Headship tomorrow and headship yesterday, but never headship today.

“The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday—but never jam to-day.”
“It must come sometimes to ‘jam to-day,’” Alice objected.
“No, it ca’n’t,” said the Queen. “It’s jam every other day: to-day isn’t any other day, you know”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There

Last week I covered the complementarian argument that Adam’s sin was failing to prevent Eve from being tempted into sinning.  This specific bogus claim is part of a larger pattern where headship alternates between being denied (or minimized to irrelevance) and headship being used as a handy club to bludgeon husbands (usually to blame men for women’s sins).

The speed with which the transformation occurs often makes this particular method of complementarian rationalization quite comical.  I once attended a sermon where the pastor started by explaining that his wife is in authority over him, and discussed the proper ways she punishes him when he sins.  Then, without missing a beat, he went back to Genesis and blamed Adam for not exercising headship and preventing Eve from sinning.

If you look for this pattern you will see it all over.  In the movie Courageous there is a scene early on where the wife goes from nagging and bossing her husband Adam around to suddenly being sweet and making a big point of having him be the one who decides if their daughter can attend a friend’s birthday party.  As with the sermon I attended, suddenly headship appears out of nowhere, only to vanish just as quickly.  The reason is the same;  this scene is a setup.

Pastor Doug Wilson plays a variant of this game in his book Reforming Marriage.  In Chapter 2 (Headship and Authority) Wilson explains that when he does marriage counseling he starts with the assumption that the man is responsible for all of the problems in the marriage:

When a couple comes for marriage counseling, my operating assumption is always that the man is completely responsible for all the problems. Some may be inclined to react negatively to this, but it is important to note that responsibility is not the same thing as guilt. If a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, of course she bears the guilt of her adultery. But at the same time, he is responsible for it.

Wilson defends this unbiblical assumption by pretending that the husband is like the captain of a ship:

To illustrate, suppose a young sailor disobeys his orders and runs a ship aground in the middle of the night. The captain and the navigator were both asleep and had nothing to do with his irresponsible actions. Who is finally responsible? The captain and the navigator are responsible for the incident. They are career officers, and their careers are ruined. The young sailor was getting out of the Navy in six months anyway. This may strike many as being unfair, but it is indisputably the way God made the world. The sailor is guilty; the captain is responsible. Without this understanding of responsibility, authority becomes meaningless and tyrannical. Husbands are responsible for their wives. They are the head of their wives as Christ is the head of the Church. Taking a covenant oath to become a husband involves assuming responsibility for that home. This means that men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home. If Christian men had loved their wives as Christ loved the Church, if they had given direction to their wives, if husbands had accepted their wives’ necessary help with their God-ordained vocation, there never would have been room for any kind of feminist thinking within the Church. Christian men who abdicate their God-given authority, or who feel embarrassed about it, are leaving their wives unprotected.

Setting aside the problem of defining biblical roles in marriage based on the rules of a secular organization, note that Wilson isn’t serious when he implies that the husband is in complete command of the home.  You can see this in Wilson’s 21 Thesis on Submission in Marriage, where he explains that a husband is not responsible for trying to make his wife submit (or do anything):

The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.

The very metaphor Wilson uses to justify his take on marriage counseling is also absurd if you look at it from the other direction.  Sailors don’t get to drag their captains to navy counseling where the captain is presumed to be in the wrong if the sailor isn’t happy.   Moreover, the sailor doesn’t reserve the legal right to eject the captain from the ship and take over command like wives do.  This is important because threats of divorce are inherent in the whole marriage counseling model.

But again, this isn’t about a serious belief in headship, it is about keeping headship around as a handy club and then discarding the club once it is no longer needed.  Note how quickly Wilson switches between the two modes in Chapter 3, Duties of Husbands and Wives:

In any discussion of a wife’s duties, we must understand the context of these duties. The previous section did not just give us “the husbands’ part,” with this section giving us “the wives’ part.” Rather, all the responsibilities for wives listed below can legitimately be added to the husbands’ list of responsibilities. Not only is he responsible before God to do his job, he is responsible before God to see that she does hers. And of course, this is not done by bossing her around. It is done through nourishing and cherishing her.

Wilson’s defenders have acknowledged being baffled by his seemingly erratic shifts on the topic of headship, but if you understand the formula that he is copying from other complementarians it is not erratic at all.  When headship is useful as a club against men it quite suddenly appears, oftentimes in cartoonish form.  Once the club is no longer required, headship is just as instantly redefined back to the feminist friendly role of 99.999% servant, .001% leader.

Related:  Hair Shirts and Chest Thumping.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Courageous, Disrespecting Respectability, Headship, Pastor Doug Wilson, Reforming Marriage, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to Headship tomorrow and headship yesterday, but never headship today.

  1. Lost Patrol says:

    So, MGTOW does have a leader, and it’s Doug Wilson!

    All your responsibilities are yours, and all hers are yours too. Children’s also?

  2. OKRickety says:

    The concepts of responsibility, blame, and fault are at play here. I’d love to hear from a legal or psychological “expert” on these concepts.

    Here is a quote (emphases mine) from an article by John Coleman at the Harvard Business Review (Take Ownership of Your Actions by Taking Responsibility):

    ‘Many of us were conflating the two terms: fault and responsibility. A classmate, Curt, pointed out, “There’s a big difference between fault and responsibility. A leader may be responsible for a situation even if it’s not his fault. The blame doesn’t matter.”’

    If a leader is responsible for a situation even if it’s not his fault, then does it follow that a husband is responsible for the results of his wife’s sin even though her sin is not his fault?

  3. earl says:

    I once attended a sermon where the pastor started by explaining that his wife is in authority over him, and discussed the proper ways she uses to punish him when he sins. Then, without missing a beat, he went back to Genesis and blamed Adam for not exercising headship and preventing Eve from sinning.

    That describes Churchianity to a tee. You could even make the case it’s really Feminism masquerading as Christianity.

  4. earl says:

    So, MGTOW does have a leader, and it’s Doug Wilson!

    If he was secretly trying to keep men from getting married by pointing out the wife is in charge and you are responsible for everything…that’s just as good as the guy who got frivorced telling us what it was like.

  5. Wraithburn says:

    Feminism has skinned the church and is parading around in it demanding respect.

  6. Dwight House says:

    It’s interesting that he would try to use Christ as a good example of his idea of headship. Weren’t Christ’s disciples flagrantly wrong and quarrelsome numerous times? Didn’t one of Christ’s disciples betray him? Wasn’t there another that denied him? Isn’t most of the new testament dedicated to Paul’s letters explaining how wrong the various first century churches were in both belief and action? If Pastor Doug Wilson wishes to imbue this kind of responsibility for his follower’s actions, mustn’t we conclude that Christ did not living up to his duty and sufficiently love the Church?

  7. squid_hunt says:

    @OK
    “If a leader is responsible for a situation even if it’s not his fault, then does it follow that a husband is responsible for the results of his wife’s sin even though her sin is not his fault?”

    You cannot unlink authority from responsibility. If I am placed in responsibility, I have to have the authority to perform whatever task it is. Otherwise the individual placing me in responsibility has destined me for failure. I might choose to delegate some authority, but at the end of the day, I am responsible for what occurs beneath my responsibility.

    For instance, if God makes me responsible for my wife and my children’s behavior, I have to have the authority to make them obey. I may delegate some authority to my wife regarding my children, but when it comes time for God to call me to the carpet, I can’t blame my wife for how my children turn out.

    You can’t have it both ways. If I have no authority over my wife and her behavior, it is unjust of God to make me responsible for her behavior. In the situation of the sailor wrecking the ship, the Captain put him in charge of the ship and went to sleep. But the Captain also had all the authority to determine who drove his ship and how they drove it.

  8. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Dwight House,

    The trouble with your thinking is that it’s perfectly logical.

  9. thedeti says:

    Schrodinger’s Headship.

    Headship is there, and headship is not there. At the same time. Or not. Depending on when and where you look.

  10. Wraithburn says:

    @Squid_hunt

    Our God is a Righteous and Just God. The asherah of feminism is inconstant and petty.

  11. American says:

    “Wilson explains that when he does marriage counseling he starts with the assumption that the man is responsible for all of the problems in the marriage.”

    ^ I used to think such were ignorant and deceived, but over time I realized the problem is much deeper… in a very bad way.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    This bait-and-switch style (motte-and-bailey if you prefer) is familiar to any man who has debated feminists. Another way to look at this style of “debate” is by noting it is a no-win game for men. Lucy is free to pull the football away from Charlie Brown’s kicking foot at any time, but Charlie is not allowed to quit the game. He also will never get to kick that football.

    Traditional conservatives often argue in a fashion very similar to women…

  13. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    If a leader is responsible for a situation even if it’s not his fault, then does it follow that a husband is responsible for the results of his wife’s sin even though her sin is not his fault?

    You are skirting the issue here. Wilson doesn’t believe the husband has the authority he is pretending he has. Nor does Wilson consistently believe the husband has responsibility. Remember, the reason Wilson teaches that a husband can’t point to Scripture where it says the wife is to submit to her husband is it isn’t the husband’s responsibility to see to it that she does her role. This is a big shell game, and it is easy to follow once you realize what he is doing.

