny scripture on marriage, despite reading it in front of us. As I heard one man summarize about a pastor’s demeanor on tough scriptures [like on marriage]:

    “No need to panic; this need not be taken seriously — remember, this is only a sermon. I’ll provide a biblical message weekly, and you provide for my personal security and well being. I won’t push you, and you won’t push me, and we’ll get along famously.”

    That is Wilson. It is time to fuck that shit man.

    Thanks for so doing.

  100. Pingback: If mama ain’t happy | Dalrock

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.