She’s the boss, you’re a guest.

As I’ve been looking at more of Pastor Doug Wilson’s books I’ve noticed that some time around 2004 (perhaps earlier*) he added a new chapter to his theology of marriage.  According to Wilson’s new theology, headship and submission doesn’t apply in the sphere of the home.  In the sphere of the home the roles are reversed.  Wilson explains in Chapter 3 (The Wife as Ruler) of the book linked above:

As the apostle Paul is urging young women to marry, he lets a very interesting comment fall in passing. “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14). The word translated here as “guide the house” is oikodespotein. The wife is to be the ruler or despot of the home. This means that when she tells you to take your shoes off at the door, you will take your shoes off—and cheerfully.

He reinforces this in Chapter 4, titled An Honored Guest (emphasis mine):

A wife therefore has true authority over her home which no one, including her husband, can take away from her. She must be obedient to him, as this verse states, but this is a clearly delimited obedience. This can easily be misunderstood or misrepresented, but it is still necessary to emphasize. In a certain sense, a husband (as the head of his wife) is an honored and permanent guest, but he should learn to see himself as a guest. He wipes his feet at the door, he eats what is served to him, and he seeks to conform to the pattern established by her—as she in her turn seeks to honor him. He has authority—where Scripture gives it. She has authority where Scripture gives it…

[In the sphere of the home] he is to delegate and then do as he is told. But as in everything that Christians do, such “telling” is to be done with grace. A peevish wife is no more scriptural than a cantankerous husband. A wife has authority over her husband’s sex life (1 Cor. 7:4). She has authority over his food (Prov. 31:14). She is responsible for his clothing (Prov. 31:21). (She is supposed to stay out of his fishing gear though.) Is the husband the head of his wife the way Christ is the head of the Church? Absolutely. Is he the boss man? Not even close.

Aside from a passing reference to this on one of Wilson’s blog posts last year, I had never encountered this theology.  In doing just a bit of searching I haven’t been able to find the same concept being promoted by the usual complementarian suspects.  In an article from 2007, the CBMW explains that while the wife has authority in the home, it does not supersede headship (contrary to Wilson):

…the wife has a ruling function within the household. This is most clearly expressed in 1 Tm 5:14, which states that wives are expected to “rule their households.” The Greek word here is oikodespotein, to “house-rule.” The verb despotein is related etymologically to the English word “despot.” The wife’s role thus involves a real governmental function. Although the husband is head of the house, the wife functions under him as someone who rules the house. Chrysostom describes her as a “second authority.”(13) In other words, the husband’s headship over the house neither relieves the wife of responsibility nor makes her passive. Nor does it make her a simple servant in the house. Instead the wife’s subordination to the husband expresses an order of authority with the wife’s ruling function carried out subordinate to the husband’s.

The word oikodespotein is also used in the 1997 CBMW article Saved Through Childbearing?, but like the previous CBMW article it does not offer Wilson’s innovation.  It is possible that alternate forms of the word** in question would pull up articles that adopt Wilson’s new theology of marriage, but so far I haven’t found anything that suggests the CBMW has gotten on board with this view.  Likewise, I haven’t been able to find any reference to this in Matt Chandler’s Village Church, John Piper’s Desiring God site or The Gospel Coalition.  From what I can tell, Wilson is over a decade ahead of the complementarian curve in this regard.  So far, this idea seems to only be popular with Wilson and Christian feminists.

If you have any background into the origin of this theology, please let me know in the comments.

*I can’t find any reference to this in Reforming Marriage (1995) or the follow up book Federal Husband (1999).  The first book I’ve seen that references this idea is My Life For Yours (2004).  How to Exasperate Your Wife is from 2015, but it appears to be a republication of Wisdom is a Woman (2004).

**I’ve also searched using the word “oikodespotes“.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Disrespecting Respectability, Dr. John Piper, Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Matt Chandler, She's the boss., The Gospel Coalition, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to She’s the boss, you’re a guest.

  1. thedeti says:

    No other blogger takes the Christian tradcon false theology apart like you do.

    If anything, this shows me how subtle most of the false theology is. At least Wilson is less subtle. Wife as boss at home? Husband as “honored but permanent guest”? When God has imposed on him the responsibility of head of household? All the responsibilities, none of the authority. All the burdens and obligations, none of the benefits and privileges.

    It’s because, as you’ve said before, Christian men are, by and large, deathly afraid of women.

  2. Hmm. I’ve always heard that this verse (and others about the wife’s role) support the idea that a wife should serve her husband and rule her children, but that we tend to do the opposite nowadays.

  3. squid_hunt says:

    Because the concept of owner and foreman are completely alien to our culture…

  4. Pingback: The Third Position – v5k2c2.com

  5. Pingback: She’s the boss, you’re a guest. | @the_arv

  6. stickdude90 says:

    So he can build an entire theology of wifely headship around a single Greek word while ignoring the rest of the Scriptures about wifely submission.

    Every time I read a new post here I tell myself that it can’t get any worse. And then I read the next post.

  7. The Question says:

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

    How does that square with Wilson’s argument? I see no “except in the home, there she is in charge and the husband is a guest” exception clause in that sentence.

  8. thedeti says:

    This is a recent book (published 2015), so it must represent at least some of Wilson’s most thought-out and considered positions.

    According to his Wikipedia entry, Wilson has also authored other books on family and marriage:

    Reforming Marriage (1995)
    Her Hand in Marriage: Biblical Courtship in the Modern World (1997)
    Federal Husband (1999)
    My Life For Yours: A Walk through the Christian Home (2004)
    Wisdom is a Woman And Other Short Essays for Men (2004)
    Father Hunger: Why God Calls Men to Love and Lead Their Families (2012)

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    Who gets up in the dark of the night to see what caused a strange noise?
    Who answers the alarm?
    Who will go down the hall to see why a child is screaming in fear?

    Is it the or the despot of the house?
    Since when do guests have the duty to defend their gracious hosts against intruders?

    Doug Wilson’s writing is truly a gift that just keeps on giving…

  10. squid_hunt says:

    @The Question
    “How does that square with Wilson’s argument?”

    That’s easy. When Jesus is in the church, he’s a guest. He should do what he’s told. And he better wipe his feet and eat what the church serves him.

  11. Nathan Bruno says:

    He has invented a reading that makes him feel so smart, having observed something no one else got. God must have waited for this very hour for Doug Wilson to have come to understand this special thing – that women are the tyrants of the home! – why would any man marry?

    I knew when I started hearing the “agape/phileo” thing held up as this deep mystery that we would see more latter-days dead-language experts.

    First, let’s take the word apart. Oikos is household. So, we starts with the idea that it is a female dictator of the house. Is the reading of dictator like Pinochet going to work here with other teaching in the Bible? Given how much Doug Wilson himself has made a point of clouding plain language, no, nobody gets to be an arbitrary dictator – the Bible does not teach this.

    Is there another place in the Bible that teaches this? Well, it would have to be tied up in that word. Strong’s Concordance says – no, it doesn’t. There are other places in the Bible – e.g., Peter’s letters, as well as how Jesus treated Martha, that indicates it’s the role of the woman to keep the household and get the meals ready.

    Next, although it’s hard to pass from Koine to modern Greek, what do the modern Greeks make of this word? There is no other context in the Bible for it; the Bible doesn’t even like the δεσποτέω for God; there’s an interesting discussion about how they would rather have God as κύριος, which also is used by Greeks for the male head-of-household.

    Now, side note, French: Le Chef is both Napoleon as well as the man who cooks Napoleon’s dinner. However, whereas le chef du cuisine may be tyrannical in how he prepares the souffle, le chef du cuisine had better watch what he says to Le Chef Roi Napoleon.

    So, what do Greeks say today? I looked for this word, and I found it – explaining how to prepare meals and to have a nice dinner party. Thus, I conclude that Wilson has read in a special reading of “despot” that is based on the American English connotation of that word that was not necessarily part of the Greek.

    Further, just because I have to, wouldn’t she then become the servant leader, and, instead of bossing her husband around (as Pastor Wilson describes in an almost masochistic sado-sexual way), shouldn’t she be washing his feet and getting him his every need? What’s not to like in a “servant leader” wife who, as oikosdespota, would be serving 99.999% of the time and only giving you her unfettered and irrational demands only 0.001% of the time? Wouldn’t every husband take that trade?

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    This is a recent book (published 2015), so it must represent at least some of Wilson’s most thought-out and considered positions.

    Heh. Indeed this must be so.

    There is a saying that some of my older family members used to use:
    “Don’t take a button and sew an overcoat onto it!”
    Seems appropriate.

  13. thedeti says:

    Here’s my weak feeble attempt at exegesis.

    Oikodespotein does translate to “house ruler/despot”. I Tim 5:14 is the only place this word appears in the New Testament in the original Greek. This is always translated to English as “guide the house/household” (KJV) or “manage the house/household” (NIV, I think). a

    At least one commentator, Dr. Thomas Constable, says: (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dcc/1-timothy-5.html)

    Placement on the list of supported widows would not be good for younger widows because it would open them to the temptation of idleness as well as inconsistency. They would normally face temptation to use their energy and time in too much talking and getting into other people’s affairs. In short, they would fail to participate in constructive activities and instead become involved in what was destructive.

    “In their visits to homes they pick up private matters and spread them abroad. This is always a snare to those who go from home to home or church to church.”

    In view of these possibilities Paul encouraged younger widows to remarry. In the ancient world most people expected that a widow would remarry. The apostle urged the younger widows to use their strength to bear children and to care for their families, the primary duties of a typical Christian wife (cf. Titus 2:5). The Greek word oikodespotein, translated “keep house” in the NASB, means “rule the house(hold).” Since the husband is ultimately responsible to God for what happens in his home ( 1 Timothy 3:4; Genesis 3:16), Paul must have meant that the wife is to rule over the household under his authority.