    Moreover, Wilson is playing a game where he pretends that he is separating responsibility and fault with regard to a wife’s adultery. But later in the book he comes out and says that husbands are at fault when their wives commit adultery:

    Now because the husband is the steward of the marriage covenant, the gender of the innocent party does matter in making decisions about divorce. The Christian community is full of godly Christian women who have non-Christian husbands. Godly Christian men with non-Christian wives are much more rare. This illustrates how much of an impact the husband has on the spiritual state of the marriage.

    In relating this to divorce, it means that wives are much more likely to be wronged by their husbands than the other way around. If a man is unfaithful to his wife, it is quite possible that she was being the kind of wife God wants her to be. If a woman is unfaithful to her husband, it is much less likely that he was fulfilling his role properly.

    And again, all of this is leaving aside the problem with determining God’s design based on secular institutions.

  14. Asher says:

    “True submission is of the heart”.

    No, it’s not. God tells us that man assesses by outward appearances not by the heart. Submission, that is comprehensible to humans, is about behavior. Period.

    Wilson is either calling God a liar or he is incredibly deluded.

  15. dragnet says:

    “Wilson’s defenders have acknowledged being baffled by his seemingly erratic shifts on the topic of headship, but if you understand the formula that he is copying from other complementarians it is not erratic at all.”

    Exactly. All that’s left to do is for Wilson’s defenders to acknowledge the guy is reading from the same script every other Churchianity-type has long been using.

    Won’t hold my breath on this one.

  16. DrTorch says:

    Like squid_hunt says, you can’t have it both ways.

    And Wilson ignores some key details in his Navy analogy. First, the young sailor’s career is ruined too. And he may even go into prison for his actions, particularly if they were willful. That he “was getting out in six months” is an absurd comment, as if he would suffer no consequences beyond early dismissal.

    Second, while the commanding officers are responsible, they and the Navy spend a significant amount of time and resources training our young sailor, and demanding proficiency before he gets behind that wheel. Honestly, that was sort of the way things used to be in Western marriages, w/ mothers (and occasionally finishing schools) training wives. And the Eph 5:26 commands husbands to be active in their wives’ sanctification. However, Wilson ignores this key element, both in his analogy and in the application. As the host indicates, he’s following the lead of the churchians and setting up men to fail regardless.

    I met a _very_ conservative Christian man a couple of years ago, and he was discussing what some study he was in covering all about specific failings of men from the Bible (telling right there in some ways), and he brought up this version of Adam’s failure. I didn’t oppose it, b/c I remembered John Eldridge taught that and I never considered it well. Now I wish I had recognized the error and spoken up.

  17. Mocheirge says:

    If one of his parishioners punches him on the nose, is Wilson responsible for it? Or does his responsibility stop at the end of his own nose?

  18. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    As 23-year military man (enlisted and officer), I’m well aware of the distinction Pastor Doug makes between responsibility and fault. Any officer that’s conducted a 15-6 investigation does, and I’ve conducted many.

    The basic difference can be summed up in two questions.

    Fault = “did he do it, or fail to do it?”
    Responsibility = “what did he do about it?”

    Here’s what I mean. Suppose a Soldier failed to secure a computer that stores classified information, and the computer went missing (lost, stolen, whatever). Because the Soldier failed to secure the computer, he is at fault (“did he do it, or fail to do it?”).

    The Commander is responsible no matter what, but now the question becomes, “what did he do about it?” If the commander provided the Soldier with the required training, instruction, equipment, documentation, etc. to secure the computer, and if he initiated the investigation process in a timely manner when the computer turned up missing, then the Commander is off the hook.

    In other words, the Commander has very specific, well defined responsibilities, and corresponding authority. If he fulfilled his responsibilities, and appropriately exercised his authority, then the Soldier pays the price, and the Commander does not.

    But as Dalrock, Cane and others have pointed out repeatedly, complementarians heap responsibility on husbands, but strip them (us) of authority.

    Anyone who knows anything about leadership knows that if you give a person responsibility, but deny them the corresponding authority, you set them up for failure. This is what complementarians do; they set husbands up for failure.

    Pastor Doug is dead wrong on this subject.

  19. Scott says:

    This is exactly right. EXACTLY right.

    What you are describing is what it feels like to engage in discussions about “headship” and “submission” in the presence of even the most “conservative” and “old school” pastors and clergy.

    For even my favorite ones will talk about how men should have the authority to lead in their homes, with the full force of the community around them and then as soon as a woman starts to enter the conversation, its,

    except, this, and this, and this, and this, and this

    It is terribly frustrating.

  20. craig says:

    “England expects that every man will do his duty.”

    No navy could survive at sea, nor could any fleet ever be given such a fundamentally trusting battle order, without first having a carefully-constructed, shared expectation of command authority and discipline. Of course, long before arriving at Trafalgar the sailors would have learned to man the sails and guns for the sake of their comrades, not for fear of the lash. But it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that if captains lacked authority over their charges, no ship would ever leave port seaworthy or sober.

    Without this understanding of authority, responsibility becomes arbitrary and unjust scapegoating. Wilson desires a marital “ship” with no command structure, no orders, no discipline, no captain’s mast. And he wants women to do their duty exempt from consequences: it is an antinomian, even gnostic stance rejecting the idea that her behavior or her vows mean anything in the long run. (And so we’re back to Lewis Carroll: “Everyone has won, and all must have prizes!”)

    “If Christian men had loved their wives as Christ loved the Church, if they had given direction to their wives, if husbands had accepted their wives’ necessary help with their God-ordained vocation, there never would have been room for any kind of feminist thinking within the Church.”

    Having theorized about the infection vector, Wilson orders the patient be administered more infection.

  21. vfm7916 says:

    So:

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

    AND

    “Not only is he responsible before God to do his job, he is responsible before God to see that she does hers. And of course, this is not done by bossing her around. It is done through nourishing and cherishing her.”

    are not actually mutually exclusive. Enforce is certainly not nourishing and cherishing. Non-enforcement is also not effective as the last 50 or more years have shown.

    Note that the Sailor example was very well delineated in the two incidents of US naval vessels colliding with other ships. The Admiral in charge of that theatre was dismissed, along with other officers.

    What DrTorch notes is correct, but the key difference between the navy analogy and marriage is that the Captain has ultimate power and authority over the sailor, up to and including summary execution (at least in older navies). This is what Wilson truly avoids; responsibility for something can only come when you have control of it. It is this conflict, between control and responsibility, that lies at the heart of feminism and its power over men, and Wilson perpetuates the conflict to maintain his own power.

    Honestly, if men had power, of what use would Wilson be?

    As a side note, one might ask what responsibility God had for Eve eating of the fruit. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…

  22. Lost Patrol says:

    Dalrock highlights one of Doug Wilson’s operating precepts from the book –

    The Christian community is full of godly Christian women who have non-Christian husbands.

    “full of…”

    Why, Doug? How did this happen?

  23. jsolbakken says:

    Seems like the word “responsible” means liable to respond with a response. If your baby needs a fresh diaper, the parent is responsible for changing it, even though it’s the baby’s fault, and nobody is to blame.

    “If one of his parishioners punches him on the nose, is Wilson responsible for it? Or does his responsibility stop at the end of his own nose?”
    In that case Wilson is not responsible, but it is his fault and he is to blame.

  24. Scott says:

    I’ll add…

    The tiny, ity-bity, miniature group of men who are still regularly attending church and trying to lead our families according to biblical headship are very standoffish and weary of the clergy. We go to church, but are not very inclined to discuss matters of how to faithfully lead our families because we are concerned we will be second guessed about every decision we make.

    And so, when mainstream groups of male leadership put together conferences on “patriarchy” (The Orthodox church has one coming up in Chicago. It is promissing, but…) please have a tiny bit of humility, step back and understand why we, the fathers in the pews raise an eyebrow suspiciously and ask “what to you mean by ‘lead’ this time?”

    Because catchphrases like “crisis of male leadership” and so on sound very familiar to us.

    Every one of these movements from “Promise Keepers” to “Men Stepping Up” is just another scorn. Another attack. Another way of saying “men lead! (But not like that!)”

  25. Paul says:

    Very nice analogy with a ship captain. You know how disobeying a captain is called? Insubordination. It is based on positional authority. It is severely punished. You know this example will never happen in real life. You know why? A captain knows he is subordinate to his superior, and will be held responsible. Therefore he will make SURE all his subordinates OBEY him and give them proper commands that cannot fail.

    Now, *IF* a man is a captain, and a wife his subordinate, he will have the authority and means to give his wife commands and punish her severely if she disobeys his commands.

    Of course Wilson with his ship captain analogy is clearly misleading people. If he is mentally confused, incapable of logical thought, or willfully manipulating people I cannot tell.

  26. Dalrock says:

    @vfm7916

    So:

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

    AND

    “Not only is he responsible before God to do his job, he is responsible before God to see that she does hers. And of course, this is not done by bossing her around. It is done through nourishing and cherishing her.”

    are not actually mutually exclusive. Enforce is certainly not nourishing and cherishing. Non-enforcement is also not effective as the last 50 or more years have shown.

