Wilson deflects.

In Dalrockian and Disoriented Pastor Doug Wilson responds to my recent posts If mama ain’t happy and She’s the boss, you’re a guest.  Click through and read his full post, and you will notice that Wilson is careful not to defend the ideas I challenged.  This is an especially shrewd move when it comes to his theology of Christian wives as house despots, outranking their husbands in matters of the home (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…

This is clearly a topic Wilson wants to avoid on his blog, as he even avoids defending this theology while responding to my post about it.  Wilson’s only defense is that he contradicts this teaching later in the same book:

And here are a couple of things from How to Exasperate Your Wife, the book that Dalrock is using to highlight my feminist, or at any rate soft patriarchal, sins.

“The most important word in the marriage vows is ‘obey’” (p. 95).

“If a wife is a servant or a dominatrix, the husband needs to confess his sin” (p. 97).

 

But it is Wilson’s art of self contradiction that is at the root of the problem.  As I pointed out in If mama ain’t happy, Wilson teaches in the introduction to his book Reforming Marriage that the way to tell if a home is pleasing to God is by the mood of the wife!  He paraphrases this theology with the well worn phrase when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy:

Where should the aroma originate? Jesus taught us, with regard to individuals, that cups must be cleaned from the inside out. If we apply this principle to the home, we should see that the “inside” of a family is, of course, the relationship between husband and wife, as they self-consciously imitate the relationship of Christ and the Church.

The health of all other relationships in the home depends upon the health of this relationship, and the key is found in how the husband is treating his wife. Or, put another way, when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

Wilson is shrewd enough not to try to defend this theology on his blog either.  How could he possibly defend something like this?  The bits of Wilson’s theology that I referenced in my two posts are the theology he writes in his books.  In his blog he writes that the problem with Christian marriage is that Christian husbands have foolishly listened to Christian leaders who teach them to defer to their wives to keep mama happy:

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

So Wilson’s defense is technically accurate.  For any given claim Wilson makes putting women in charge, you can find another instance of him teaching that men are cowards for listening to just this kind of advice.  But make no mistake;  this doesn’t make Wilson stand out in the complementarian world.  Teaching men that their wives are holy barometers of God’s approval while castigating men for failing to lead is exactly what complementarianism is all about.

H/T Hmm

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Pastor Doug Wilson, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

138 Responses to Wilson deflects.

  1. DrTorch says:

    For a guy who wrote a book on Introductory Logic, he certainly is comfortable posting fallacies.

    Of course he also wrote a book on using rhetoric for persuasion, so he may be borrowing from that.

  2. Pingback: Wilson deflects. | @the_arv

  3. Damn Crackers says:

    “Or, put another way, when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” Or another way of putting it, “happy wife, happy life!” Fewer evil words have ever been spoken.

    I assume that Pastor Wilson really believes that when Paul says to “submit to your husbands”, it really was the Apostle Paul. Like I wrote in the comments of the last post, how many Christian theologians claim that the “submit to your husband” words in the NT are from a pseudo-Paul and don’t carry any weight?

  4. Nathan Bruno says:

    He retreats from his own wording, and has decided that “honored guest” is equivalent to “true gentleman”.

    He is just spinning now. He should admit his error.

    A true gentleman might fix a broken toilet for a lady, but an honored guest should never have to do this thing. He got it wrong with his glib metaphor before, and he diminishes himself by lying about what term he used in the present post.

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    Wilson took the time on Sunday, April 1 to dash off a quick response, that’s interesting. It’s thin gruel as usual, but should suffice for his followers and fanboys. Pretend that he’s endorsing men leading their wives while providing the nod-and-wink to feminists that says “I don’t really mean it”. Should work well with the over 40 demographic, and that’s where the serious money is.

    Just another case of a tradcon standing four-square for (figure)headship.

  6. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Dalrock!

    Da GBFM has your back! But I read Wilson’s lulzy response, and you don’t need any help from da GBFM.

    lzozozllozzlzo

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nathan Bruno
    A true gentleman might fix a broken toilet for a lady, but an honored guest should never have to do this thing.