    By remarrying, the younger widows would not give the enemy (any accuser of believers) an opportunity to criticize them for going back on their pledge to serve Christ as a “widow indeed.” Evidently this had already happened in the Ephesian church ( 1 Timothy 5:15). In forsaking their professed service of Christ in this way some had turned aside to follow Satan. This is a strong description of the real situation involved in going back on a commitment to Christ.
    _______

    A better translation when taken in larger context is that Paul was concerned that young widows were being gossipy busybodies and this wasn’t good for anyone. So he wanted them to remarry, have kids, and rule their households like the older, commendable wives were doing. And they were clearly supposed to “rule their houses” or “rule their households” under their husbands’ authority. When you look at it in total context, “rule their households”

    –applies to young widows, mainly to keep them from getting idle, nosy, and annoying

    –means for wives to rule the PHYSICAL house and the kids. Doing the usual things wives and mothers do and are in charge of: take care of and rear the kids, help teach and train the kids, keep everyone fed, keep a neat and clean house, tend to the extended family, buy things the house and the people in it need, keep the household things in good repair, replace things in the house that need replacing, tend to the household grounds, report to her husband on what major purchases might be necessary or desirable, and otherwise report to and be accountable to him for the overall state of the house.

    At least that’s what it looks like to me.

  14. Joe says:

    “So he can build an entire theology of wifely headship around a single Greek word while ignoring the rest of the Scriptures about wifely submission”.

    I see this tactic applied more than once as pastors try to justify old-testament style tithing. They’ll take Malachi 3:9-10 to support their stance, and then utterly ignore the entire new testament on the subject of giving. There’s even a Church across the street from my neighborhood that will give you a literal money back guarantee based on Malachi 3:9-10.

  15. Nathan Bruno says:

    Tongue-in-cheek:

    She has the *responsibility* to keep the household orderly, but she does not have the *authority* to force the children to recognize that they should follow her direction. That’s between the children and God; she is not to lord it over them by telling them to listen to their mother when she says to clean their rooms. The children, in this way, are like a sailor who knows the date certain he is out of service – when they turn 18 – but the mother will be judged, forever, being oikosdespota, because she is responsible for the children’s rooms being clean, even if the children are at fault, it will ruin her career.

  16. bdash 77 says:

    @the deti
    yet in site of all these verses
    Christians teach that husbands must do most of the home care to show true love…

  17. thedeti says:

    Or, in the vernacular.

    “Hey, you young widows are sticking your noses into everyone else’s business and generally being annoying gossips. That’s not what you should be doing. You should be doing what all the other wives are doing. Get remarried, have kids, and run your households like wives are supposed to – take care of the stuff in the house, clean it up, make it look nice, make it comfortable for your husband and kids, feed everyone, and let your husband know what needs fixed or replaced. See what the older wives and widows are doing? That’s what you should be doing, instead of wasting time and effort on other people’s business, and in so doing you give Satan a stronghold in your lives. Don’t do that.”

  18. feministhater says:

    Okay, ye Wilsonian defenders of the Faith. Come hither and defendeth your master’s words.

    [In the sphere of the home] he is to delegate and then do as he is told.

    Facepalm

    Christ delegated to his Apostles and then did as he was told…. right?
    The Captain delegates to his first mate and then does as he is told…. right?

    There is no mincing of words now. He speaks with a forked tongue.

  19. Ryder says:

    So husbands are responsible for anything that goes wrong with the family, while simultaneously an impotent guest in the place where the family meets most regularly. Got it.

  20. earl says:

    He probably didn’t even think to expect people to read the verse…get the context…or even see what the next verse said.

    Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and

    give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.

    I said it last post and I’ll say it again…do these false teacher even know about Satan or just assume the husband IS Satan?

  21. earl says:

    No other blogger takes the Christian tradcon false theology apart like you do.

    Agreed.

    We can have our difference of theology on here…but the common agreement we should have is the rejection of the serpent whispering into the ear/pussy worship theology. It’s what led to the downfall.

  22. feministhater says:

    So husbands are responsible for anything that goes wrong with the family, while simultaneously an impotent guest in the place where the family meets most regularly. Got it.

    Wilson has so absolutely twisted himself into a pretzel in his zeal to contain the feminists within his mists. No Wilsonian metaphor is too grand to cover every single base of every single meaning that could possibly ever hope to exist in any multi-universal moment in time to disguise what he really means in plain English.

  23. Major Styles says:

    Paul told the goyim to keep their foreskins (repeatedly so). And yet, the gullible goyim ignored him, mutilating his own child’s penis at the behest of Dr. Goldstein.

    At least Luther had the courage to warm the Christian of his greatest enemy: the Jew.

  24. thedeti says:

    It occurs to me that the word “household” included in Constable’s commentary, is important.

    The word most likely derives from property law. The manner in which people occupied (or “held”) land was described as “freehold” (you own it) or “leasehold” (you rent it). Not all land had a house on it, but land that did was either freehold or leasehold.

    So a “household” is the manner in which you “hold” a house. At the very least, you occupy it. You live in it. You use it for shelter and storage. You might own it.

    And that’s a reference to the physical plant and the stuff in it. The physical house structure and the personal, movable property contained within it used for the benefit and protection of the household’s occupants (usually a man, his wife, and their children).

    And the wife’s obligation to “rule the household” means she’s in charge of taking care of that physical structure and the stuff in it, and use it for the benefit of her husband and children.

  25. Cane Caldo says:

    Second try, this time with a closed tag:

    Great post!

    This is pretty standard thinking from the Victorian ear onwards even to now; though I’ve never before seen it passed off as literally Scriptural. It could be older than Victorian. I just don’t know. As you say: Wilson’s innovation here is to disguise recent tradition Biblical wisdom via a trick of translation. He knows not many understand Greek. It’s a good con.

    The idea is that the husband is the head of the external sphere (outside the home, or interactions with others outside the family), and the wife is the head of the internal sphere (home management and intrafamily relations).

    This is the source of, for one example among millions, the idea that men shouldn’t care about the furniture and drapes because that’s all women’s domain; she knows better than any man, and every man ought to bow to every woman’s rule taste. If a man wants to rule his own space, then he is to be rich, surrender the home to her, and confine his errors to a man-cave. (I’m not pulling this out of nowhere. Notice Wilson’s book cover.) Wilson is just twisting Bible verses to scratch ears that already itch in this fashion. And, almost all of the time, almost all men are fine with it; even if that means they are shamed by life in a pink and lacy home.

    Like I said, there are a million of these little “exceptions” to a husband’s headship. We have found as many ways to get men to buy into them even though history and experience clearly show that men are better at all these exceptions: design, cooking, manners, fashion, etc. We’re better at almost everything, period. What St. Paul says is that we leave to wives not what they are best at, nor what we are bad at, but what they can manage. None of what he says means it is not under our for-real and manifest authority.

  26. earl says:

    ‘Said no verse in the Bible ever.’

    That’s why you got to read the bible verse these false teachers point to in full context. Half truths (otherwise known as outright lies) about Scripture is where serpent talk comes from.

    Did God really say the husband is the head of the wife? What about in the home, what about when her feelings are hurt, what about when the false teacher says otherwise, what about when the Hollywood movies tell her EPL lifestyle is liberating, what about when you are in ZIPCODE 12345, what about (it’s current year!), what about if she makes more in her paper pushing job or has a PhD that certifies her in gender studies?

  27. Hmm says:

    I am surprised no one so far has raised Proverbs 31. This passage clearly shows the woman as manager of the household, with two stipulations: “The heart of her husband trusts in her…” (she is trustworthy); “She does him good and not harm all the days of his life.” (she is continually on his side and working for his – their – gain).

    The wife’s authority is a delegated authority. If the husband yields to her in general household matters, that is not unusual. She tends to be the one who cares about household matters in a way he doesn’t.

    It’s also not uncommon in business to delegate authority and then put yourself under that authority in a limited area. Example: A company president hires a quality manager. He puts himself – and his company – under that person’s authority in those matters.

  28. feministhater says:

    a husband (as the head of his wife) is an honored and permanent guest, but he should learn to see himself as a guest. He wipes his feet at the door, he eats what is served to him, and he seeks to conform to the pattern established by her.

    Did that just escape you Hmm? Is the President an honored guest and the quality manager the one who truly runs the place?

    Someone might hire a manager to get things in order but at the end of the day it’s for their benefit, if they need to overrule something they don’t like, the company president can do it at any damn time, morning, noon or night. He rules, the quality manager sings his tune and will be fired if he decides not to.

  29. Dalrock says:

    @Hmm

    The wife’s authority is a delegated authority. If the husband yields to her in general household matters, that is not unusual. She tends to be the one who cares about household matters in a way he doesn’t.

    It’s also not uncommon in business to delegate authority and then put yourself under that authority in a limited area. Example: A company president hires a quality manager. He puts himself – and his company – under that person’s authority in those matters.

    Wilson isn’t saying a husband can delegate this to his wife, he is saying a husband must delegate it to her.

  30. feministhater says:

    This is merely mistaking the idea of the wife dealing with the home, food and children so the husband can focus on other things. It does not set up some other hierarchy in the home that he pays for. He is not a ‘guest’ in his own home. It is his. Christ is not a ‘guest’ in his own Church, he owns the place.

  31. freebird says:

    It takes a special alpha male like “pastor” Wilson to cuck every man in his “fold.”
    I wonder how many married women he’s “put the spirit of god” into.

  32. freebird says:

    Also I have to say in all the years I’ve been reading Dalrock,I’ve sen trolls,I’ve seen false theology from commentors,I’ve seen persistent feminists,I’ve seen “good” women tell us men how to be men,but I’ve Never seen Shills come out of the woodwork like they do for this Wilson fellow.

    Hmm said
    “It’s also not uncommon in business to delegate authority and then put yourself under that authority in a limited area. Example: A company president hires a quality manager. He puts himself – and his company – under that person’s authority in those matters.”

    Stinking shill,you stink of shill with your stinking lies.
    GTFO !

  33. Dalrock says:

    Incidentally, 1 Tim 3:4-5 takes the air out of Wilson’s “house despot” theory. A husband is supposed to rule his house (oikoj):

    4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

    5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

  34. Daniel says:

    The head of Christ is God.
    The head of every man is Christ.
    The head of the woman is the man.
    The ruler of the house (dwelling) is the woman.

    Part of the confusion is the English expression that a man is the “head” of his house or household. Biblically, spiritually, he is the head of the woman, or wife. It implies that they have a unity, like a body with a head.
    A father is not said to be “head” of his children, since he is not one with them. They are to obey both father and mother.
    A man owns the house, and has authority to command all who dwell in it. Don’t like it? Leave.

    Joseph ruled over all Egypt. But he was still under Pharaoh. He was a trustworthy manager who had broad authority delegated to him.

    The husbands authority is not limited. He delegates authority and can stick his oar in if he likes. What part of subject in “everything” is so hard to understand?