    Technically, you are correct. But the reason Wilson is saying the first part is that he doesn’t want husbands telling their wives to submit*. The message is don’t tell her to submit, because it isn’t your responsibility to make her submit. Just be loving and hope she comes around. So not only is Wilson playing games with authority, he is also playing games with responsibility.

    *Another way Wilson frames this is to accuse husbands who tell their wives to submit of jabbing their finger at the Bible telling their wives to submit.

  27. Eidolon says:

    “Another way Wilson frames this is to accuse husbands who tell their wives to submit of jabbing their finger at the Bible telling their wives to submit.”

    I suppose the Navy captain should be criticized for “jabbing [his] finger at” the Navy regulations and telling the young sailor to submit to them and their ordained punishments.

  28. Art Deco says:

    What’s curious about this fellow is that he’s long married and quite capable at institution-building – much more so than an ordinary clergyman. At the same time, he seems hopelessly confused. He’s insisted at times that a large component of his thinking is summarized in this book, but the argments transmitted here are an inchoate mess. What Dalrock is describing is someone improvising as if in an argument.

  29. bdash 77 says:

    it is funny how they always invert it
    at my Church they were teaching men to cook dinner and said that we should not let our wives do the dishes after
    true headship means the husband cooks and does all the cleaning as well

  30. bdash 77 says:

    Most men like this
    most Christian men in church like being the submissive faux head partner

  31. Eidolon says:

    @Art Deco

    It seems like it’s like that wherever you go. Even the Pirate Christian Radio guy did the whole “if husbands loved their wives like Christ loves the church they wouldn’t go wrong” garbage; I was very disappointed. He’s such a stickler for Biblical accuracy in every other thing, has based his whole ministry around it, but parrots anti-Biblical trash in this one area. Stuff that can be destroyed in one sentence, and that he should so thoroughly know better than.

    Recently I’ve been pondering how the entire Christian church seems to be fine with women remarrying when their husbands are alive, when Jesus Himself states that all women who remarry while their husbands are alive are adulteresses. I don’t understand how people dismiss a clear statement from Christ Himself about that. If they can ignore that they can ignore anything.

  32. Mycroft Jones says:

    I remember hearing how in the early days Doug Wilson was big on wifely submission, and all the women in his church wore head coverings, had large families, etc. This complementarian stuff baffles me. Is it the same Doug Wilson? The Credenda Agenda guy?

  33. squid_hunt says:

    @Art
    “What’s curious about this fellow is that he’s long married and quite capable at institution-building”

    Amazing, isn’t it? He has no problem telling YOU to submit to his authority, does he? How dare you challenge the man of God and all that fun stuff?

  34. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary.

  35. vfm7916 says:

    @mycroft

    If he preached then what he preached now, would he have ended up in the same spot?

    Or did it require a veneer of biblical headship first to start the train rolling?

    One might as well ask if the heresy was there from the start or if it crept in later. It does not matter the source when the fruit is spoiled, and the wood is full of borers.

  36. Pingback: Headship tomorrow and headship yesterday, but never headship today. | Reaction Times

  37. Paul says:

    @eidolon: Recently I’ve been pondering how the entire Christian church seems to be fine with women remarrying when their husbands are alive, when Jesus Himself states that all women who remarry while their husbands are alive are adulteresses.

    I’ve been specifically studying divorce and remarriage for years. But the pattern is the same for almost any biblical topic: people will go through GREAT lengths to let texts say the exact OPPOSITE if they don’t like it.

    Case in point: David Instone-Brewer’s “Divorce and Remarriage in the Church”. He argues that Jesus’ commands people must not divorce in Matthew 19 does not mean they CANNOT divorce. And then goes on the argue the “because of the hardness of your hearts” means that these people refused to give their wives a proper certificate of divorce. Their sin was that they REFUSED to PROPERLY divorce their wives. Hence all that is left is to give your wife proper divorce papers, and you’re good to remarry. I kid you not.

    I don’t deny that some topics are difficult and have finer points that need discussions, but in general you should be very careful if you start to arrive at positions that seem opposite to a plain reading.

  38. Gage says:

    “The message is don’t tell her to submit, because it isn’t your responsibility to make her submit. Just be loving and hope she comes around.”

    I have been in a front row seat to witness the spectacular failure of this message. My parents reflect the failure of this mindset perfectly. my mom is a super strong woman who admittedly hates the idea of submission. My dad, one of the most devout and godly men i know, loves her selflessly and is a great husband, father, and Christian. However, he never addresses the issue of her lack of submission. To this day my mom still has not “come around” to true submission.

    “If Christian men had loved their wives as Christ loved the Church, if they had given direction to their wives, if husbands had accepted their wives’ necessary help with their God-ordained vocation, there never would have been room for any kind of feminist thinking within the Church.”

    I read this and my first thought was wondering if Christ, in spite of loving us perfectly, is responsible for all our sins? After all, he is the leader and we are under his authority. We aren’t responsible for our mistakes, it is God’s fault.

  39. freebird says:

    Taking that logic one step further:
    I suppose Christ is to blame for those that know about him and refuse salvation by believing.
    I guess he just didn’t try hard enough or was good enough…

  40. freebird says:

    Doubled with gage.
    Didn’t see his post before posting.
    great minds think alike I guess.
    damn heresy!
    Damn this scott fellow

  41. vfm7916 says:

    @gage

    Yes, the argument falls apart when applied to the headship of God, does it not?

    I doubt that Wilson has enough stones to try that argument, but you can really see the heresy when you put it in that context.

  42. bdash 77 says:

    always
    whenever I point out that their argument falls when compared to God
    their response
    “Jesus washed feet”
    aka men must do anything and be accountable for all the wife’ s nonsense

  43. BillyS says:

    Don’t you know this is a failure by men to be proper servant-leaders? Oh yeah, he now claims to not like that term, but it is exactly what he is claiming. He can only make her do the proper things by properly serving her.

    Once again, note how many preach mutual submission, yet end up only with men needing to do the submitting. They don’t even believe in mutual submission, though they also use it like a club (as Skip Heitzig did on his show today). They go with the spiritual crossdressing Dalrock notes instead, not missing a beat.

  44. BillyS says:

    bdash77,

    Jesus also regularly challenged His followers for their lack of faith. I have yet to hear someone use that in the context of marriage to indicate women need more faith and less brash actions.

  45. Darwinian Arminian says:

    “If Christian men had loved their wives as Christ loved the Church, if they had given direction to their wives, if husbands had accepted their wives’ necessary help with their God-ordained vocation, there never would have been room for any kind of feminist thinking within the Church. Christian men who abdicate their God-given authority, or who feel embarrassed about it, are leaving their wives unprotected.”

    The interesting thing about this line of reasoning is that if Wilson really believes it, there’s no reason that it couldn’t also be used as a strike against the character of God Himself. Think about it: He’s pretty much saying that if a woman’s husband loves her in exactly the way that God commands, the thought of rebellion would never enter her head. Okay. Except that by the Biblical account, we already know of at least one woman in the past who got an offer like that. Her name was Eve, and not only did she have a life that was closer to perfection than any woman will ever know, we also know by her own words that she was well aware of who had given it to her. If she chose to toss all that aside in favor of the one thing that she knew she wasn’t allowed to have, do we now get to say that her actions should lead us to consider that perhaps the love and guidance she received from God the Father wasn’t so perfect after all?

    It’s amusing to watch a pastor explain that when women have a choice between perfection and death they’ll choose perfection every time, because he can only do so by ignoring that the story of his own religion begins with them doing exactly the opposite.

  46. Kevin says:

    People here want the husband to have authority. But the husband has authority (because God gave it to him) and his authority is undermined by the community and church and all these false doctrines. You cannot “make” people submit, your only tools are the nourishing and washing them in the water of the Word. So the husbands effective authority is zero, but the tools he would use still exist. If your wife is rebellious and did not obey, the church and community could help in times past. Now you are left with only the tools God gave (and … I guess for the believers… marriage game).

    I don’t see how we can evade the responsibilities since God gave us the authority and responsibility. I expect He will just be merciful because He understands society conspired to take away the authority He had given us. However, as the authority in these false doctrines is understated, the responsibility is over stated. Since our only tools are the tools God gave us, we are responsible to do the things God has commanded about our wives but not ultimately for their action. We are responsible for doing all we can to help our children to God, but what they ultimately choose is up to them. This is better recognized and understood because it can be said without having to side with the feminine crowd. So, we have false doctrines of authority AND false doctrines of responsibility. Its nonsense and both the ideas have been moved from where God established them.

  47. earl says:

    “Jesus washed feet”

    Well if they are going to take things out of context then you can respond…’Jesus wept’

  48. vfm7916 says:

    You can also respond:

    Did Jesus wash the money-changer’s and sacrifice seller’s feet?

  49. jsolbakken says:

    And, hey, didn’t the disciples have to SUBMIT to having their feet washed? Didn’t they resist at first and argue with Jesus about it, telling Him they did not want Him to wash their feet? And they had to give in and submit their will to His and let Him do what He needed to do?

  50. feministhater says:

    So, MGTOW does have a leader, and it’s Doug Wilson!

    I am offended that you would think Wilson is a leader within MGTOW! He is merely promoting for us at no additional cost!