    To be a bit more pointed, who will go down the hall in the dark of the night to investigate the sounds of breaking window glass and screaming children? Will it be the “honored guest” or “leader of the household”?

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

    1. A woman has true irrevocable authority over the home.
    2. If the home is displeasing to God it’s the husband’s fault, though he must completely defer to the wife in matters of the home.

    Where do the underwear gnomes come in?

    As for Wilson’s theology, its neither here nor there. It’s BOTH here and there! HA!!!

  9. Gary Eden says:

    Well written post Dalrock; highlighting how Wilson is speaking with a forked tongue.

    living with his wife as a true gentleman

    I’ve always found that men obsessed with being a gentlemen are the worst worshipers of women.

    “If a wife is a servant or a dominatrix, the husband needs to confess his sin” (p. 97).

    Since when was a wife being a helper (i.e. serving) sinful? Wilson is calling good evil and evil good. He is in full agreement here with the feminists. It is not only not sinful, it is the whole reason for her creation!

    Another example of how feminism is at root, rebellion against God. Wilson is cheering them on!

  10. squid_hunt says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    A true gentleman wouldn’t even ask such a question!

  11. GW says:

    “But it is Wilson’s art of self contradiction that is at the root of the problem.”

    Yup. When reading Wilson, it’s best to remember that he enjoys devising odd metaphors which obscure what he’s trying to get at. He also has a compulsive need to discuss all the various thoughts racing through his head, even when they aren’t related to each other or even agree.

    At some stuff point he forsook clarity for wordplay and hasn’t found his way back. My best guess would be he agrees with Dalrock more than he disagrees, but for some reason cannot bring himself to let us know that. His work reads like that of an old crank, so I don’t get too bothered with the idea he convinces anyone who’s reading his blog.

  12. James says:

    Ephesians 5:21 does say “submit to one another,” or in other version “be subject to one another,” however, this seems to be all believers with regard to one another. Hard to imagine a Christian business owner being subject to his employees. If “submit to one another” is directly involving marriage, Paul goes on to explain how this submission is carried out: the husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church and the wife respects her husband – and this is the submission each does?

    So, I’m thinking you really could call this “mutual submission,” but even if this is so, it’s not carried out in the terms these pastors say it is, with choreplay and being a house husband.

    I was reading this passage with my wife the other day, when I got to “be subject to one another,” I found myself essentially telling her, “that doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means,” which would make me guilty of the same thing that certain churchianity writers do to say that “submit to your husband doesn’t really mean submit.” But then later, I reflected that this submission is in very specific terms, and in the case of my wife, she is suppose to submit to me and I am supposed to love her.

    OK, she says wants me to love her as Christ loved the church, sounds like a great idea to her, she’s all for it. Our dialog went something like this:

    Wife: “So, are you going to love me as Christ loved the church?”
    Me: “Yes. And are you going to respect me and submit to me?”
    Wife: “I’m supposed to.”
    Me: “I know you’re supposed to, but are you going to?”
    Wife: “I know I’m supposed to.”
    Me: “Oh, I see” (teasing tone of voice) “but you’re really not going to do it?”
    Wife: laughs.

    So, it doesn’t matter if you call it mutual submission or not, women have a really, really hard time even thinking that just maybe they might even submit a little bit.

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    squid_hunt
    A true gentleman wouldn’t even ask such a question!

    Indeed! A TruGentleman would accept his responsibility without question, even though he has no authority to tell his wife to call the cops or otherwise back him up – that would be making her into a “servant”.

  14. Lex et iustitia says:

    Look, Wilson is a false teacher who tore a divide in reformed circles, and started his own church/cult based off a bizarre theology.

    If you think calling him out will accomplish anything, it won’t. People follow him because of his personality. Unfortunately, his political commentary drives a lot of his support.

    Speak to the audience that doesn’t know or realize how much of a wolf he is.

  15. thedeti says:

    the usual defenses are going to come out, of course.

    “I didn’t say what they claim I said.”

    “They are misinterpreting what I said. I didn’t mean what they interpreted from my statement. I meant something different.”

    “I might have said that somewhere else. But pay no attention to that. Here’s what I said somewhere else. That’s what I meant. Today, anyway.”