  35. feministhater says:

    Incidentally, 1 Tim 3:4-5 takes the air out of Wilson’s “house despot” theory. A husband is supposed to rule his house.

    And isn’t that the whole point? The husband might say to the wife: “I need for you to do X,Y and Z while I’m away on business.” and delegate duties out to her like an employer would an employee. The employee does not then get to turn around and tell the employer to do what they are told. It doesn’t work like that. The wife doesn’t then get to turn around and demand of the husband. She is not in authority over him but managing what he has seen fit to delegate to her.

    If the employee doesn’t do what they were told to do properly, the employer can pull them to the side and reprimand them as is customary when a subordination is out of bounds. At the end of the day, the house is under the husband’s authority and what he says goes, even after delegating housework to the wife.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    It’s also not uncommon in business to delegate authority and then put yourself under that authority in a limited area. Example: A company president hires a quality manager. He puts himself – and his company – under that person’s authority in those matters.

    Bad analogy, because at the end of the day if the company president finds he has hired a would be tyrant, perhaps a quality manager who is not haaaapy, he has the authority to fire said quality manager. That is more authority than any mere husband has. Correct?

    As Dalrock pointed out, Doug Wilson requires every company president to hire a quality manager. Furthermore, this manager must be deferred to forever, no matter what the actual job performance looks like.

    I strongly suggest that everyone go read the free sample at Amazon. Dalrock has not misquoted.

  37. thedeti says:

    Incidentally, 1 Tim 3:4-5 takes the air out of Wilson’s “house despot” theory. A husband is supposed to rule his house (oikoj)

    You made shorter work of it than I did.

  38. anonymous_ng says:

    Several years ago, I was really into old brownstone townhouses, one thing that came up is that it was reasonably common for the wealthy businessman husbands to take lead on the interior design, and to have definite opinions on things.

    And hey, let’s not forget Monticello.

  39. feministhater says:

    You made shorter work of it than I did.

    I think I realise now why many have such an issue with Dalrock criticising Wilson. It isn’t that Dalrock is a pesky little troll of some sort that can soon be forgotten but instead that Dalrock is such a quick study that with a few simple lines he turns Wilson’s many years of work into mere dust.

  40. Oscar says:

    @ Daniel says:
    March 27, 2018 at 3:26 pm

    “Joseph ruled over all Egypt. But he was still under Pharaoh. He was a trustworthy manager who had broad authority delegated to him.”

    The example that I typically use is that of Battalion Commander and Sergeant Major (or Master Chief, if you’re the Naval type).

    The Sergeant Major is definitely the battalion despot, but he derives his authority from the Battalion Commander. His authority is delegated to him by the Battalion Commander. Likewise, the wife’s authority is delegated to her by her husband.

    But then, to believe that, you’d fist have to believe that husbands have authority, so…

  41. earl says:

    Incidentally, 1 Tim 3:4-5 takes the air out of Wilson’s “house despot” theory. A husband is supposed to rule his house (oikoj):

    Yup full context…otherwise you get half truths to justify whatever false behavior you want.

    Now I’m not a great theologian or am the best debater of Scripture however the big thing about Scripture I’ve noticed…there’s nothing ‘half’ about it. Remember even Satan used Scripture against Jesus.

  42. thedeti says:

    It’s not even that Dalrock is such a quick study (even though he is).

    It’s just that the very text and context of the Scriptures themselves disprove Wilson’s claims.

    I’m not a theologian and neither is Dalrock. But the stuff I put up there was easily found in less than 5 minutes of Googling. It took me maybe 30 minutes of “read, think, conclude, write” to put that stuff down. It might not be completely correct. It might be totally wrong. But the text and context of I Tim. 5:13-15 just doesn’t support Wilson’s conclusion that husband must submit to wife in all matters pertaining to the home. My conclusion is that she’s supposed to just take care of the physical house stuff and the kids, subject to the husband’s direction.

    Wilson is doing what many pastors (especially Charismatics/Charismaniacs) do: Find a word or phrase that sounds good, either in English or Greek or Hebrew, take it out of context, and then use it to support the conclusion he’s already drawn before he searched the Scriptures. The Charismaniacs have built the entire “prosperity gospel” on this practice. The Prayer of Jabez (I Chron. 4:10) and Jeremiah 29:11 are examples of this.

  43. thedeti says:

    Scott had it correct a few days ago when he posted that many pastors will often say that, yes, Ephesians 5 means that the wife is to respect/submit to her husband. Yes, I Peter 3 says the wife is to submit to her husband in all things. Except for this. And this, and this, and this…. Until the exceptions swallow up the rule.

  44. Dalrock says:

    @thedeti

    It’s not even that Dalrock is such a quick study

    As much as I appreciate the kind words, this is correct. The hardest part with Wilson is getting past the constant misdirection. Once you have a claim to test it is easily disproven. From what I’ve seen his books are easier than his blog posts, because he is more willing to come out and say things outright. There is a certain logic to this, because his books are far less likely to be read critically than his blog is. The people who pick up (not to mention buy) a book with a cover that mocks husbands for example are looking for a message that puts men in their place while feeling traditional. Wilson doesn’t disappoint, and is wise enough not to teach the same outlandish theology on his blog.

  45. American says:

    “If you have any background into the origin of this theology, please let me know in the comments.”

    Dalrock, I have located the specific entity responsible for the origin of this theology. See the following:

    “SATAN
    noun
    1. the chief evil spirit; the great adversary of humanity; the devil.”
    -dictionary [dot] com.

  46. Dave says:

    According to my sources, the word oikodespotein appears only once in the entire NT (maybe in the entire Bible). A rule of thumb is that you cannot establish a doctrine on a single verse/passage of scripture (you need a minimum of 2 witnesses to establish any matter, Deuteronomy 19:15; 17:6; 2 Corinthians 13:1; John 5:31-47. So it is conceivable that you need more than a single occurrence of a word to establish a doctrine).

    What I understood by the term “guide the house” is this: the wife is the manager of the home, and rightfully so; while the husband remains the leader. The husband, sometimes with inputs from the wife, determines the general direction of the family; the wife handles the details of the home front. Wilson’s theology is heresy.

  47. I wondered how it could be that Wilson and his wife could have so many children if he wasn’t genuine, now i realise it’s because she demanded them

  48. Dave says:

    I believe a pastor will have trouble being faithful to the Word until he becomes financially independent of his congregation. Anyone who desires to become a pastor must first make himself financially independent.

  49. princeasbel says:

    A wife therefore has true authority over her home which no one, including her husband, can take away from her.

    Said no verse in the Bible ever.

    She must be obedient to him, as this verse states, but this is a clearly delimited obedience.

    Even if I agreed that it was delimited obedience, it is far from clear that this verse teaches that. Not every scriptural truth is a truth that lays itself out clearly, and I Timothy 5:14 sure as heck does not “clearly” teach that a wife’s obedience to her husband is delimited. It doesn’t even hint at that, and neither do the verses surrounding it. The passage was talking about how widows, young and old, should conduct themselves- the focus of verse 14 being what a young widow should be, as opposed to being a lazy, gossiping busybody! The issue of female authority is mentioned… Where, exactly??

    So where, may I ask, does this verse “clearly” state that a wife’s obedience to her husband is delimited? I think we all know it doesn’t “clearly” say anything of the sort, and that’s for the same reason it doesn’t even “subtly” mention it: Because it doesn’t even address that subject.

    My opinion is that Douglas Wilson had to find some way to turn I Timothy 5:14 into a complementarian verse. One way or another, there had to be something in there that he could find; Something that would allow the wife to be in charge of the husband she was told to submit to. It didn’t matter what it was, or how desperate it would be, he would find a way. And boy, did he find a way.

    The word translated here as “guide the house” is oikodespotein. The wife is to be the ruler or despot of the home.

    So why isn’t it ever translated that way, Doug Wilson? Why do none of the committees of scholars who translate the Bible ever translate the verse so as to communicate that meaning? Unless it doesn’t mean that, which, of course, it doesn’t, but hey- I found a Greek word that was sometimes used to mean “ruler” or “despot”, so now that’s what the verse means, so now the wife IS in charge of her husband!… Even though it says she’s to submit to him.

    This means that when she tells you to take your shoes off at the door, you will take your shoes off—and cheerfully.

    Yeah, that’s totally written in I Timothy 5:14. Somewhere. I didn’t see it, but Douglas Wilson clearly knows better than me, so I better not challenge him.

    In a certain sense, a husband (as the head of his wife) is an honored and permanent guest, but he should learn to see himself as a guest.

    That…… Is never….. EVER….. Written in Scripture. Never. How else can I say this without screaming my head off???

    He wipes his feet at the door, he eats what is served to him, and he seeks to conform to the pattern established by her—as she in her turn seeks to honor him.

    Oh boy, what an incredible honor to have a woman command me to wipe my feet, take off my shoes, and eat what’s on my plate. God forbid she honor me by calling me “Lord”, and submitting to me without a word. She should rather honor me by treating me a like her little baby son.

    He has authority—where Scripture gives it. She has authority where Scripture gives it…

    I like how he makes sure to qualify each other’s authority to be that, “where Scripture gives it,” when he just granted all this authority to wives that the Scripture NEVER GIVES HER.

    A wife has authority over her husband’s sex life (1 Cor. 7:4).

    That’s not what the verse says.
    I Corinthians 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
    And verse 5: Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
    It says she has authority over her husband’s body so much so that he cannot refuse to give her her conjugal rights. That’s what the verse and its surrounding context means, and that’s all. For the love of God, make an end of speaking when he does.

    She has authority over his food (Prov. 31:14).

    Proverbs 31:14 says: She is like the ships of the merchant; she brings her food from afar.
    …..Yeah. That totally says she has “authority” over her husband’s food. If you can’t see that, well, only fools can’t see it, so you must be a fool!

    She is responsible for his clothing (Prov. 31:21).

    True. That hardly means she has authority over his clothing.
    Proverbs 31:21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
    for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
    It just means she makes sure her household has the clothes they need even when it gets cold.

    (She is supposed to stay out of his fishing gear though.)

    HAHAHA- Oh wait, that wasn’t funny.

    Is the husband the head of his wife the way Christ is the head of the Church? Absolutely.

    Oh, well then that makes your eisegesis okay, because you made a throw-away concession that would undermine everything else you just said.