  51. Anon says:

    15 Reasons to Date a Single Mom! REBUTTED by Stefan Molyneaux :

  52. Lost Patrol says:

    you can respond…’Jesus wept’

    Don’t open that door earl. Crying men is another one of their favorite themes. They’ll just take that one, be off to the races, and thank you for bringing more evidence of how men ought to act.

  53. Anon says:

    Remember that the opposite of Headship is ‘Buttship’.

    That is what these Pastorbators are advocating. Plus, it is evidence of a complete lack of genuine faith.

  54. Disillusioned says:

    He is true when comparing a husband to the captain of a ship. Yes ultimately he is responsible for what may go wrong in his marriage. Where the author’s comparison goes awry is that the captain of a ship has full charge control of the entire ship. He is god in that ship and his sailors know it. If a husband had that kind of authority then perhaps he is to be blamed for his wife’s failings. The problem is that he does not.

  55. Anonyous Reader says:

    Responsibility without authority is a recipe for never ending frustration and stress. It is like one of those experiments where lab rats are given random electrical shocks no matter what they do. It is crazy-making.

    A man foolish enough to allow Wilson into his marriage as a counsellor would soon need a divorce from Wilson. The grounds? Mental cruelty!

  56. Art Deco says:

    It seems like it’s like that wherever you go. Even the Pirate Christian Radio guy did the whole “if husbands loved their wives like Christ loves the church they wouldn’t go wrong” garbage; I was very disappointed. He’s such a stickler for Biblical accuracy in every other thing, has based his whole ministry around it, but parrots anti-Biblical trash in this one area. Stuff that can be destroyed in one sentence, and that he should so thoroughly know better than.

    I first recall hearing this not from a pastor, but from an evangelical laymen once employed as an attorney. He insisted that in his practice no man who ‘really loved’ his wife had ever been subject to a divorce proceeding. This exchange occurred in 2006 and the lawyer in question was at that time 47 years old and had left private practice for a position as a law librarian. It seemed an absurd statement, and not an observation an ordinary middle-aged man would offer or find the least bit plausible. I’m wagering this is a psychological screen at work, and one quite local to a distinct subculture.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Idle thought: I wonder how Doug Wilson would have handled the Jenny Erickson case?

  58. Art Deco says:

    I cannot help but think this man is a cringing nincompoop offering improvisational responses to his constituency. They don’t have to make sense. They just have to keep the complainers at bay a while longer. He panders to bad-attitude women because they’re the ones who bitch vociferously.

  59. Art Deco says:

    A man foolish enough to allow Wilson into his marriage as a counsellor would soon need a divorce from Wilson.

    The whole point of marriage counseling is to bring in a 3d party to harass the spouse who wasn’t pushing for the counseling. They’re divorce conduits. A divorce is not a bad outcome from a professional perspective.

  60. Art Deco says:

    at my Church they were teaching men to cook dinner and said that we should not let our wives do the dishes after true headship means the husband cooks and does all the cleaning as well

    Your Church was pushing daddy’s home cooking? It’s amazing the number of semi-professionals you encounter who give you the vibe that they just don’t have enough work to do…

  61. Cane Caldo says:

    Just remember: The customer is always right.

  62. Sharkly says:

    Ephesians 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

    Doug Wilson: “If a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, of course she bears the guilt of her adultery. But at the same time, he is responsible for it.”

    Would it not be obvious to this Wilson that the adulterous woman was defying her husband’s authority and control, and God’s institution of it, doing the opposite of what she had vowed and her husband and God both wanted, being in full rebellion against both God and man?

    So if The fallible and limited mortal man screwed up by wielding what little control he had over the rebellious wife wrongly, as demonstrated by her getting the tingles for somebody else and committing a sin against the husband and the Holy Spirit who’s temple her body is to be, Didn’t the Holy Spirit F*** up the worst by failing to exercise his irresistible grace properly, resulting in His own temple being royally fouled with some adulterous stranger’s semen?

    If the husband is responsible for the wife’s rebellion, how much more so is the infallible indwelling Spirit of God guilty of failing to keep His own temple from getting F***ed?

    Wilson is making her chain of command guilty, and the head of every man is Christ.

    The way I read the bible, we each bear the responsibility for our own sin’s, and it is possible that others may also become a “Partaker with Adulterers”(Psalm 50:18).

    Psalms 50:17-20a Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.
    18 When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.
    19 Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.
    20 Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother;

    Wilson and his ilk are false teachers. They cast God’s words behind them and frame deceit speaking against their Christian brothers, and they become partakers with adulterers by blaming others for wives’ sins and assuming them to always be the husband’s responsibility.

    I myself have experienced pastors who have excused my wife’s every sin against me and blamed me for all of it. It is my diagnosis that they can’t stand up against the Feminism of this world because they suffer from spiritually undescended testicles.

    Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

    Emasculated manginas like Doug Wilson do not belong in the congregation of the Lord due to their own false teaching. He is no man! And no man of God. I disrespect Satan’s false teaching, and Wilson, Satan’s vessel. And I disrespect all the multitude of false preachers who disrespect God fearing men like me for the sake of Feminism. They’re Satan’s tools.

  63. Tgnido says:

    I have a couple of good friends & after having a headship issue in my marriage & sharing it, I ended up asking if my wife can veto any of my decisions? No response basically, it was quite for a few seconds before the first response but no real answer. They had no opinion for the most part. One thought it was a meaningless question. I disagreed. I think it is a very relevant question to ask married couples. I didn’t say I just ignored my wife’s opinion but in the end, I’m the one in charge so my decision goes. I’m responsible for leading so that means my decision goes, it’s implicate in leadership . You can’t separate the two. I don’t get to tell Jesus I’m not following his leading because I think he’s wrong. He leads, I follow (as best I can), end of story.

  64. info says:

    @Sharkly

    They that are saved:
    John 16:13
    ”When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

    Erring believers will always be brought to heel.
    Hebrews 12:6-7
    ”And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: “My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, or lose heart when He rebukes you. 6For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises everyone He receives as a son.” 7Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?”

  65. earl says:

    Would it not be obvious to this Wilson that the adulterous woman was defying her husband’s authority and control, and God’s institution of it, doing the opposite of what she had vowed and her husband and God both wanted, being in full rebellion against both God and man?

    Or ask to point out where in Proverbs 7 did it say the husband was responsible for the adulterous woman’s sin. If it was certainly the case…it would have been there.

    What was certainly pointed out was her rebellious heart .

  66. DrTorch says:

    I first recall hearing this not from a pastor, but from an evangelical laymen once employed as an attorney. He insisted that in his practice no man who ‘really loved’ his wife had ever been subject to a divorce proceeding.

    Sounds like a ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy.

  67. DrTorch says:

    Just remember: The customer is always right.

    Yeah, I had an older Church friend explain that to me back in 2001. Definitely helped me make sense of things.

  68. OKRickety says:

    “if husbands loved their wives like Christ loves the church they wouldn’t go wrong”

    From my perspective, that, and its variants, is one of the most ludicrous arguments that I have ever heard (and I’ve heard it many times before).

  69. Art Deco says:

    Sounds like a ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy.

    I did suggest to him that the wife’s lawyer isn’t in an optimal position to assess a husband’s ‘loving’ qualities.

  70. Art Deco says:

    Just remember: The customer is always right.

    Probably true that pastors don’t think of the buildings and grounds committee as the customer.

  71. earl says:

    “if husbands loved their wives like Christ loves the church they wouldn’t go wrong”

    Do these pastors think women don’t have free will?

  72. Slightly OT

    The church we attend will be going through a programme (Couple Checkup) for married couples en masse in our small groups.

    https://www.couplecheckup.com/premarital_checkup/sample/GroupCheckupBook.pdf

    This is from the accompanying Small Group Discussion Guide (emphasis mine):

    ===

    Page 11 under the section on “Communication”

    3. Consider this quote:
    “One might suggest that all of the following communication skills and suggestions are really about increasing emotional safety so dialogue can be productive rather than threatening.” (The Couple Checkup, p. 45)

    • Solomon agrees. He points out twice that it’s better to live on the corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome spouse (see Prov. 21:9 & 25:24). Without emotional safety we just tend to hide from one another.

    ===

    On page 21 under “Roles—Traditions, Trends, and Team- work”

    ===

    B. Group Check-In: Ephesians 5: 21-28 suggests a balance in how men and women are to love and care for each other.
    Men carry the responsibility to empower their wives (just as Christ made the church “more” because of his sacrifice) and set a spiritual direction for their home. Women are responsible to work beside their husbands in carrying out this direction. Both are to submit to one another and sacrifice for the good of the other.
    • Some assume this balance of power includes specific household roles and tasks for husbands and wives. What do you think? Does your church have a position on this?
    • How is this similar or different from current cultural expectations?

    1. We tend to assume that men prefer what some call “traditional” gender roles. An interesting finding in our study was that both men and women prefer sharing tasks and decision-making equally based on interests and ability (egalitarian roles) rather than gender. Figure 7.4 (page 136) shows that couples are four times more likely to be happy when both partners view the relationship as egalitarian and are four times more likely to be unhappy when both partners view it as traditional.
    • Why do you think this is?