  16. bstormcrow says:

    @James It makes the most sense to interpret Eph 5:21 as a heading for all the particular commands to submit that come afterward in verses 5:22-6:9. Just after Paul says “be subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (NASB), he moves on to wives’ duty to their husbands without repeating the imperative (“be subject to”) again. So 5:21-22 literally reads:

    “[B]e subject to one another in the fear of Christ. Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”

    The command to subjection on the part of wives, children, and slaves also comes with commands for those who are over them in the Lord—i.e. husbands, parents, and masters. These commands have to do with how husbands, parents, and masters are to rule/manage/love those under them. Bottom line? No mutual submission here.

  17. James says:

    Another thing is that I do feel like a “guest” in my own home, because my wife has an enmeshed relationship with her son (these are stepfamily issues, and there are other forums where I discuss these things). A divorced/single mother raising a son can end up being a wifemom (a helpmate, not really in a parental role) and the boy becomes a sonsband (whom, by the way, she respects and is subject to, that is, he’s got the upper hand and she puts him in the position of lord of the household).

    I see that actually my wife plays out the biblical roles rather well, being subject to her son (to be absolutely clear, there is no sexual abuse going on) and what looks like parenting can easily be explained as her being in a helpmate role (like Eve) or, if that is too drastic to say, a valet. They are quite emotionally involved with one another, with constant bickering and making up, all the time. Often sounds like a couple arguing.

    What I’m trying to say is that my wife actually has no problem being in the subjected role / helpmate role, but it’s not with me so much.

    And, on this forum, Jason (I think is his name, the one in the Salvation Army) who is looking for a wife, I’d just add a few things to the dialog that has been going on regarding his situation, that nearly anyone you date at your age is going to have kids already, and it would be good to check more closely what kind of relationship your potential future wife and her children have.

  18. Damn Crackers says:

    I better stop posting here. I’ve just learned I’m not a real Christian. I voted for Trump.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/6ad0e15b-951d-3d9f-b6a6-749d0db7b15c/ss_are-%E2%80%98trump-christians-really.html

  19. squid_hunt says:

    @ Damn Crackers

    http://reclaimingjesus.org/

    Yeah…

    “Reclaiming Jesus” is less about condemning romps with porn stars and more about condemning tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to health care and food benefits for the poor, and the shunningof refugees and immigrants. It rejects Trump’s “America First” slogan as “theological heresy,” along with misogyny, racism, xenophobia, and presidential lying.

    How we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the sick and the prisoner” forms Christianity’s radical roots, the document says. It’s a position definitely at odds, say, with deporting young mothers back to Mexico.

    But “white evangelicals are not the only problem…

    Christianity is about getting whitey. And ending racism. Or something.

  20. BillyS says:

    James,

    Eph 5:21 doesn’t just seem to apply to relations between believers, it is about that. It is the end of the previous thought, not a complete negation of the verse that follows it.

    I would tell your wife “I should love you as Christ loves the Church” and ask her if that is good enough for her. Most women won’t accept that, but don’t want to admit to their own sin.

  21. BillyS says:

    DC,

    You were supposed to support Felonia von Pantsuits, one who sold her country out, hid illegal activities, etc. because she is a woman! That was the christian thing to do, don’t you know? /sarc

  22. BillyS says:

    Squid,

    Learn a bit about modern South Africa. It is horrifyingly bad for the whites there. And people don’t realize the same thing could and is happening here, just in another form.

    People need to wake up, but likely will not until it becomes violent for all.

  23. SCC says:

    James- YUUUP! You described it perfectly, inasmuch as I’ve seen the same thing first hand.

    I’d strongly recommend against any man marrying a woman w/ children, but maybe some circumstances will allow it to work better.

  24. Joe says:

    It’s the traditional attempt to separate accountability from authority. She has the authority and he the accountability. This has to be one of mankind’s oldest weasel practices.

  25. Joe says:

    My wife and I celebrate 30 years this month.
    I just wanted you guys to know that it can be done.

    [D: Outstanding! Congratulations!]