    Is he the boss man? Not even close.

    Christians’R’cucks. There. I said it. Christians are cuckolds of the highest variety, and they will do whatever it takes to defend that cuckoldry, even if it involves pure, unadulterated eisegesis.

  50. earl says:

    Anyone who desires to become a pastor must first make himself financially independent.

    Or is more concerned with the matters of God rather than the world, popularity, money, or women’s feelz.

  51. Boxer says:

    …his books are far less likely to be read critically than his blog is. The people who pick up (not to mention buy) a book with a cover that mocks husbands for example are looking for a message that puts men in their place while feeling traditional. Wilson doesn’t disappoint, and is wise enough not to teach the same outlandish theology on his blog.

    What you seem to be arguing here is that Wilson is consciously lying in furtherance of more books sold and larger profits. I try to read your articles carefully, and this remark surprises me. It is a much stronger claim than you typically make.

    I think there’s some possibility that you’re right; though it’s also possible that he’s driven ideologically, to such an extent, that his deception is largely subconscious. People have the ability to lie to themselves so profusely that the lies they tell others bridge, to a large extent, their own false state of consciousness.

  52. Boxer says:

    I believe a pastor will have trouble being faithful to the Word until he becomes financially independent of his congregation. Anyone who desires to become a pastor must first make himself financially independent.

    By the time that a Christian priest becomes that successful, he becomes so used to lying that he comes to believe his own nonsense. Also, he has more to lose at that point, and love of money (that St. Paul warned about, coincidentally) becomes a factor in his ability to tell the truth boldly.

  53. Pingback: She’s the boss, you’re a guest. | Reaction Times

  54. Jed Mask says:

    Smh…
    ^THAT^ is *HORRIBLE*!

    Completely UNBIBLICAL teaching!

    Pure HERESY ripping off the true *DOCTRINE OF CHRIST*.

    Read the Word of God (King James Version Holy Bible [KJV]) for yourselves O men and women in Christ.

    And listen to preachers and teachers of the Word of the Lord (like “myself” lol” who will show and teach you the UNDILUTED, UNCENSORED, “unsold”, *RAW*, *PURE* WORD GOD straight from the *SCRIPTURES*!

    May we give kindhearted “reproof”, “redirection” and “affirmation” to the woeful misleading pastors our there *NOT DOING THE WILL OF THE LORD* in their positions in the Church and their personal lives in the world. Amen!

    ~ Bro. Jed

  55. SaltMark says:

    This babble is so confusing and contra-biblical to anyone who even simply and plainly reads the Bible. The tragedy is that it is so beguiling to the sincere new believers who go to him for spiritual leadership.

    What must it take for real believers in the audience to walk away from this man? Must they see, as he speaks from the pulpit, his head rotate 360 degrees on his shoulders, even as his mouth moves and eyes blink?

    Sick ’em, Dalrock!

  56. SaltMark says:

    When I first saw this post I suffered a jolt. I wasn’t aware of this publication, which came out at the time of my divorce, and when I saw the book’s cover it really steamed me.

    Clearly my wife slipped him this picture of me in our home, and in order to avoid paying me copyright royalties he photoshopped it to remove my beard and the zipper scar on my chest. He could have at least tightened the abs some.

  57. Scott says:

    Man those excerpts are really weird.

  58. bdash 77 says:

    they believe similar to this
    https://juniaproject.com/5-myths-of-male-headship/

    leadership is service not being the head

  59. He’s low-T, plain and simple.

  60. Bee says:

    Dalrock,

    Michael Pearl has a similar teaching in, Created to Need a Helpmeet. But what Pearl teaches is not as strong for the wife ruling as what Wilson is teaching.

  61. Cloudbuster says:

    A wife has authority over her husband’s sex life (1 Cor. 7:4). She has authority over his food (Prov. 31:14). She is responsible for his clothing (Prov. 31:21).

    Is Wilson just hoping no one checks his verses? Those verses range from abysmally weak support for the assertions he is making to actively misrepresentative.

  62. Scott says:

    This is the theology behind “if mamma ain’t happy, nobody’s happy”

    Now it all makes sense.

  63. bdash 77 says:

    @Bee
    to be fair to the Pearl’s
    they make it quite clear that the husband is the head

  64. Paul says:

    And to counter all this Wilson-venom; I’ve finally found some church fathers that reflect on women NOT being made in the image of God.

    St. Augustine, On the Trinity (Book XII), Chapter 7 “How Man is the Image of God. Whether the Woman is Not Also the Image of God. How the Saying of the Apostle, that the Man is the Image of God, But the Woman is the Glory of the Man, is to Be Understood Figuratively and Mystically.”

    “that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”

    And Tertullian i(cannot find the source):
    “In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell.”

    ..a bit too strong perhaps?

  65. Bee says:

    Jason,

    OT

    Scroll down for a picture of a female feminist training Salvation Army officers.

    https://juniaproject.com/about-2/

    My bad, sorry to ruin your evening. (The church I attend is not any better.)

  66. seventiesjason says:

    will resign my Soldiership tomorrow morning

  67. Spike says:

    I despair of the message it sends young Christian men:
    ”Abstain from sex throughout your most virile years while women ”focus on their careers” (ahem). Focus on wealth creation (work like a slave). Your reward will be awesome. You marry a wife who becomes….the despot of the house you pay for…”

    It isn’t surprising why the average man hates going to church, as he has to politely endure such rubbish. Nor is it surprising why the current generation of 18-35 year olds shun church, since there is nothing being told to them but to be a willing slave to a woman who is going to howl at you the minute you nod off.

  68. Sharkly says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    “Don’t take a button and sew an overcoat onto it!”
    thedeti says:
    “Find a word or phrase that sounds good, either in English or Greek or Hebrew, take it out of context, and then use it to support the conclusion he’s already drawn…”
    Dave says:
    “A rule of thumb is that you cannot establish a doctrine on a single verse/passage of scripture”

    My Father used to say that God was quite explicit in what was important in His word. Anything important was usually repeated more than once, and one should not make a doctrine out of a single verse. He gave “Storehouse Giving” “Prayer of Jabez” and other examples of doctrines cooked up from a single verse. I think Wilson has taken this to the ultimate extreme. He has concocted a doctrine from a single word that only appears once in the Bible, and depends on Wilson being the divine authority on the definition of that word. LOL He is too funny. The fool!
    He will be under greater condemnation! Perhaps my Lord will not only laugh at Doug Wilson, but will have the humor to burn him in eternity on a stack of Wilson’s own books. As he burns in the lake of fire with the Beast and the other False Prophet.
    And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever
    Pray for Wilson’s repentance, or that God would quickly take back his breath from Wilson’s mouth, lest his works of perversion continue to pile up against his soul. And thanks to Dalrock for pointing out the error of Wilson’s ways, lest others swallow Wilson’s load.

  69. Scott says:

    At seminary, I learned it like this.

    All scripture illuminates itself (and never contradicts itself in the original text). Therefore, “context” is a concept that not only includes the verses immediately before and after a text being considered, but in concentric circles protruding out from there, to include all of the Bible and the overarching story.

    On matters where the reader is trying to understand what the text says about a particular subject, one MUST look at everything it says on that topic, or risk missing an important wrinkle.

    The example given was the gospel story of Jesus’ arrest in the garden.

    If one only reads the Matthew account, you would know that the “servant of the high priest” was struck by “one of those that with Jesus.”

    By reading, Marks account, you learn that the altercation resulted in the loss of the mans ear.

    Luke further explains that Christ actually heals the mans ear.

    And then in John we learn that it was Peter who struck the man, and his name was Malchus.

    And from this template we proceeded to learn how to pour over the texts for illumination. It appears pastor Wilson has failed to use this procedure with predictable results.

  70. pb says:

    “rule the house” — perhaps a better translation (not sure if it is warranted in the Greek) might be “to keep order in the house”

  71. Darwinian Arminian says:

    In a certain sense, a husband (as the head of his wife) is an honored and permanent guest, but he should learn to see himself as a guest. He wipes his feet at the door, he eats what is served to him, and he seeks to conform to the pattern established by her

    Good Lord, to compare this denigration of the husband’s role to being an “honored guest” is still too generous by half. If a host insults their guest, steals from their wallet, and demands oversight and approval of even their most personal and intimate habits, a guest might still have the option of walking out the door for a better night at the local Motel 6.

    For a pastor like Doug Wilson, even a luxury like that is too much to allow. His “guest headship” is a roach trap where the man can check in any time that he likes, but can never leave.

  72. pb says:

    “The wife’s authority is a delegated authority. If the husband yields to her in general household matters, that is not unusual. She tends to be the one who cares about household matters in a way he doesn’t.

    It’s also not uncommon in business to delegate authority and then put yourself under that authority in a limited area. Example: A company president hires a quality manager. He puts himself – and his company – under that person’s authority in those matters.”

    A husband who yields to her in general household matters is a weak husband and the woman loses respect. Ideally they should be a shared agreement on how things are to be done, how the children are to be raised, and so on, or the husband needs to take the initiative and lead his wife into accepting a common plan. If he has no opinion about what tasks need to be done and by whom, then he isn’t really ready to be a husband.

    The quality manager is an instrument of the company president with respect to the product or service — a quality manager has no direct authority over the company president himself, who can fire the quality manager or decide that the guidelines need to be changed.

  73. Sharkly says:

    Hmm Says:
    “The wife’s authority is a delegated authority.” “Example: A company president hires a quality manager. He puts himself – and his company – under that person’s authority in those matters.”

    While no analogy is perfect, I get what you mean. I currently work in Quality and have delegated authority. I can’t frivolously fire the CEO who has delegated authority to me. LOL Nor can I tell him how to spend any particular moment of his day. My authority is limited to what is delegated to me, and if I displease the CEO, even what has been delegated to me will quickly be rescinded.

    Freebird telling you to GTFO, is not encouraging to discussion, nor an opinion shared by cooler heads. I can get that we’re on the same team, and what you’re trying to say, without blowing up because I might read something into your analogy that you didn’t intend.

  74. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Couldn’t help but chuckle at the original title that Doug Wilson published this book under:

    “Wisdom is a Woman”

    . . . Which really isn’t saying much. According to the book of Proverbs, Folly is too.

  75. Wraithburn says:

    To me, that’s the thing about Wilson. It isn’t one instance of him screwing up Scripture. It happens over and over and over again. In different ways and with different details, but it’s too much to simply write off as an honest mistake even if he wasn’t a teacher!