    2. One problem stemming from an unfair division of labor occurs when wives silence their own opinions to keep the peace. Over time they may then emotionally disconnect from the relationship.
    • What advice would you give a woman in this situation?
    • What would you tell her husband?

    ===

    While parts of the guide may be useful, the subtle reframing of scripture verses is disconcerting. Am not sure if I want to go through all of that for the better part of the year with my wife.

  73. Sharkly says:

    Thanks info,

    Sirach 2:1-5 My son, if you come forward to serve the Lord,
    prepare yourself for temptation. Set your heart right and be steadfast,
    and do not be hasty in time of calamity. Cleave to him and do not depart,
    that you may be honored at the end of your life. Accept whatever is brought upon you,
    and in changes that humble you be patient. For gold is tested in the fire,
    and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.

    After 6 years of great humiliation and zero vindication, I do get a bit impatient.
    I also don’t like that the so called “church” has been instrumental in usurping and cuckolding me and taunting me about it in front of my faithless wife, whom they aid and comfort. I struggle with waiting for God to be my vengeance versus letting my zeal for His word, and injustice against my person, wreak retribution on their flesh and blood and stop their mouths, that lie against God, while they pilfer those who seek Him. In my flesh I’d gladly fight them to the death. I fear none but God.

  74. TMAC says:

    Not to mention, the Captain, at any time, can issue an order to any of the sailors under his command.

    I once had a pastor tell me that I would stand before God to give an account of how my family had turned out. In reality, there is no Scriptural support for this. In fact, the one place where God holds such accountability is with teachers who mislead those under their authority. Ironic, no?

  75. earl says:

    I once had a pastor tell me that I would stand before God to give an account of how my family had turned out. In reality, there is no Scriptural support for this.

    True…I don’t remember God demanding an account from Adam when Cain killed Abel.

    I think guys need to start fighting back against these women worshiping/husband hating pastors and their obvious lies.

  76. stickdude90 says:

    I have a couple of good friends & after having a headship issue in my marriage & sharing it, I ended up asking if my wife can veto any of my decisions?

    “Well, if you were truly loving your wife the way Christ loved the Church, she wouldn’t feel it necessary to veto any of your decisions.”

    See how easy this game is? Just make up some BS that sounds Biblical but ultimately dodges the question.

  77. Sharkly says:

    Earl,
    “I think guys need to start fighting back against these women worshiping/husband hating pastors and their obvious lies.

    What do you recommend? I’ve corrected them with scripture and called them fools, false teachers, thieves, and home wreckers. I’d be happy to do whatever God would approve of against them. I pray for them, and against their wicked works. I’m open to new ideas.

  78. Spike says:

    Scott says:
    March 26, 2018 at 3:16 pm
    I’ll add…

    The tiny, ity-bity, miniature group of men who are still regularly attending church and trying to lead our families according to biblical headship are very standoffish and weary of the clergy. We go to church, but are not very inclined to discuss matters of how to faithfully lead our families because we are concerned we will be second guessed about every decision we make.

    And so, when mainstream groups of male leadership put together conferences on “patriarchy” (The Orthodox church has one coming up in Chicago. It is promissing, but…) please have a tiny bit of humility, step back and understand why we, the fathers in the pews raise an eyebrow suspiciously and ask “what to you mean by ‘lead’ this time?”

    Because catchphrases like “crisis of male leadership” and so on sound very familiar to us.

    Every one of these movements from “Promise Keepers” to “Men Stepping Up” is just another scorn. Another attack. Another way of saying “men lead! (But not like that!)”

    -Too true, Scott.
    My own church talks the talk when it comes to men’s sin, but strangely silent when it comes to women’s sin. I thank God for this Blog, because all of the clergy’s silver bullets against masculinity:
    -Servant leadership
    -Mutual submission
    -Headship as abuse
    -Father’s Day ritual humiliation
    -Patriarchy as result of The Fall
    -Women allowed to preach / be in authority over a man

    These have all been tried in my church, and I live far away from the USA. I have seen them coming courtesy of this Blog and have been able to voice a counter when asked why I don’t agree (I don’t volunteer an opinion but will give it if asked).
    The men in leadership positions such as the Parish Council, clergy and laiety fold every time a woman insists on getting her way.
    I also am very wary of clergy and Bible study leaders telling me to think a certain way or run my family a certain way.

  79. earl says:

    What do you recommend?

    What you did is a pretty good list of what to do. Most people wouldn’t do anything.

    I’d be curious to know how they reacted.

  80. @thedeti:

    Schrodinger’s Headship. Good one.

    On the topic in general, I don’t have much to add, but I figure I should make a showing.

  81. CSI says:

    > The tiny, ity-bity, miniature group of men who are still regularly attending church and trying to lead our families according to biblical headship are very standoffish and weary of the clergy.

    There is perhaps the cause of the problem. Women attend church more than men, and take it more seriously when they do. Women are the majority of the pastor’s “customers”. These doctrines are designed to placate women by telling them what they want to hear:

    That married women cannot do anything wrong. If they appear to do wrong, it is because their husbands are doing something wrong which is being reflected through them. Husbands have no right to order their wives to do anything, but if they worship their wives totally, this will inspire their wives to reach their inherent perfection.

  82. Paul says:

    “if husbands loved their wives like Christ loves the church they wouldn’t go wrong”

    That’s a VERY interesting analogy, but let’s take this premise to the logical conclusion:
    “If Christ loved the church, they couldn’t go wrong.”

    That’s outright BLASPHEMY! It is blaming Christ to not have prevented the sin of born-again men AND women (!). ANY pastor who dares to utter such heretical and blasphemous drivel is NOT fit to be a teacher, and should repent. They lack a FUNDAMENTAL insight in the nature of sin.

  83. Paul says:

    Everything Wilson says is effectively turning women into goddesses, who need to be worshiped. It’s disguised idolatry. Some forms of Maria devotion carry the exact same undertones.

  84. Paul says:

    Came across this post, notice the URL header “godess-worship”. Talking about idolatry.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/arjuna-ardagh/goddess-worship_b_660896.html

    “When you learn how to pay attention to the essence of the feminine in this way, you fall to the floor in full body prostration, tears soaking your cheeks and clothes, and you wonder how you could have ever taken Her, in all of Her forms, for granted even for a second.”

    “First, do what I did, and create an altar in your room dedicated to Divine Feminine.”
    “Yes, worship. Adoration. Devotion. Offer up rose petals. Offer poems. Offer everything, and beg Her to reveal Her innermost essence to you.”
    “The second way to get started: make a practice, a discipline, of telling your woman, or any woman, ten times a day something which you adore about her. ”

    I wonder how many women would LOVE this, and how many women would consider this blasphemous and tell their husband to repent.

  85. bdash 77 says:

    so much consternation about headship
    but the thing is
    men do not want to be the heads
    they do not want to have the awkward conversations with their female partners
    so Pastors cater to this
    even at Doug;s church the older women praise the young men for looking after the babies in the creche so that their wives maybe fed with the word ( instead of husbands being fed and then teaching their wives….and their wives enabling that by caring for the children)

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/will-you-still-work-when-the-baby-is-born/

    This is the new norm
    men want to be the submissive supportive helpmeet
    the authors husband boasts on instagram on how he cooks the dinners and takes care of the newborns all night and feeds pumped breastmilk so that he can demonstrate servant leadership and support his wife’s career ( attends Chandlers church)

    At my church women always steer the conversation to when they will return to work, will their husbands support them. During lunches while they are holding the baby- call out to their husbands to take do the diapers and feeding because their husbands need to “servant lead”

    and now young men in church expect this
    the 50/50 gender neutral or role reversal marriage is the norm and expected

    they know the husband is the FAUX head and the wife is the TRUE head

  86. bdash77:

    I do 80% of the housework and will be taking on more because my wife is in her first trimester. When our firstborn arrives (God willing), there is some expectation that I will have to change the diapers and feed the newborn / baby (like what you described). As much as I have been red-pilled, I cannot tear myself away, mentally and emotionally, from doing more as a husband because of my love for my wife. I sometimes wish I can have more in my tank to plan, consider and execute plans for my family as the head of it. Husbands need support but most of the time I find myself alone in the trenches.

  87. I picture the “Jesus*” of Wilson’s Gospel as being a henpecked (by the “church”) wimp who must hang on the cross for eternity to cover the guiltiness of “his” whore wife. If the “church” fails well it’s “his” fault and “he” needs to crawl back on that cross to set things right.

    *pagan “Jesus”

  88. bdash 77 says:

    @chokingonredpills
    yup
    that is pretty much the expectation of western men nowadays
    exactly the same as the secular culture
    in other cultures or even 40 years ago in the west a woman expecting her husband to do 80% of her responsibilities and not feed her own baby would be mocked for being lazy….

    no wonder Asia is taking over , western men are busy “loving their wives” while Asians are getting things done and subduing the earth because their wives support them

    but yeah this does feed into this idea that “loving your wives” is basically role reversal

    instead of fulfilling your role by providing, leading and protecting ( which is what loving your wives used to be)

  89. bdash 77 says:

    @Chokingonredpills
    looking at your other comments it is no wonder your wife is not doing much and you are her domestic helpmeet
    your church is teaching you that…

  90. bdash 77 says:

    I read your couple therapy document
    it says gender roles are assumed not bible based
    funnily at the end it says without effort, couples naturally adopt gender divided roles….
    funny is it not?
    they are actively trying to oppose and train men and women to behave opposite to how we are naturally made

    as I said before men want this, they want to be whipped and we have an example right here that happily attends these classes teaching men to submit to their wives

  91. Paul says:

    @bdash: men do not want to be the heads

    Well, they ARE heads. They have been decepted by churches and by society to believe otherwise.