  26. vfm7916 says:

    @Lex

    I see googling the words “pastor doug wilson feminism” now have a link to all the doug wilson posts here.

    The more Dalrock posts about it, and the more people read and link in, the more the posts will reach “the audience” that needs it.

  27. PokeSalad says:

    Wilson is a world-class sophist, I’ll give him that.

  28. Anon says:

    I better stop posting here. I’ve just learned I’m not a real Christian. I voted for Trump.

    These NeverTrump cuckservatives stop at nothing. They actually are pro-Hillary, despite the abortions, the homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.

  29. Anon says:

    BillyS,

    Learn a bit about modern South Africa. It is horrifyingly bad for the whites there.

    Meh.. they can leave any time they choose. Doubly so if they don’t own expensive real estate. Those who do own such real estate can sell it to the Chinese (who will have no qualms about defending it with force from blacks).

  30. James says:

    @bstormcrow

    Bottom line? No mutual submission here.

    I agree. The phrase “mutual submission” smacks of sophistry, that is, it sounds like a workaround, in order to get out of doing something being commanded. I also believe it is an oxymoron.

  31. squid_hunt says:

    @Billy @Anon

    And I was talking tongue in cheek.

  32. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    My girfrliend and I celebrate 30 days this month.
    I just wanted you guys to know that it can be done, after one starts drinking soy products.
    Tonight I meet her son.

  33. RICanuck says:

    @ Damn Crackers

    That Yahoo article was written by Margery Eagan. I remember her when the Boston Globe was a dead tree publication.

    She’s a pro-choice, pro-priestess apostate Catholic. Nobody hates Catholics like Catholics hate Catholics.

    Yahoo’s next article about how to be an Evangelical Christian will be written by Ayatollah Rouhani of Iran.

  34. feeriker says:

    I’ve always found that men obsessed with being a gentlemen are the worst worshipers of women.

    More than a few of them also turn out to be gay.

  35. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anon: Meh.. they [white South Africans] can leave any time they choose.

    Not unless someone will take them in. Western media and academia hates on them for being “racist”. I don’t know how easily white South Africans can enter Europe. They are true refugees, but Europe is only open to black and Arab refugees.

    Jews, of course, can enter Israel or any Western nation they choose. White Christians, not so much.

    An Australian official has called for opening his nation to white South Africans, but his suggestion is being denounced by some as racist: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/world/australia/south-africa-white-farmers-peter-dutton.html

  36. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Dear DOUGLAS WILSON,

    While Jesus spoke with the people, I notice that you have turned your comments off.

    I had some questions.

    Suppose I meet a nice church girl, and she tells me that while she is not a virgin, she has only butthexted eight times, and she only enjoyed it twice. Her only child is from a man who lied to her and said he had a vasectomy.

    Should I
    a) man up and marry her
    b) seek the aroma of true love elsewhere?

    Also, Mr. Wilson, what have you done to change the anti-Christian divorce laws?

    Please help us with your supreme wisdom.

    Best,

    Da GBFM

  37. Oscar says:

    @ James

    “What I’m trying to say is that my wife actually has no problem being in the subjected role / helpmate role, but it’s not with me so much.”

    That’s true of all women. Women have no trouble submitting to a boss a work, a professor at school, a police officer, a politician, etc., most of whom are men. In fact women prefer male bosses over female bosses.

    In other words, a woman has no trouble submitting to a man, as long as that man is not her husband.

    Why? Read Genesis chapter 3 for the answer.

  38. Pingback: Wilson deflects. | Reaction Times

  39. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    On case you haven’t figured it out,
    The feminist movement was created
    to transfer the wealth of a worthy wife
    to the corporation and state.
    Feminism trains women to transfer a man’s assets
    to the state while
    spying on him.

    Wilson is a useful idiot who gets off on superficial adulation, and they reward him most handomsely.

  40. Scott says:

    As a psychologist I wish I was well known enough to debate any of these men of the cloth who regularly use the “if mamma ain’t happy nobody’s happy” canard.

    It means that ALL women suffer from debilitating personality pathology. It means they never passed through some really important developmental stages in life. It is the biggest insult to those woman who Are able to forge ahead in their married lives without making the entire family miserable just because they are having a bad day.