  76. Oscar says:

    @ Jason

    “will resign my Soldiership tomorrow morning”

    Seriously? Why?

  77. Hmm says:

    @Dalrock,

    I would say that Proverbs 31 assumes that the man delegates household authority to his wife. He’s at the gate (at work) trusting her to look “well to the ways of her household.” Note the possessive pronoun. Whose household is it?

    Of course, this is a description of “an excellent wife”. Not many can find one of those.

    @freebird,

    Chill, dude! I was just accepting feministhater’s challenge from earlier. After all, I was one of the ones that introduced the lead subject of these fruitful missives from Dalrock. No need to go all hurt puppy.

  78. bdash 77 says:

    @Hmm
    my church bible study group use the P31 example as a house husband who just sits at the gate supporting the wife’s real estate business and career….

    these are all intelligent people with advanced degrees in STEM….

  79. Lost Patrol says:

    Slightly OT, but still in a Wilsonian vein.

    bdash77 and Bee both find material tracing back to this woman and her theology : Kate Wallace Nunneley.

    From the link provided by Bee –

    “We are a volunteer community of women and men advocating for the inclusion of women in leadership in the Christian church and for mutuality in marriage.”

    “Kate Wallace Nunneley M.Sc. is Co-Founder of The Junia Project and Associate Pastor at Wellspring Free Methodist Church in Bakersfield, CA. A committed Christian and feminist, Kate enjoys writing and speaking on the intersection of politics, religion, and gender.”

    Chicks like this are increasingly our future, gentlemen. You can only accept this or reject it. There is no middle road with women like this.

  80. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    I would say that Proverbs 31 assumes that the man delegates household authority to his wife. He’s at the gate (at work) trusting her to look “well to the ways of her household.” Note the possessive pronoun. Whose household is it?

    Where’s the text about how he obeys her every instruction? You know, the text where he obeys her without question: taking off his shoes when told, eating what and when told, etc. Could you share that part of Proverbs 31 with the rest of us?

    Then there’s the bit about her control of their sex life. Could you point to the relevant Bible quote that Wilson is certain to be using as a reference?

    Lost Patrol
    Kate Wallace Nunneley.

    Eh. Look deeper at their site, they belong to some sort of offshoot of the Methodist denomination. Not mainstream. They are In Southern California. Most of their “advocacy” is blogging. It’s not difficult to find girls like that, complete with beta orbiters.

  81. Luke says:

    The preceding posters have done a good job, particularly in showing how the idea of marital equality is heresy for Christians.
    That said, this to me was obvious, after reading the OP:

    1) If the home a husband pays for isn’t his, where is a place that IS his?
    2) And, why wouldn’t he move to a place that IS his, abandoning a place that has only duties, costs, and criticisms, for one that suits his needs better?

  82. Jack Russell says:

    Lost Patrol, re Kate Nunneley. A committed Christian and Feminist. She cannot serve two masters. Marxism and Christianity mix like oil and water.

  83. seventiesjason says:

    Every church that STARTS embracing this nonsense within a few years is ordaining pastors, ministers, and the like that are gay or lesbian. They corner the conversation and paint traditionalists like myslef into a corner to submit or leave.

    About five years ago the Salvation Army sent a bunch of their youth and teens to the “gay games” to apologize to gay people because the Salvation Army by its stances (following the Bible) “hurt their feelings, and this so unlike Jesus”

    I was annoyed. Let it go. Three months ago a Salvation Army Lieutenant Colonel in the UK (Kirby I believe his name was) had a whole article in the “War Cry” stating he “didn’t believe the Bible” and anyone that wrote letters and questioned this stance was given the dressing down “that we Christians should be open to other opinions” and “will show people we are not closed minded” (will continue to donate to us). Even though Our FIRST Doctrine from 1865 states crystal clearly:

    We believe the scriptures doth given in the Old and New Testaments were direct inspiration from and by God. and that they alone only consitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice.

    This Lieutenat Colonel should have beeen made to recant this position, and if he did not (he has not)? He should have been stripped of his rank, removed from leadership in The Salvation Army and had his cushy pension taken away as well. How dare he say that, and how dare the upper brass of the Army “let him speak his views”

    I was told by fellow soldiers and others that “I was making a big deal outta nothing”

    Every Christmas, The Salvation Army “removes” it statement of marriage from ALL its webpages…..would not want to “offend” the donations in the red kettle. This has bothered me for years. I was told “don’t worry about it”

    Now this?????

    No. I’m done. Within a few years they will be openly marrying gays because “we can’t judge” and from teachings like this that destroyed the Anglican church (the church I was christened in), the Methodist, and others is eating away at the Army.

    This nonsense ruined the Boy Scouts as well. I was told back in 2009 when the ball started rolling with trans, gays, girls and other issues to “not worry about it” and look what happened.

    I will meet with my Officer tomorrow morning. If I am not given a plausible answer to this, I will resign Soldiership immediately.

    I was closer to God and Christ this past summer out in the Adirondacks on that 135 mile hike than I have been in a church in a long time. I am tired of compromising, yet at the same time everyone saying how “bold” they are for Jesus. I have better things to do. Like actually serve Him and Obey Him

    over and out

  84. feeriker says:

    He probably didn’t even think to expect people to read the verse…get the context…or even see what the next verse said.

    It’s just that the very text and context of the Scriptures themselves disprove Wilson’s claims.

    I’m not a theologian and neither is Dalrock. But the stuff I put up there was easily found in less than 5 minutes of Googling. It took me maybe 30 minutes of “read, think, conclude, write” to put that stuff down.

    Remember: churchians NEVER read their Bibles. Wilson could intersperse quotes from the Kuran, Ghandi, Hitler in Mein Kampf, and Mao’s Red Book, among other sources, with Bible verses and his regular readers would be none the wiser.

  85. Sharkly says:

    Jason,
    It sounds like you are leaving for all the right reasons. Hopefully you have some other employment lined up.

  86. feeriker says:

    Has WordPress changed its blockquote tags? I notice that and don’t seem to work anymore.

  87. feeriker says:

    That would be “open and closed angle brackets.”

  88. seventiesjason says:

    Not worried in the least

  89. Anon says:

    So why aren’t these cuckservatives being hit with a tsunami of divorces?

    I mean, they :
    a) believe that female attraction is the sole determinant of virtue.
    b) repel women with their pedestalization.

    So shouldn’t they get hit by a wave of divorces, for which they blame themselves and descend into a spiral of depression?

  90. Anon says:

    Are there still some cuckservative holdouts defending Wilson? Even after this much revelation?

    That is just like those who defended Pastor Donald Sensing, because he ‘defended the country’ which is an entirely unrelated topic.

  91. American says:

    Who says they aren’t Anon? I’ve met many divorced cuckservatives. These usually remarry, in my observations, and often divorce yet again afterwards. Note that leftardists are simply living together in large numbers for a period of time before separating and finding new partners, from what I’m seeing, and these don’t count as divorces.

  92. Marquess of Filthyberry says:

    “Not mainstream.”

    For now. But this stuff isn’t isolated to the occasional gynochapeau or the odd dude here or there with a femdom hobbyhorse.

    (Gross.)

    When you look at the demographic trends, specifically the relative spending power of the emerging singleton or single-lady-with-spousal-orbiter lean-in set, it’s pretty clear most “Christian” organizations will give chase, pander, then auger themselves– and their followers– right into a parallel, chick-“friendly” bizarro-Emasculanity.

    “Eve did nothing wrong, Mary was a single mom, Delilah slipped ‘nd missed his dong.”

    As Dalrock’s essays show, this process is already well-primed.

    Full convergence for… slightly less empty coffers. And some slaked ressentiment.

    Disorder and damnation: free. Such a deal.

  93. Mike says:

    Dalrock, have you ever taken on
    Matthew 5:27-28, which is used to beat every man in every church? Just like accusing all men of being porn addicts, this lust of the heart verse is always a showstopper when used in a sermon connected to the “what about the women” concern.

  94. rachel says:

    ‘Despotic’ housewife makes me think of traditional mamas who wouldn’t let a man anywhere near her kitchen because it was her domain and it wasn’t manly. Instead she ‘commanded’ him to sit in the living room with the guys. She would be ashamed to have him help her as it would mean she wasn’t capable.

  95. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Life has become a freak show. And every day opens a new exhibit: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5907531/transgender-army-officer-hannah-weds-actor-jake/

    A male-to-female army officer has married a female-to-male actor.

    The couple tied the knot with a romantic white wedding — saying: “We’re just like any other bride and groom.”

    Captain Hannah wed Jake in a ceremony that she described as “like a Disney movie”.

    Hannah who will now be ­living with Jake in Army married quarters near her barracks, added: “To me, I’m just another girl married to another guy. As you transition and meet someone new you kind of forget about your past.”

    Actor Jake, 40, said: “We’re just the same as everyone else, with our flaws and ups and downs — but a little bit different.”

  96. Sharkly says:

    Mike,
    Here is what I believe:
    James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill.” If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.

    The point of the law was to convict all mankind of sinfulness. During Jesus day some would say:
    Mathew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
    Philippians 3:6b the Apostle Paul claimed to be; as to righteousness under the law blameless.

    So Jesus was telling people that even when you think you’re fulfilling the Law by not disobeying the prohibitions, you still fall short of God’s required holiness because your heart and mind is corrupted, and as such you are guilty of breaking God’s Law, which functions as a whole. You either keep it perfectly, or you have broken God’s whole Law.

    Matthew 5:27-30 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

    Jesus did not say looking at a woman and lusting was the same as adultery. He said the adultery was “already in his heart”! I believe that applies to all post-puberty men and women. Thus we are all guilty under the law of adultery, murder, and every other sin. He also never said the woman had to be nude and on a website labeled as porn. Your pastor has adultery in his heart when he lets the woman show up to church with just spandex covering her tits and ass, and he says nothing, because he doesn’t think she looks too bad.

    If a bit of lust was the same as adultery, you literally would be better off to rip out your eyes, but none of the disciples or early church took it literally that we should destroy the temple of the Holy Spirit which is our body. None of them ripped out their eyes, or cut off their hands. Some say that the phrase “thy right hand scandalize thee” may even be a euphemism for masturbation.