  92. bdash 77 says:

    @Paul
    then why do men write books training men to be excellent help meet wives?
    I read that book Chokinonredpills is studying at his church
    all it does it attacks men
    but it is written by men

  93. Paul says:

    Related to male headship: it is significant that God made a covenant with Abraham and his “descendants” by the sign of MALE circumcision.

    Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with money shall be surely circumcised, and my covenant shall be on your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male, who shall not be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall be utterly destroyed from its family, for he has broken my covenant.

    Note that the covenant is NOT strictly with descendants only, but includes members of his household, including slaves and their descendants.

    “my covenant shall be on your flesh for an everlasting covenant.”
    The covenant is with males, but I would argue extends to females when bound to a covenant man.

    “7 And I will establish my covenant between thee and thy seed after thee, to their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou sojournest, even all the land of Chanaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be to them a God.”

    Part of the covenant is that everyone under the covenant will have the Lord as their God.

    Interestingly, St. Paul writes
    Gal 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
    26 for in Christ Jesus you are all **sons** of God, through faith.
    29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    The Greek really has “sons” in v.26.

    I still do wonder if we too quickly assume we should everywhere where we read “brothers” should read “brothers and sisters”.

  94. Sharkly says:

    “I’d be curious to know how they reacted.

    Sorry, I typed out a long response, with specific instances, but my browser/ISP lost it before I could finish it. It was therapeutic, but I don’t have time to type that all out again, so I’ll just give some synopsis.

    Oddly enough most of them initially want to debate the scriptures with me, but quickly find themselves unable to support their heresies from the Bible, and unable to explain away the passages that make clear God’s intentions. Often they’ll claim that they don’t agree with my “interpretation” of a passage that I’ve only read, and not interpreted in any way. I point out to them that I have not interpreted anything, and that they in fact don’t agree with what their own ears have just plainly heard from God’s Word. After finding themselves losing the scriptural debate they like to revert back into their theories and psychobabble and claim that the fact that my marriage is so bad is proof positive that I can’t be right. They then give the anecdote of some pussy worshipper they know who has a great marriage and family as proof that the pussy worship is the answer to my marriage woes.
    I’m a fairly formidable man so I call them false teachers to their faces and although they may start sounding irritated, they don’t usually want to escalate things with me. One tough little guy did say some sh1t as he was walking off, but when I came after him and got in his grill standing over him he got scared and scampered off spouting crazy threats.
    I find that these cowards who won’t stand up against Feminism in society, Aren’t interested in a fair fight with a real man either. I’m not a brawler, and I’ve never fought, but I apparently scare the piss out of the false teachers.(shows a lack of faith) They also can’t hold their own in a fair debate, with somebody who knows the Bible and is not afraid to call them a fraud, and they much prefer to preach to a fawning audience.
    Judges 14:18b-19a If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil,
    After they’ve plowed with my heifer, they don’t want to find out whether the Spirit of the Lord will protect them, or whether He will give them over to destruction. It is like they know they’ve done wrong! I also find it interesting that a group of 30 men coming between one man and his wife is a crime for which the Holy Spirit chose to kill 30 men to atone for. God seems to take marriage seriously. I likewise never disparage these false teachers in front of their wives, even though they’ve done it to me. I treat them, like they should have treated me.

    FYI I recently discovered my wife has “Intimacy Anorexia” and she subconsciously yet intentionally sabotages our marriage to avoid emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy. She has chosen to divorce me rather than get therapy for her condition.(stemming from childhood, not her spouse) However, she claims to want to reconcile, but seems interested in reenacting the movie “Fireproof” and getting the Feminist Twelve Days of Christmas in exchange for publicly charging me with being a danger to my own sons. I feel that, contrary to her claims, she does not follow Christ, and that she can reconcile to me any time she choses, since she is the one who filed the pack of lies in the first place. I know I’d be much happier divorced, but I also know that this life is about Christ and Him crucified, it isn’t about what I want. Plus I know that my boys deserve to have a Godly father in their life every day, not just some days. So pray with me, for my wife, that God would cause her blinded eyes to see, and her deaf ears to hear, and her heart to turn to the right.

  95. Pingback: Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?

  96. squid_hunt says:

    @chokingonredpills
    My first bit of advice is that you withdraw from the small groups. They are teaching you that your wife is in charge. Then start looking for another church. Immediately. This Sunday go somewhere else. Don’t delay.

    I don’t know how long you’ve been around this site, but I would also gorge on about 50 pages of Dalrock’s writings. Ignore the comments. Just swim into the writing and stay until you get good and pissed off.

    You are the head of your house. This obsession with how you run your home is due to perverted pastors that are lusting after other men’s wives. They’re all losers and they think they can take over your home and dominate you. That’s all it is.

    Until you see yourself as the captain of your home, you’re not going to be able to correct anything else. A captain doesn’t do what he does because he’s in charge. He does it because he’s responsible for everyone under him to the one above him.

    It’s not your wife’s job to teach you what is right. God doesn’t whisper secret things to her that he doesn’t tell you. Your job is not to make her happy. It’s to make her a suitable wife for you as a man of God and also to provide for her.

    There are so many lies bound up in this marriage mess, the only thing to do is start unravelling them one knot at at a time with the understanding that it’s very possible the whole thing can come apart even if you do everything right. The longer you wait, though, the tighter the knots. Be gentle. Be in control of yourself first. But don’t back down.

  97. Paul says:

    bdash 77: then why do men write books training men to be excellent help meet wives?

    I already said that: They have been decepted by churches and by society to believe otherwise.

  98. Paul says:

    @Sharkly: I feel for you. Unfortunately you’re one of countless victims.

    I can only give a small bit of advice: whatever you do, focus on the Lord, and live holy through His strength. Only depend on Him in everything. Be aware that He might lead you through suffering (study 1 Peter). Know that He will form you after His image. Do not let your wife’s sin entice you to sin. Address her sin, whatever the consequences. If possible involve the church according to Mt 18, but only if you trust leadership enough. Pray.

  99. info says:

    @CSI
    ”Women attend church more than men, and take it more seriously when they do.”

    And how many of them will actually take the genuine Christian teaching of headship seriously?

  100. Greg C says:

    So, as the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of The Church, I assume Pastor Wilson lays all the blame and responsibility for today’s unbiblical feminist churches. Christ didnt serve The Church appropriately. He didn’t love them enough. He didnt come through for them. That’s plain preposterous!

  101. BillyS says:

    A men’s group I go to played episode 7 (or was it 6?) of the Truth Project (DVD). I am not fully engaged in the series, but this one seemed to have a decent discussion of submission, unlike most times this is addressed.

    Of course many of the men there were challenged to support that simple concept, which compared God -> Jesus, Husband -> Wife, Christ -> Church.

    Much of the modern error is the fault of leaders preaching bad things, but it is also the men involved already also holding fast to foolishness. It is not surprise (once again) that few men go to church.

  102. jsolbakken says:

    I must be weird, because I always found the verses about chastening comforting, like Revelation 3:
    18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
    19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
    20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
    21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
    22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

  103. RedPillPaul says:

    I wonder how well paster Doug will do when you flip the script on him. Isnt he the leader of the chuch so by his own logic shouldnt he be responsible for the mens “failure” as the men are (by his own teaching) responsible for the failure of their wives?

  104. earl says:

    An affirming related link:

    ‘1. Non-Controlling
    As Henry hints to Anne, a controlling wife stands to crush the spirit of her husband and damage their relationship. Thus, the man who wishes to avoid this type of marriage will seek a woman who is not easily angered, nor will hold grudges against him when he inevitably makes mistakes. The non-controlling woman, Henry implies, is also one who respects the decisions of her husband and exercises cheerfulness in life, refusing to quibble over small, unimportant details. ‘

    It’s a truth since the fall of man…a woman’s downfall is her #1 natural desire…control.

  105. BillyS says:

    Kevin,

    You cannot “make” people submit, your only tools are the nourishing and washing them in the water of the Word.

    The second part of the sentence, teaching the Word, is one of the ways to push the first.

    We rarely teach about proper submission and what it means in practice. We just expect it to magically happen, except that we don’t. The farce would be completely exposed if the ideas where applied to someone who likes robbing banks, but few think things through and thus end up being completely and totally illogical.

    Choking,

    Group Check-In: Ephesians 5: 21-28 suggests

    Note that the use of Eph 5:21 in the stuff you quote grabs the last part of a previous sentence to mix it in with a different thought. It is like taking a flu shot to negate the chance of the flu. These false teachers use Eph 5:21 to reduce the risk that Eph 5:22 will be seriously examined.