  41. Scott says:

    You know what its called when you are so uninsightful that you must passively-aggressively cause everyone to suffer around you as punishment for them not behaving the way want them to?

    Its called Borderline Personality Disorder.

    Or being a 3 year old.

  42. bdash 77 says:

    @Oscar
    yup for women submission is not an issue as long as it is not her husband
    Jen Wilkin
    Macy English
    Lore Fergusson

    all women at Matt Chandlers church firmly believe this

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    A guest is someone who is staying for a time, and then will leave; willingly or otherwise, the guest wil leave. Thus a “guest” is a temporary resident. Certainly in the US fathers are mere guests; the Threatpoint is very real, because 70% of divorce actions are now filed by women. This is the child-support model, and it is the “AF-BB” model that androspherians have pointed to for years.

    There are cultures where a woman explicitly allows a man to be a guest in her home for a while, perhaps honored enough as a guest to reproduce with her a time or two. There’s a word for those cultures, but it is not “complimentary”.

    The Mosuo are perhaps the most extreme example of “man as guest in woman’s house”. Guests are allowed only at night, and must be gone before sunrise. They take Wilson’s teaching to the logical conclusion.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Mosuo

  44. Spike says:

    Anyone acquainted with Apologetics sees a problem with Wilson’s wording:

    “The health of all other relationships in the home depends upon the health of this relationship, and the key is found in how the husband is treating his wife”.

    ”Every Good Lie has a Thread of Truth Running Through It”. – Kent Hovind.
    ”Examine a context carefully, so you don’t take everything literally” – Walter Martin.

    It is true that the health of all other relationships in the home depend upon the health of the husband-wife relationship. It is even true that the key is to how the husband is treating the wife. What Wilson doesn’t ask is, ”Why?”
    Why would a husband treat his wife harshly/ coldly/ aloof ? Dare I say it, disrespectfully?
    It wouldn’t have anything to do with the way the wife behaves, would it? Does he come home to a garbage tip, despite his wife not working? Are his meals prepared, or does he have to get home and cook himself? Is she persistently drunk, or worse, a drug abuser? Is she demanding the financial reins, bankrupting the home finances, then demanding the husband fixes it? Controlling the husband to the point he has no down time, and then blaming him when he breaks down? Demanding that he surrender his computer passwords and phone locks so she can spy on his conversations, but if he asks the reciprocal, going insane? Weaponizing sex? Threatening to detonate the marriage?
    I’ve lived through some, thankfully not all, of these issues. I have had friends living through other worse ones. I resolved mine, but it certainly was without the help of the clergy who persistently took my wife’s side, sprouting exactly such banalities.

  45. Robert says:

    I have often defended Wilson. Usually using the exact same logic Wilson uses here- it’ s more complex then just “wives submit,” the teaching also is “husbands love your wife as Christ loved the church” and they go hand in hand. And most folks have a tendency to put 90% of their eggs in one basket, while playing lip service to the other and largely ignoring it beyond that- largely due to what is going on in their own life and around them. Not realizing that a teacher has hundreds and even thousands of different lives and circumstances he is speaking to at once and has to make sure both are addressed.

    BUT, the quotes from the book were damning. I’m interested to pick up the book and read it in full context but for now I’m with Dalrock on this one. He seems to be deflecting.

  46. seventiesjason says:

    Dear Pastor Wilson,

    The family I was raised up with were ‘cultural christians’. My father a lapsed Roman Catholic. My mother trappings of tradation of the COE (preppy Catholics).

    My parents ‘married’ in a church but I can only count on one hand the times I was “inside” a church by the time I was 18.

    How do you explain my parents very succesful, loving, self-serving and solid marriage? My father never was a “guest” in his home. He BUILT the house, literally. My parents talked about the life of Jesus, thought it could give a person a sense of purpose and values but were not “believers” that He was fully God on earth and fully man.