    Jesus was not implying that one could remove lust through removing just the right eye. It obviously points out the futility of trying to keep the whole law, and He was encouraging all people to realize their need for forgiveness. And that we all, every last human born, are guilty of adultery, murder, and every other sordid sin.

    Sarcastically Jesus then tells us: Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. He is driving home the point that we have no chance at being good enough to fulfill the law. We’ll need to be forgiven! And as we ourselves need to be forgiven, we should not be arrogant before God and refuse to forgive others.

    Matthew 6:14-15 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
    Matthew 7:2-3 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    A second glance, and a bad thought, is a speck so small that they hadn’t even been previously mentioned in the Law of Moses. However it is enough to send anyone to hell. It is my contention that overturning the patriarchal system of marriage that God ordained and teaching others to do so resulting in a 50% divorce rate within the “church”, which God hates, that is a massive log.

    Funny how this deranged and adulterous “church” can justify all manner of evil against a man who has been denied sex by the woman created and committed to being their helper and mate, and left to turn to porn, but the one thing they can’t do is just ask the wife to forgive him, and help him out sexually, even though both of those things are commanded. It seems the damnable “church” is now pushing Satan’s counter offer to every one of God’s commands.

  97. Paul says:

    @seventiesjason: the Salvation Army … Our FIRST Doctrine from 1865

    Well, for all the good the Salvation Army has done, they were quite “feminist” from the beginning.
    Catherine Booth, the co-founder, wrote “FEMALE MINISTRY; OR, Woman’s Right to Preach the Gospel.”

    “As to subjection there needed none, their wills being harmonized
    by perfect acquiescence in the will of their Creator, to whom they were each equally
    responsible. **If woman had been in a state of subjection from her creation**, in consequence
    of natural inferiority, where is the force of the words, “he shall rule over thee,” as a part
    of her curse?”

    “Even in her present state of subjection as a wife, she is only allowed to submit to
    her own husband “as it is fit in the Lord;” her own enlightened conscience being left
    arbiter of that fitness.”

    “The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head
    uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered,
    because she was placed by the order of God in subjection to the man”

    “Now, the “context” shows that it was no silence which was imposed upon women in the
    church, but only a refraining from such speaking as was inconsistent with the words,
    “they are commanded to be under obedience,” or, more literally, “to be obedient:” that is,
    they were to refrain from such questionings, dogmatical assertions, and disputations, as
    would bring them into collision with the men–as would ruffle their tempers, and occasion
    an unamiable volubility of speech. This kind of speaking, and this alone, as it appears to
    me, was forbidden by the apostle in the passage before us.”

    “We cannot discover that an unmarried woman is subject to man in any sense in which one man is not subject to another; both the law of God and man recognize her as an independent being. Even in her state of subjection as a wife the ameliorating and exalting provisions of Christianity
    all but restore her to her original position.”

    “we sincerely believe, that woman has a right to teach. Here the whole question hinges. If she has the right, she has it independently of any man-made restrictions, which do not equally refer to the opposite sex, except when, as a wife, silence is imposed upon her by her own husband. If she has the right, and possesses the necessary qualifications, we maintain that, where the law of expediency does not prevent, she is at liberty to exercise it without any further pretensions to
    inspiration than those put forth by the male sex.”

    “Judging from the blessed results which have almost invariable followed the ministrations of women in the cause of Christ, we fear it will be found, in the great day of account, that a mistaken and unjustifiable application of the passage, “Let your women keep silence in the churches,” &c., has resulted in more loss to the church, evil to the world, and dishonour to God, than any of the errors we have already referred to. ”

    “From the manner in which expositors have dealt with the passages referred to in the preceding
    pages, some making one exception and some another, to an almost indefinite number, ***it is evident they have felt the difficulty of reconciling 1 Cor. xiv. 44, and their interpretation, of 1 Tim. ii. 12, with the general tenor of God’s word without extending to females the right of public speaking in the religious services of the church***. They have, however, with a few noble exceptions, endeavoured to do so by taking these two passages as the key to all the rest, rather than by using the numerous incidental references to female teaching and labouring, together with the evident bearing of the context, as rays of light by which to apply these favourite texts.”

    “We think it a matter worthy of the consideration of the church, whether God
    really intended woman to bury her talents and influence as she now does? And whether
    the circumscribed sphere of woman’s religious labours may not have something to do
    with the comparative non-success of the gospel in these latter days. We fear that it has,
    and that the Lord of the vineyard will require some more satisfactory excuse for our
    timidity and backwardness in his service than the one-sided interpretation of detached
    portions of Holy Writ”

    Short summary: women can prophecy, are not under subjection to man in general, only to their husband when married, and hence can “teach”. All texts talking about silence and not-teaching we should not use to restrict women, because there is no agreement,

  98. Swanny River says:

    Paul, that is interesting to read. To make it topical, one could say Catherine Booth is the boss of SA and the men guests. My conservative PCA believes what Booth does, though we don’t allow women elders or small group leaders, but they are often the real heads because they really believe the same things Booth did.

  99. Sharkly says:

    Mike,
    I’d also like to add that lust is the seed or root from which adultery grows, just like hatred is the seed from which murder grows, and coveting leads to stealing, Etc. They’re the same plant, but the seed is not the fruit. Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    Jesus came to fulfill the law. He never said that people with impure thoughts should also be stoned to death as the law still prescribed for adulterers. He never said if you think she’s hot, you might as well bone her good, ’cause you’re guilty of adultery either way bro! The physical act of adultery is a sin against the temple of the Holy spirit, unlike other sins. The magnitude of the transgression is far greater with adultery than just an adulterous thought.
    1 Corinthians 6:15-20 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
    1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

    Only a fool can’t distinguish between f***ing another man’s wife, and just briefly fantasizing she was yours for the taking.
    Proverbs 6:32-34 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away. For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.

    The “church” using Porn to club men over the head, is pure folly. Been there! I was told I needed to go to a small men’s group to talk about it and get help. I asked the pastor if one of those guys was going to blow me. ‘Cause otherwise I don’t see how it was going to help with my lack of marital sex. The pastor himself claimed to be going to a group also, and didn’t seem to have victory over his lust yet, because he was still having to keep attending the group. I told him it was stupid to recommend to me something that hadn’t cured him. I also asked him, if I needed help with sex, wasn’t there somebody God intended to be a helper and a mate to me? Nutty pastorbater went back to recommending the small cuck’s group for a weekly dose of shaming. Seriously I had to just laugh at the fool. I showed him the following to no avail:

    1 Corinthians 7:2-5 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    It sounds like if there is temptation to sexual immorality, God recommends my wife/helper/mate ride it out of me. I missed the part about the small men’s shame group. Ah but alas I’m just a boorish throwback that takes the Bible seriously and Feminism as a joke.

  100. Paul says:

    Some fresh air from the early church: Chrysostom “Homilies on Ephesians”
    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm

    Some quotes

    “For there is nothing which so welds our life together as the love of man and wife. For this many will lay aside even their arms, for this they will give up life itself. And Paul would never without a reason and without an object have spent so much pains on this subject, as when he says here, “Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” And why so? Because when they are in harmony, the children are well brought up, and the domestics are in good order, and neighbors, and friends, and relations enjoy the fragrance. But if it be otherwise, all is turned upside down, and thrown into confusion. And just as when the generals of an army are at peace one with another, all things are in due subordination, whereas on the other hand, if they are at variance, everything is turned upside down; so, I say, is it also here. Wherefore, says he, “Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”

    “He is no longer setting down the duties of love only, but what? “That she fear her husband.” The wife is a second authority; let not her then demand equality, for she is under the head; nor let him despise her as being in subjection, for she is the body; and if the head despise the body, it will itself also perish. But let him bring in love on his part as a counterpoise to obedience on her part. For example, let the hands and the feet, and all the rest of the members be given up for service to the head, but let the head provide for the body, seeing it contains every sense in itself. Nothing can be better than this union.”

  101. squid_hunt says:

    @Boxer

    What you seem to be arguing here is that Wilson is consciously lying in furtherance of more books sold and larger profits. I try to read your articles carefully, and this remark surprises me. It is a much stronger claim than you typically make.

    The New Testament states pretty clearly that false teachers are driven by money. Once it is observerved that Wilson is being duplicitous by posting different content on his blog than his book, it follows that he is a false teacher and doing it for the money.

  102. Hmm says:

    @Anonymous Reader:

    As far as the man’s “obedience”, I think Wilson may tend to go too far, but remember what I said about delegated authority. If my wife prepares dinner for me, I eat what she prepares, when it’s on the table. I express my preferences but trust her with the result.

    About sexual control, there’s supposed to be a bi-directional sexual “submission” between husband and wife – Paul talks about each “having authority” over the other’s body (1 Corinthians 7:4). This is a mutual thing, not a license for either one to rule the other.

    It’s when things go wrong that I think Wilson is naïve. His books are obviously written to hold up an ideal situation, and not work out the nitty-gritty details of when things go pear-shaped. A lot of naïve theology works OK during smooth sailing, but runs into the rocks when human cussedness causes us not to follow the script.

    I think Dalrock has put his finger on Wilson’s most egregious errors: assigning men responsibility without authority, assuming there are always good intentions on the part of the woman during troubled times, and thinking that when marital difficulties arise hard work on the man’s part can always “fix it”.

    The interesting thing is that, early on, I remember Wilson writing something about a man teaching his wife to submit, and as part of that training, making a decision about some trivial matter that she doesn’t like and using that as an object lesson. Wonder if he would say that now?

  103. Paul says:

    “And yet how can there ever be love, one may say, where there is fear? It will exist there, I say, preëminently. For she that fears and reverences, loves also; and she that loves, fears and reverences him as being the head, and loves him as being a member, since the head itself is a member of the body at large. Hence he places the one in subjection, and the other in authority, that there may be peace; for where there is equal authority there can never be peace; neither where a house is a democracy, nor where all are rulers; but the ruling power must of necessity be one. And this is universally the case with matters referring to the body, inasmuch as when men are spiritual, there will be peace.”

    “She is a second authority, possessing indeed an authority, and a considerable equality of dignity; but at the same time the husband has somewhat of superiority. In this consists most chiefly the well-being of the house. For he took that former argument, the example of Christ, to show that we ought not only to love, but also to govern; “that she may be,” says he, “holy and without blemish.” But the word “flesh” has reference to love— and the word “shall cleave” has in like manner reference to love. For if you shall make her “holy and without blemish,” everything else will follow. Seek the things which are of God, and those which are of man will follow readily enough. Govern your wife, and thus will the whole house be in harmony. Hear what Paul says. “And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.” 1 Corinthians 14:35 If we thus regulate our own houses, we shall be also fit for the management of the Church. For indeed a house is a little Church.”