    I do 80% of the housework and will be taking on more because my wife is in her first trimester. When our firstborn arrives (God willing), there is some expectation that I will have to change the diapers and feed the newborn / baby (like what you described). As much as I have been red-pilled, I cannot tear myself away, mentally and emotionally, from doing more as a husband because of my love for my wife. I sometimes wish I can have more in my tank to plan, consider and execute plans for my family as the head of it. Husbands need support but most of the time I find myself alone in the trenches.

    My oldest son and his wife were living with me when this happened and he claimed many of the same things when he explained away her lack of doing things. (My mother had plenty of flaws, but she worked until the day she gave birth to me.) Having another child and life in general seems to have changed much of his view on this however. Even she is less likely to expect this now that they have 3 children. It is completely impractical in most cases and is stupid. This is not love, it is enabling a princess attitude.

    Why be a husband when it is a glorified slave?

    bdash,

    no wonder Asia is taking over , western men are busy “loving their wives” while Asians are getting things done and subduing the earth because their wives support them

    They are facing their own challenges. Look at Japan’s stagnation, grass eaters, etc. No society is perfectly following the idea of male leadership in marriage today, and all are reaping the consequences of the modern foolish twisting of marriage leadership roles.

    So many have too much money (and therefore leisure) and can get away with far too much foolishness.

  106. jsolbakken says:

    “So pray with me, for my wife, that God would cause her blinded eyes to see, and her deaf ears to hear, and her heart to turn to the right.”
    Ask and ye shall receive. I prayed for you that God give you strength and wisdom, and that He would work His perfect and loving will in your life and in your family, and that He would bless you according to your own prayers.
    I’m thinking, these are the points where we truly make contact with the enemy, and by calling upon the Name of the Lord it’s like lobbing artillery shells on his entrenched positions. Now if we can only get our tanks in to his rear areas.

  107. Swanny River says:

    I’m praying too, Starkly, for your requests.

  108. Damn Crackers says:

    Feminist interpretations of the Bible are better than those of Pastor Wilson. At least us “evil” men have control and no responsibility over the women they subjugate. The men that Wilson believes the Bible is talking about are all eunuchs in a certain sense, not even in the good sense that Jesus mentioned.

  109. DR Smith says:

    Dalrock;

    I see you are on your mission to convert Pastor Doug Wilson to come on over to your side…..whcih I commend.

    However, what I would like to know whatever happen to good ole’ common sense? If the followers of Crazy Pastor Wilson can’t see the dichotomous language he uses does not make any sense whatsoever, are they worth even saving? Put another way, what is the sense of trying to teach people right or wrong if they can’t even tell dark from light, and have to overly rely on what a Pastor says to tell them how to conduct a marriage then reading it for themselves in the good book?

    Long time ago, my Mom told me something I never forgot – “you are not responsible for anyone’s happiness, they are for themselves”. It made sense to me then, and does today, as well- you can’t predict or control how someone is going to act, you can only control how you react to them and what you do at the end of the day.

  110. Bee says:

    Sharkly,

    “I point out to them that I have not interpreted anything, and that they in fact don’t agree with what their own ears have just plainly heard from God’s Word.”

    Good job, thanks for doing this.

    I will pray for you and your wife.

  111. Ryder says:

    Dalrock, I understood and agreed with your critique before, but you’ve outdone yourself here. The way the argument is laid out and the quotations you’ve chosen to support it make for a blistering analysis of an issue that’s otherwise slippery and hard to probe. Well done.

  112. earl says:

    Who was the entity responsible for tempting Eve? The serpent. Do these false teachers ever point that out or do they think the husband is the serpent?

  113. squid_hunt says:

    @earl

    I know you ask this tongue in cheek, but it may be worth exploring.

  114. Paul says:

    I do not think it is mere coincidence that the idolatry of woman as goddess, with the husband worshiping and fulfilling her every whim, exactly reflect the relationship between “Christ” and “His church” by the churches that propagate this heresy; they usually live for their own pleasure, and think “Jesus” is there to fulfill their needs, and does not mind anything they do, and there are no consequences to their actions. It is eerily similar to the lies of the serpent “You surely will not die!”. They need repentance.

    Just as a wife should obey her husband, so the Church should obey Christ.

    Gal 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

  115. Gunner Q says:

    DR Smith @ 9:40 am:
    “Put another way, what is the sense of trying to teach people right or wrong if they can’t even tell dark from light, and have to overly rely on what a Pastor says to tell them how to conduct a marriage then reading it for themselves in the good book?”

    No sense at all. That’s why you test them first to see how open they are to dissenting ideas. Next time you encounter a Tradcon, give them a couple of Dalrock’s observations and see if they think, choke, or attack.

    http://gunnerq.com/2018/03/12/the-goldberg-test/

  116. BillyS says:

    Not true Paul. Many preaching this garbage will also claim that those in the church must submit to Christ unconditionally. They definitely are hypocritical about it, but much of that is blindness due to giving into the spirit of the age.

  117. DougK says:

    @BillyS – Re: The Truth Project

    I encourage everyone on Dalrock’s site to watch this series (13 episodes). It ties together the hierarchical nature of all relationships from scripture.

  118. DrTorch says:

    Re: The Truth Project

    I am extremely skeptical of anything that comes from FotF. They’ve been facilitating the feminist corruption for decades.

    Not everything is bad, I liked much of “That the World Might Know” series, and more than one radio broadcast along the way. But there is an awful stench about most of their husband/wife work.

  119. Art Deco says:

    There is perhaps the cause of the problem. Women attend church more than men, and take it more seriously when they do. Women are the majority of the pastor’s “customers”. These doctrines are designed to placate women by telling them what they want to hear:

    Disagree. I’ve seen data published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Attendance levels between men and women in countries with higher rates of religious observance differ little. In countries with abnormally low levels (e.g. Sweden), women predominate. IIRC, men at the time of the last set of surveys I saw accounted for 1/3 of regular churchgoers in Sweden. Even in that matrix, churchgoing is much more integrated than other avocational activities.

    I think you’re going to have to look at subtle sociological explanation to understand why churches take on the character they do. Numbers won’t get you there. Catholic churches have a large corps of male parishioners who commonly hold positions of leadership on the parish council and whatnot. The discourse about ‘headship’ is pretty much unknown at any level. Yet, parishes are still run to please women in important ways. That includes musical selections, disregard standing of liturgical instructions, and the characteristics of religious education. In the Eastern Churches, such phenomena are much less pronounced.

  120. Art Deco says:

    That married women cannot do anything wrong. If they appear to do wrong, it is because their husbands are doing something wrong which is being reflected through them. Husbands have no right to order their wives to do anything, but if they worship their wives totally, this will inspire their wives to reach their inherent perfection.

    About 25 years ago, there was a greeting card with the headline ‘The Rules’ and a list of about a dozen precepts. It was a campy bit of business on the guises and poses women take on in domestic arguments. Pastor Wilson has constructed a theology of family life derived from “The Rules”, as if they were to be taken literally.

  121. Rudolph says:

    One of the things I think has come from feminism or resulted from feminist solipsism is the decoupling of power and responsibility. Feminine solipsism doesn’t see or is blind to the idea that power like that of a CEO or ship’s captain isn’t just a prize that vanquishes all troubles and hardships and allows you so solve a problem by making others handle it. Feminine solipsism doesn’t see that the authority of a ship’s captain also comes with responsibility for all of his subordinates.

    I think part of this also comes from our elite having largely abandoned any sense of noblesse oblige but I have noticed that this trend has correlated with the rise of feminism so maybe that abandonment started with feminism.

    But this shouldn’t really surprise us as women are never responsible are they? They don’t even acknowledge their own authority and responsibility over themselves.

  122. Daniel says:

    Complementarians miss the spiritual meaning of “nourish” and “cherish.”

    Cherish means to exhort gently.

    1 Thess 2:3 For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile … 7 But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children…

    Nourish means discipline and warn.

    Eph. 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord.

    A word of correction is usually all that is required. My wife feels it keenly. YMMV.

    Complementarians do not understand why Jesus washed his disciples feet. It was not to teach us to do one another’s chores.

    John 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean … 12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?

    Jesus has already cleansed us of all our sins. But we stand in need of daily forgiveness. Judas was about to betray the Lord, and the other apostles would desert him in his hour of trial. But he would forgive them of this wrong. And he signifies his willingness to forgive them by washing their feet. He teaches them to follow his example in forgiving one another their trespasses.

    Did they understand what he was doing? Apparently not. And neither do the complementarians, when they think that this passage is about role reversal or chores.

    Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. 4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

  123. SaltMark says:

    @ Sharkly

    I pray for you. I know you are injured, but you will be blessed.

    I’ve been through a very similar situation to you with regard to my wife and “church.” It is a very, very painful and lonely trial for a man to endure. Lo, we brothers are with you.

    In my case when my wife filed for divorce she said that she would not fight for custody of our last under aged child – a daughter very close to me and abused by her mother. I had learned over the years my wife, despite her claim, was really not a believer. However my daughter was and is a very strong red-pill, Christian girl who’s read and studied the whole scripture with me for years and years. I sought help from the church not only to no avail, but I learned that under advice the church’s advice and help had my wife change her divorce filing to fight for custody of our daughter. My daughter was 17 years old and was to turn 18 in about 10 months. I had my lawyer employ delay tactics, which he did. With trivial filings he burned up 9 months.