    My mother worked (RN) and a few times in the marriage was the breadwinner because my father was unemployed (construction worker, Union). My mother and father would passionatley debate what they were going to do at times, but always……ALWAYS…..in the end it was my fathers decision. Sometimes he decided what my mother suggested would be done. Sometimes not. My father NEVER took a hand to my mother. My mother never walked out. ONCE when I was in college, I came home from a night of “partying” during winter break to find my father on the couch. ALL he said to me when I held back a snicker was “Don’t you say a f*cking word!” It was the only time I ever heard my father curse at me. Ever. Him on the couch did not involve infidelty btw. Years later my mother said “I was was being foolish and childish. He told me to knock it off, I snapped, threw him out of the bed. Shoiuld have never done that.”

    They were not only lovers, but honestly best friends. They did not have a circle of people around them. My dad was always a loner type. My mother never needed a clatch of “ladies” around her. They had and needed each other.

    Their marriage was more solid that many, many marriages I witness INSIDE the church as a practicing Christian today.

    My motrher accepted Christ through a Vicar at the local COE before she died in 2009. I brought my father to Christ in 2014.

    Explain their successful marriage to me please.

    In Truth -Jason

  47. Bee says:

    Jason,

    Great question.

    Very glad to read you were able to help bring both of your parents to Christ before their passing on. A job well done by you.

  48. rogerrrrrr says:

    This Molyneux interview with an unhaaappy Christian wife is a must-listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V5JuwzS7eU

  49. earl says:

    I’ve always found that men obsessed with being a gentlemen are the worst worshipers of women.

    True, it’s more about self-control, character and an emotional state rather than virtue signalling how wonderful you treat women.

  50. katech0 says:

    I was hoping for a more honest treatment of Wilson by Dalrock. Clearly Wilson isn’t perfect in his appeal to “mom’s happiness” when quotes are being cherry-picked from two different contexts, and from two different decades. However, if Dalrock has any sense of avoiding friendly fire, he should make some effort at a more gracious reading of Wilson’s actual points, rather than the worst possible reading.

    Dalrock wrote: “For any given claim Wilson makes putting women in charge, you can find another instance of him teaching that men are cowards for listening to just this kind of advice. But make no mistake; this doesn’t make Wilson stand out in the complementarian world. Teaching men that their wives are holy barometers of God’s approval while castigating men for failing to lead is exactly what complementarianism is all about.”

    Wilson is not “putting women in charge” of any sphere that Scripture doesn’t charge them with. However, the context in each case makes it very clear that Wilson is talking about two different kinds of unhappiness. One kind of unhappiness is that of a woman who wants to rule over her husband (to manipulate him), and Wilson is very clear that this kind of unhappiness is not the barometer of anything. The other kind of unhappiness is that of a woman whose husband really is foolish and unchristlike toward her, in ways that Scripture defines foolishness and Christlikeness. This is a real thing too, and a true barometer of a man’s obedience to God.

    The tagline to Dalrock’s blog is, “Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world.” Why does Dalrock’s blog feature happiness in such a prominent way? If we wanted to create a plausible narrative, we might suppose that Dalrock wants to appeal to emotional states as justification for something. We could construct a dichotomy that Dalrock must either be referring to his individual happiness, regardless of his wife’s longsuffering agony in the relationship, or else Dalrock means to include his wife’s happiness in the declaration of his happy marriage. But if it is the latter, then Dalrock is conceding that he understands perfectly well what Wilson has referred to, and that his wife’s mutual happiness in the marriage is a powerful barometer of something.

    In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that Dalrock makes use of the tagline precisely to avoid the charge that his blog can be dismissed as the bitter rantings of a broken, frustrated, alimony-paying, ex-husband. Even Dalrock recognizes the power of a happy marriage and happy family for the credibility and authority that such strong relationships can bring.

    Obviously there are a lot of compromising pastors out there, but I would invite Dalrock to take a step back and acknowledge where Wilson actually stands, and the punches that Wilson regularly lands against feminism. Dalrock needs to show some integrity and fairhandedness when critiquing and quoting Wilson, otherwise he’ll just hurt his own credibility.