  104. Paul says:

    @Hmmm: About sexual control, there’s supposed to be a bi-directional sexual “submission” between husband and wife – Paul talks about each “having authority” over the other’s body (1 Corinthians 7:4). This is a mutual thing, not a license for either one to rule the other.

    Well, it has nothing to do with Eph 5:21 which some interpret as mutual submission.

    There is no such thing as sexual submission in 1 Co 7. You GIVE your spouse sex as soon as he/she so desires. Your spouse has authority over YOUR body for sexual pleasure. Having authority EXACTLY means to rule over the other’s BODY. And although it is (usually) sin, you can deny the other, and the other in that case should not force him/herself.

  105. Boxer says:

    Dear Squid Hunt:

    The New Testament states pretty clearly that false teachers are driven by money. Once it is observerved that Wilson is being duplicitous by posting different content on his blog than his book, it follows that he is a false teacher and doing it for the money.

    St. Paul foretold Wilson? Gee, he’s way more important than I figured. Where in the N.T. does this direct reference appear? Anyway, all teachers are driven by money. A man’s gotta eat.

    Getting serious, I’ve seen lots of you guys accuse one another of being false teachers. I can remember Cane Caldo and Billy doing it to someone recently. People don’t get paid for writing on Dalrock, so there has to be some other motivation… like, reading the text through the lens of ideology, for example.

    It’s entirely possible that Wilson preprocesses everything he reads through a feminist lens. You realize this, yes? If that’s the case, then the situation is actually worse than what you and Dalrock are forecasting, because he can’t be bought off. He actually believes this nonsense.

    Best,

    Boxer

  106. RedPillPaul says:

    2 Corinthians 2:17
    Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.

    1 Timothy 6:5
    and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain

  107. Bee says:

    Jason,

    I remembered you were active in the Salvation Army and was teasing you about it.

    But, it is now obvious that you have been thinking of leaving for some time. I commend you for your courage. Whatever your final decision is, all the best to you.

  108. squid_hunt says:

    @Boxer

    If that’s the case, then the situation is actually worse than what you and Dalrock are forecasting, because he can’t be bought off. He actually believes this nonsense.

    What Dalrock described is crass action. I’d say that’s a little more serious than devoted believer. There’s a difference between being wrong due to being misled and being wrong and actively covering for it.

  109. Hmm says:

    @Boxer:

    I think Wilson reads through the lens of “soft patriarchy” rather then feminism itself. You know – patriarchy that is “nice”.

  110. DrTorch says:

    Lost Patrol and others
    Kate Wallace Nunneley Her favorite theologian is Gilbert Bilezikian,

    You can see some of his work here:
    https://godswordtowomen.org/bilezikian.htm

    Bilezikian was a prof at Wheaton College, allegedly one of the most devout Christian colleges in the country; Alma Mater to Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, and so many more (even Wes Craven, funnily enough).

    My point is that church leadership has been corrupted at the source. Not that Graham, McDowell, and Craig are corrupt, but that leftists did to Wheaton what leftists do (h/t Iowahawkblog):

    1. Identify a respected institution.
    2. kill it.
    3. gut it.
    4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

    And of course it’s not just Wheaton. Christian colleges and seminaries throughout the country, and the world, have been corrupted in the same way. And it’s true of all denominations or non-denominations as the case may be.

    And Bilezikian co-founded Willow Creek Church, one of the largest “mega-churches” in the country. A very influential place, with its sphere expanding well beyond S. Barrington, IL.

    So if you’re going to send kids to college (and that’s a difficult choice) don’t just assume that b/c a place still uses the phrase “For Christ and His Kingdom” that they actually mean it. And if you are looking for a church, a popular mega-church may not necessarily be popular b/c the leaders are preaching the Gospel.

  111. Boxer says:

    Dear Hmm:

    I think Wilson reads through the lens of “soft patriarchy” rather then feminism itself. You know – patriarchy that is “nice”.

    As I’ve learned via Dalrock and his regulars, there is very little practical difference between what you’re calling “soft” or “nice” patriarchy and feminism. From my perspective, radfems and “soft patriarchs” (that’s a great term I’m going to start using, by the way) are two ends of a social pincer movement, which is used to crush male solidarity.

    Anyway, we all preprocess sense data, and that includes (especially) things we have to interpret as we read them. To some extent, we all read stuff through a lens. That’s the benefit of having committed brothers like you guys to discuss our various interpretations with.

    Best,

    Boxer

  112. Scott says:

    DrTorch-

    All of the institutions have fallen prey to that. Every one.

    Marriage, the military, seminaries, colleges, the Boy Scouts, churches, whatever.

    What has to happen now is laying the groundwork to either scrape them back, or create new ones.

  113. Patrick says:

    The more I read this blog, the more I realize how much heresy and false teaching there is in the evangelical churches. The theology seems so simple on its face (“believe, repent, be saved”), yet once you get into the details, the evangelical catechism is stocked full of, ahem, interesting tidbits.

  114. Scott says:

    And of course, the point of an institution is to propel values into the future. If you change it from the inside, it ceases to be an institution, really.

  115. seventiesjason says:

    Made appointment with my Corps Officer. For after Easter. He’s “busy” this week getting the Corps ready for Easter. What’s to get ready? Prepare a message for about 30 people. It’s not like the band is going to march on Easter morning, nor are we going to have a meal afterwards.

    Anyways. It’s done. I’m strong enough in prayer, studying Word and deed that I really don’t need a church anymore. Besides…..everyone there really doesn’t like me anyway. Cliques and all.

  116. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason:

    Made appointment with my Corps Officer. For after Easter. He’s “busy” this week getting the Corps ready for Easter. What’s to get ready? Prepare a message for about 30 people. It’s not like the band is going to march on Easter morning, nor are we going to have a meal afterwards.

    Anyways. It’s done. I’m strong enough in prayer, studying Word and deed that I really don’t need a church anymore. Besides…..everyone there really doesn’t like me anyway. Cliques and all.

    I never give advice to those who don’t ask for it, and you seem to be asking for it here. A couple of ideas:

    1. Work a secular job for a while. You’ll likely make far more dough than you’re making now. Once you have a bit of extra, consider opening your own church. You can start this as a bible study in your basement. Do not openly oppose the Salvation Army at first. Start out by offering to augment their ideology with a more serious study of your religious books, and begin pilfering their congregants.

    2. A study of Marcuse will convince you that making a big scene will only serve the interests of your feminist priest (whether he gives himself an imaginary military rank or not, that’s all he is. He is a feminist, and your deadly enemy. Don’t ever forget this.) Therefore, don’t do that. It lets him denounce you and claim the victim. Instead, try to leave on the best terms possible, without making a fuss. That way you give him nothing to complain about when he passes the plate.

    3. If you really want to be destructive, you can stay on the inside, and start sabotaging any meetings or activities which serve feminist ends. There are tons of publications by the CIA online, about psychological operations, guerrilla warfare, etc. Consider yourself the Che Guevara or Porter Rockwell of the Salvation Army.

    4. You don’t seem the type to do this, but there’s something you can do that’s just as effective, and you’re already starting it anyway. Begin constructing a critical theory, at least on your blog, of the Salvation Army. Point out what you’ve seen and predict some natural consequences. If your blog is searchable, then other brothers like you, who maybe don’t have your gift for analysis and writing, will be inspired to do their own work.

    With you in spirit, brother,

    Boxer

  117. Too funny.
    Pastor:”She’s the boss and home, you’re just the guest that needs to pay all the bills and stay behind on the titanic if needed!”
    Ten years later…
    Pastor: “why are marriage rates at their lowest ever? Men must have something wrong with them if they can’t see how wonderful marriage is!”

  118. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    As far as the man’s “obedience”, I think Wilson may tend to go too far, but remember what I said about delegated authority. If my wife prepares dinner for me, I eat what she prepares, when it’s on the table. I express my preferences but trust her with the result.

    Your position is clear. So is Wilson’s, and it’s not the same thing. That’s the point. He advises men to submit to their wives. He endorse female domination, a feminist position.

    About sexual control, there’s supposed to be a bi-directional sexual “submission” between husband and wife – Paul talks about each “having authority” over the other’s body (1 Corinthians 7:4). This is a mutual thing, not a license for either one to rule the other.

    Wilson points to that quote in his text, but chops half of it off. That’s the point. He’s de facto approving of married women using sex as a tool for manipulation, as a means of control, as a weapon…

    Do a search on “dead bedroom” and “deadbedroom”. See what turns up beyond the obvious such as /r/deadbedroom. Explicitily Christian sites such as themarriagebed.com have extensive discussion threads on dead bedrooms, sexual refusal, and so forth. It’s a problem that is easy to find. Wilson’s solution? Make the problem worse.

    It’s when things go wrong that I think Wilson is naïve useless.

    FIFY.

    His books are obviously written to hold up an ideal situation, and not work out the nitty-gritty details of when things go pear-shaped. A lot of naïve theology works OK during smooth sailing, but runs into the rocks when human cussedness causes us not to follow the script.

    A life preserver made of cement will hold up just fine until someone throws it to a drowning man. In that moment of crisis, the true usefulness, the true nature, of that life preserver becomes obvious. This is an analogy.

    I think Dalrock has put his finger on Wilson’s most egregious errors: assigning men responsibility without authority, assuming there are always good intentions on the part of the woman during troubled times, and thinking that when marital difficulties arise hard work on the man’s part can always “fix it”.

    Then Wilson is foolish. He should retire from writing and teaching, because his advice is not just foolish, it is actively harmful.

    The interesting thing is that, early on, I remember Wilson writing something about a man teaching his wife to submit, and as part of that training, making a decision about some trivial matter that she doesn’t like and using that as an object lesson. Wonder if he would say that now?

    Well, you bring up an interesting point. Wilson is pushing 70, his testosterone level may be lower than that of his wife.