    He also set up an interview between the judge and my daughter to discuss which parent she wanted to stay with. The interview was held in his chamber with my daughter and the court recorder, a woman. My daughter clearly communicated the abuses of her mother and her love for me and my care and love for her and said she would absolutely refuse to live with her mother. According to my daughter, the judge, a man, was impressed with her but disappointed with her allegiance to me. Get this, he turned to the court recorder and asked, “Well Joyce. What do you think?”

    The divorce and custody hearing finally arrived literally two weeks before my daughter’s 18th birthday. In his opening statement the judge admitted that never in the history of our state had there ever been a custody hearing so close to a child’s 18th birthday. In the end, based upon the child’s wishes and her late age he granted me full custody. I praise God for answering my deep, earnest prayers for my daughter. I prayed, like you, for my wife, but it felt to me like praying for the salvation of Satan.

    The insanity of my wife and the church incensed me, so I understand, Sharkly, what anguish you are suffering. The encouragement the men of this blog have given you is rich and sound, but there is nothing that can spare you the pain. You must endure it. I don’t wish to discourage you – you have fought extremely well – but though we can hope and pray for a reversal of our enemies, or an extraction from the situation, many times we must endure it through to it’s dismal conclusion which may be carnal loss or defeat. I often remembered during my experience that sin damages. Sin destroys. It harms innocents who are often left with life-long injuries. Yet God is Lord of the crucible. We are improved by his love and grace.

    Although I would not divorce but was forced into it, after it was over me, my daughter and a son enjoy the blessing of a very peaceful home, unlike anything we had ever known.

    Concerning Wilson:

    Go from the presence of a foolish man, when you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge. – Proverbs 14:7

  124. SaltMark says:

    @ SaltMark

    Ahem. Maybe there’s a proverb that says

    Go from the presence of a man who can’t proof and edit his writing before he posts to a blog.

  125. Art Deco says:

    I sought help from the church not only to no avail, but I learned that under advice the church’s advice and help had my wife change her divorce filing to fight for custody of our daughter.

    Just amazes me. I had a conversation in 2012 with an American Baptist minister in the town in which we were living about an erupting legal case involving a couple in his parish and a third party. He puts up his hands and says: “I haven’t survived in the ministry this long without learning not to involve myself in someone else’s dirty dishwater”. (It was a real property dispute, not a divorce case, btw). It’s very incautious to begin with, countenances something very dubious in Christian living, and advises her to be more contentious than she was inclined to be to begin with. The decline in the quality of the clergy from one cohort to another has been distressing to see. Even given that context, you all seem to collide with the worst sort of fools.

  126. bdash 77 says:

    @ Daniel
    exactly it has nothing to do with chores, yet at the men’s group it is always used against a man when a man complains about his wife’s laziness or refusal to organize her home

    it has gotten so crazy that they now believe that men who do not do dishes or cook etc are NOT saved…
    yeah- and they will not be considered for leadership positions
    ( male only leadership)

    this is brought to our church from the Gospel coalition churches, I believe Chandler’s church has a similar policy where they interview the wives and test how domestic the husband is…

    of course though, working to provide, doing outside work etc are not chores….
    slaving away for a terrible boss to feed your wife and kids is NOT evidence of washing feet
    only coming home and being domestic is

  127. Anonymous Reader says:

    this is brought to our church from the Gospel coalition churches, I believe Chandler’s church has a similar policy where they interview the wives and test how domestic the husband is…

    Any links, PDF’s, copies of sermons, study guides or other pointers to the materials that teach this? It would be helpful to have something solid that says such things, doubly so if it can be traced back to TGC.

  128. bdash 77 says:

    they mostly get it from Tim Keller and Matt Chandler sermons
    both of which talk about how Tim showed a servant heart by offering to be a house husband so his wife could work.
    Matt talks about teaching young men to domestic work in almost all his sermons on young men or dating….
    There he mentions interviewing the wife- does her serve when he comes home from work, does her serve by supporting her dreams and career.
    but I think Dal has addressed Matt here many times
    They make us read their books, Meaning of marriage etc

  129. Sharkly says:

    Paul, jsolbakken, Swanny River, Bee, SaltMark, and others,

    Thanks for your prayers, advice, and encouragement.

    One “Pastor” told my wife not only to divorce me, but to get a restraining order prohibiting any contact or communication. All my “Submission” talk is verbal abuse, don’t ya know. When my wife went to the courthouse they asked her if she might want to try to reconcile, and they told her “that can’t happen if you get the restraining order”. So the civil authorities are apparently more interested in preserving marriages than the hirelings that mislead the “church”. When these false prophets are burning in the lake of fire, we’ll be praising the holiness of God who justly sent them there. Our God is rightly to be feared.

  130. bdash 77 says:

    that is so sad
    yes anything a man says is verbal abuse now days

  131. Wraithburn says:

    @Sharkly

    To see God’s joining wither and die under the salt of the church is a terrible thing. You have my prayers and deepest sympathy.

  132. Not true Paul. Many preaching this garbage will also claim that those in the church must submit to Christ unconditionally.

    I’ve found in many (including myself) the desire to submit to the Jesus of the Bible that they search out in their gross darkness. Not the living and risen Savior who told us to take up our cross daily and follow Him. Serving our honey scripted Romans 1 “Jesus” is always easier up front than taking up His easy yoke because it doesn’t require submission unto death. The children at Mt. Sinai made this discovery as well when they begged Moses to go on their behalf.

  133. bbdash77:

    Thanks. The church didn’t explicitly teach my wife but I thought absolutely nothing has been said from the pulpit about the headship of husbands and submission of wives.

    squid_hunt:

    Thanks. I will continue my search for other viable churches to visit. Until then, we will attend the services and small group for the sake of my wife. It is likely that when the discussion comes about whether or not the small group follows the rest of the church in using the Couple Checkup materials, I will seed some of my thoughts about the revised scripture verses to her. That might prompt her to consider about staying in this church. As for the rest of the men in the small group, I am not sure of the extent to which I should share my views about the questionable materials, given that their wives are present and my wife is averse to confrontations.

    I have been reading Dalrock since 2013 and today, I am still struggling to unravel the knots.

    By the way, I’m Asian.

    BillyS:

    Our plan will be for her to take an indefinite no-pay leave once our kid is born. By then, she will have to “keep house”, given the demands of a newborn and later, a young child. So there is truth about women being saved through child bearing.

    Sharkly:

    Have prayed for your wife and your wife, for God to restore your family.

  134. bdash 77 says:

    @choking on red pills
    you seem really scared of your wife

  135. bbdash77:

    Sigh. Sometimes, I just want to keep the peace.

  136. Paul says:

    @BillyS: Not true Paul. Many preaching this garbage will also claim that those in the church must submit to Christ unconditionally.

    I cannot judge each and every situation, but I have seen this idolizing of women result in putting women’s desires first. They might on paper claim they’re submitting to Christ, but their fruit shows they’re disobedient. It is for instance unbelievable how many churches support women in their desire for no-fault divorces. To claim that your submitting to Christ unconditionally is then only hollow talk.

  137. Robert What? says:

    There is a huge gaping hole of a problem in the example Wilson gives likening the responsibility of the captain to the responsibility of the husband. On.a ship, the captain has the responsibility but he also has the authority. In modern American marriage, the husband has the responsibility but not the authority.

  138. As noted by Robert What? above, the key to the Military Command model is AUTHORITY. If I am the Commanding Officer in my unit, or even just in my section, then not only am I responsible for all that my little slice of the Army (or the Navy, or…) does and doesn’t do, I also am given the authority and lawful means to ensure that the mission-essential tasks ARE done, including clear measures by which to discipline my subordinates when they are NOT.

    I don’t think husbands ought to paddle their wives with the frying pan (think any movie from the ’60s with John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara, or even just “McClintock”), as a general rule, but there needs to be an explicit acknowledgement of the husband’s authority in his own home and specific steps he can take in exercising and enforcing the same.

  139. jsolbakken says:

    If a large corporation offered you the job of CEO, and told you that you would be responsible for all the results of all business operations, but, oh, by the way, you would have no power or authority over hiring, firing, product development, product pricing, advertising, marketing, nor anything else to do with the running of the business, and if results are disappointing you would have to pay back all your salary and punitive damages on top of that and then be sent to prison, would you take that job? I wouldn’t.

  140. Robert What? says:

    @jsolbakken,

    You have basically described modern American marriage to a T.

  141. Art Deco says:

    15 Reasons to Date a Single Mom! REBUTTED by Stefan Molyneaux :

    I quit viewing when he started talking rot, which was almost immediately. It simply is not true that ‘the vast majority’ of transfer payment flows are directed at ‘single moms’. The bulk are directed at the elderly and disabled. The prevalent government program dedicated to single mothers is TANF, which enrolls about 1.3% of the population of the United States at any one time and for which total expenditures are less than 5% of what is spent on Social Security.

  142. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2018/04/01) - Social Matter

  143. Hell, I’d want to get his business card and recommended him to the County’s vice investigation department. An offer like THAT is nothing but “Here: hold the bag for me while I sink the company ship.”

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