  119. jbarruso says:

    Yet by your husband is your restoration. And he ́ shall rule over you. – Gen 3:16

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    Following up on my previous comment to Hmm.
    John Gottman is well known for his work on marriage. I have read research papers online that he wrote in the 1970’s; his “marriage laboratory” appears to have started in the 1980’s. Sometime in the late 80’s or early 90’s as a result of observing many couples he came up with his “four horsemen” of marriage disaster (my term, not his) that had high predictive usefulness: a couple showing all 4 “horsemen” was very likely to divorce in 5 years or sooner, OR to continue on in misery.

    The four as commonly listed now are:
    Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt, and Stonewalling

    But in the 1990’s version “contempt” was more accurately “contempt of husband by wife” or just “contempt by wife”. That sort of change is not at all trivial. It is the sort of egalitarian / equalitarian mindset that conservative feminists in churches are fond of; it’s a version of “Men Do That TOO!” that has the underlying premise of “women and men are the same, except women can have babies”. It’s more “fair” to point fingers both ways. Unfortunately diluting the advice makes it less useful, if for no other reason than this: what looks like contempt to a man may look like teasing to a woman. Because women are not men with boobs.

    To be a bit more detailed, one of Gottman’s more recent books The Science of Trust (2011) included most of his previous work, in fact it was largely a rewrite of previous books, but the final chapter is a blob of feminist “oughts”. Men “ought” to be willing to cede just about any authority they have to women in a family setting, in the interests of keeping the peace. This is harmful, because conflict-averse men who just want a calm house to live in are already doing this and it doesn’t work.

    What brought on these changes?

    Well, at some point in the last 25 years Gottman remarried, and his wife apparently helps him now with his books. Surprise, surprise. Also Gottman is in his 70’s, and his T levels surely have declined from where they were in the 1980’s, this will affect a man’s thinking and emotions.

    Something similar may be involved in Wilson’s thinking.

    tl;dr
    Any man who is not actively pushing back against feminism inside his own head, inside his own family, etc. is passively accepting feminism. This can affect not just personal life, but professional life as well.

    Men’s T level matters. The literature on this is abundant and clear: low T men suffer, they do not think as clearly as they used to, they become more emotional, etc. There’s more than one way to raise T, starting with “just lift, bro!” and going on from there.

  121. DrTorch says:

    Scott wrote
    All of the institutions have fallen prey to that. Every one.

    I agree with you, I just want the evidence available to people.

    And what I should have included in my post is that the reason local churches are so corrupted is that their pastors are being taught these lies and heresies in college and seminary.

    Students trust their mentors (obviously) and it’s very hard for anyone to shake off what they’ve been they’ve been taught at that stage of life, especially when it comes to religion and their vocation.

  122. Thanks Bee, that Junia blog made my eyes bleed.

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    One more thing about this book: going by the free sample at Amazon, Wilson is advising men to submit to their wives, to put their wives on pedestals. As a growing number of Western men know, this is a recipe for disaster, it is the exact wrong thing to do. It will lead to failed fitness tests, more friction, more fitness testing, deadbedding, contempt, fight picking, endless criticism and a whole lot of other bad stuff.

    Ironically, the title of the book turns out to be accurate. Follow that advice, and you will get an exasperated wife…and possibly an exasperated ex-wife.

    @DrTorch
    I just want the evidence available to people.

    Men solve problems. We can’t solve a problem that isn’t defined. Showing other men “look, this has happened here, there, over there, back over there…it’s all around us!” is part of defining the problem. It is absolutely necessary. As Dalrock pointed out a few years ago, it’s like the science fiction movie They Live; putting on The Glasses makes everything clear, but many will resist.

  124. Casey says:

    Wilson is just peddling what sells.
    And what sells……..is Feminism.

    Feminism is a piss-poor theology/cult; but it sells all day, every day.
    Feminism spreads misery like an aggressive cancer spreads death.

    Wilson is the equivalent of a tobacco company, spreading sickness & disease willingly.
    Feminist dogma is his trump card.

  125. Wraithburn says:

    @Scott

    I think that was one of the more revealing things Dalrock has written on this blog. He’s shown the connection between all of the Baptist Seminaries to the complimentarians, the invisible network of thought leaders who’ve gutted the institutions. All the Baptist churches talk about how they don’t have an organization, they’re Independent Bible Believers. And they all get their pastors from these seminaries, that all listen to the same group.

  126. edenswarhammer says:

    I don’t think most want to go where Wilson did because the verse in question commands her to be ‘at home’ and not out about. Christians are well into the role reversal phase where the women works and has authority while the husband stays at home.

    Just to be clear, this is a delegated authority from the husband over the children, servants and household matters. Nothing herein trumps the husbands authority. The point isn’t that he must delegate it to her, its that she isn’t equal to the children in the hierarchy and should be busying herself ruling them well.

  127. edenswarhammer says:

    @seventiesjason

    I am heartened to see you take your stand against the rot. If more men did this the false church which co-opts the saints would wither away and leave room for the true son’s of God to spread the truth.

    God be with you in this next stage of your journey for Him!

  128. @DrTorch:

    The “mainline” Protestant seminaries were converged by 1900. The associated colleges were all completely converged by about 1960. This is actually a centuries old problem we’re only really bringing to light now.

  129. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    What you seem to be arguing here is that Wilson is consciously lying in furtherance of more books sold and larger profits. I try to read your articles carefully, and this remark surprises me. It is a much stronger claim than you typically make.

    I think there’s some possibility that you’re right; though it’s also possible that he’s driven ideologically, to such an extent, that his deception is largely subconscious. People have the ability to lie to themselves so profusely that the lies they tell others bridge, to a large extent, their own false state of consciousness.

    I’m not arguing that he is lying to sell more books.  I think Wilson genuinely likes what he is teaching, especially in his books.  One fact that everyone agrees on is that Wilson’s blog posts on headship/submission are a hot mess.  His defenders fall into two camps in explaining this.  One camp of defenders argues that Wilson is just terrible at writing, and can’t effectively use the written word to express his thoughts.  The other camp of defenders argue that Wilson is being clever by deliberately obscuring what he is trying to teach in order to be able to get past the feminist thought police.  I disagree with both ostensible defenses of Wilson.  I think he is able to communicate via the written word when he wants to.  I also don’t think he secretly wants to teach biblical roles, but avoids doing so out of fear of offending the women in the audience*.

    What I think Wilson has figured out is that so long as he doesn’t offend women, he can pretty much write whatever he wants in books without fear of having his arguments challenged.  When he started his writing career this was the status quo.  Then he started blogging, and learned that he really couldn’t defend the large set of feminist friendly biblical rationalizations he was used to putting forth.  I don’t think he takes his inability to defend his ideas as proof that his ideas are indefensible.  I think he sees this as people on the internet being mean to him.  This is a very feminine response, but I think it is indeed how he views it.  For example after I (and I presume others) challenged his absurd post claiming that women can’t be made to understand that abortion is murder, his post doubling down on this absurd argument included this telling line:

    So say that all this postmillennialism stuff is true, and a thousand years from now we have believing magistrates, a faithful people in the main, biblical laws, and all those unfortunate people who were born with a critical spirit have no scope for their blogging talents.

    I think this explains why he takes great pains to avoid writing indefensible ideas on his blog (vs his books), and also why when he does write on such topics he spends so much energy obfuscating what he writes.

    *I believe the latter part is true, that he is in fear of offending the feminists in the pews and in the comments sections.  But I don’t believe that he wishes he could teach the Bible honestly, if only he had the courage to do so.

  130. Scott says:

    Some universities now identify themselves (you have to look at the fine print on their websites) as “legacy” schools.

    This is a polite euphemism for “yes our original charter was from the [fill in the blank] church but hell no we are not a religious school.”

    Dominican in San Rafael (Catholic) and Pepperdine in Malibu (Church of Christ) are prime examples of this.

  131. edenswarhammer says:

    The “mainline” Protestant seminaries were converged by 1900.

    The mainline protestant churches incubated a lot of the modern SJW nonsense.

    But on the issue of feminism and women worship, ALL the seminaries are converged. The source of this rot got back hundreds and thousands of years.

    But I don’t think we need to replace OR retake them. Seminaries have long been incubation ground for the corruption of various denominations and loose fellowships. The Holy Spirit does not and never did need these human kingdoms to accomplish his work. All they do is create centralized weak points for the devil to exploit.

  132. anonymous_ng says:

    @Dalrock I’m not arguing that he is lying to sell more books. I think Wilson genuinely likes what he is teaching, especially in his books.

    This comment triggered a thought. Wilson is like the people who are active supporters of the USDA food pyramid. Never mind that we’re all fatter than ever. The food pyramid is where it’s at, and if you don’t believe it, and look to what worked in the past, you’re an idiot.

  133. sipcode says:

    Nice catch Dalrock. Wilson is evidencing himself as just another “shitfaced priest” [read: Malachi 2:3].

    While ‘oikodespotes’ –“guide the house”– in 1 Tim 5:4 is clearly ‘to rule’, the context of the verse is to “give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” This ‘reproachfully’ addresses “wandering about from house to house” in v13 and Titus 2:4-5 wives as “keepers at home …obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed [reproached].” It is impossible for a wife to rule her husband at home [as Wilson so claims] if she is to be obedient to him …and Eph 5:24 adds infinite emphasis “Wives be subject to their own husbands IN EVERYTHING.”

    God is not the author of confusion. Who is the head, Dougy Boy? Wilson is just “merchandising” [2 Pet 2:3] his pulpit and his books for as long as he can; his “damnation slumbereth not.”

    Seek wisdom from women? What is Wilson smoking?

    “Who can find a virtuous woman?” Prov 31:10

    “Give not thy strength unto women …that destroyeth kings.” Prov 31:3

    A Prov 31 woman is clearly a keeper of the smooth and wise operations of the home, but the whole of scripture is that it is the man’s house and she operates under his authority “in everything” and he is the one who sees to it that “As for me and MY house, we will serve the Lord” in obedience and wisdom.

    Wilson brings on the blasphemy of the Word of God and wise men must confront this, in Wilson ….and in most of the church.

  134. Pingback: Wilson deflects. | Dalrock

  135. Pingback: What do pastors teach Christian women about relationships and marriage? | WINTERY KNIGHT

  136. Pingback: Blinded by chivalry. | Dalrock

  137. Pingback: Defenseless | Dalrock

  138. Pingback: Feminists conquer the Evangelicals - Fabius Maximus website

  139. Pingback: An invitation to Pastor Wilson’s defenders. | Dalrock

  140. Pingback: A marriage isn’t a military unit. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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