  51. seventiesjason says:

    Bee….my dad is still around. He’s 80…the old cranky goat! He attends a non-denon church. My mother died at the age of 62. My dad was just over 8 years older than my mother when they married. When I went back to New York State to visit my dad (he was getting to sell the house he built and had lived in since 1970) I wanted to see it one more time. There in the front room of the house in spent my youth. So many memories in that room. I convinced my father that he indeed needed Christ. He was curious and astounded by my turnaround after my drugs and drinking. No, not a financial success….but I became the son he could be proud of. Speak well of. Integrity. He had written me off, and after I got cleaned up….it took years for him to actually trust me again. He saw by my actions that my Christian wwalk wasn’t a joke, or a ploy…………..you know the last straws of a scoundrel: patriotism, politics, or religion. He saw that it was real in me. Not a stance.

    He wanted to know more about Jesus…not as a historical figure, but what He truly is. We hugged, and wept. He told me he missed my mother dearly. He felt lost and depressed without her. Christ I know has helped him immensly after this acceptance.

  52. earl says:

    It would be better if Wilson just stopped deflecting and said he worships his wife and husbands should too. At least it would be more honorable than trying to deflect what Scripture says.

  53. BillyS says:

    Scott,

    They are accurate, but you correctly note that the problem is with the woman who makes everyone unhappy, not the husband.

    Squid,

    What is going on in South Africa is along the lines of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Stealing land from whites and putting them in small areas, at least for those that don’t have lots of money. You really should dig a bit deeper Anon. Finding a place to go is not as easy as you proclaim.

    All I know about South Africa is how much the horrors were hyped before Mandela returned and how the expected consequences are now hitting.

    Scott,

    Good story about you parents. My grandparents were close. They may have gotten saved near the end of their lives via my father, but they were firmly committed to each other. Their firmness in spite of arguing a lot made me ignore many problems in my own marriage. My wife had none of that same commitment, nor did churches reinforce it.

  54. Bee says:

    Jason,

    Wow, awesome testimony! Thanks for sharing.

  55. That was real nice Jason.

  56. seventiesjason says:

    Ughh that word “nice” again 😉

    Thanks men!

  57. Mad_Kalak says:

    I stand corrected it seems.

  58. Jim says:

    My wife and I celebrate 30 years this month.
    I just wanted you guys to know that it can be done.

    Winning the lottery can be done too but I’m not going to count on that. Also, whose to say she won’t pull the trigger 5 to 10 years from now? I know cunts who took their husbands for everything just as he was about to retire. And that’s after 35-45 years of marriage (hopefully it doesn’t happen to you. Like I said, it is possible to win the lottery). And these men swore up and down beforehand that their wives would never do anything like that. Uh, huh. As long as they have the legal power to do it you’re completely at their mercy.

    But hey, keep looking for that unicorn guys. Enjoy living out of your car at age 70 if you get divorced just as you retire. smdh.

  59. Mad_Kalak says:

    I stand corrected I suppose.

  60. Anon says:

    More than a few of them also turn out to be gay.

    Add to that the fact that a ‘male feminist’ is almost always a creepy predator in disguise. This is becoming a well-known cliche, and Instapundit tracks this pattern.

  61. Anon says:

    RPL,

    Not unless someone will take them in. Western media and academia hates on them for being “racist”. I don’t know how easily white South Africans can enter Europe.

    Australia can take them in, plus they can emigrate like anyone else (just like Elon Musk and Charlize Theron did; neither was rich at the time of leaving South Africa). There are still some whites (Australians and Brits, mostly) that are moving TO South Africa.

    Come on….while what is being done there is unfair and they should leave if they are smart, let’s not pretend that they ‘can’t leave’ as if this is North Korea. They don’t yet *want* to leave because the costs of staying are not yet high enough.

  62. earl says:

    My wife and I celebrate 30 years this month.
    I just wanted you guys to know that it can be done.

    Congrats, Joe. Here’s to many more years of a fruitful marriage.

  63. earl says:

    As long as they have the legal power to do it you’re completely at their mercy.

    I still see it as you are at the mercy of the state. Women want your authority removed so they can replace it with another.

  64. earl says:

    Suppose I meet a nice church girl, and she tells me that while she is not a virgin, she has only butthexted eight times, and she only enjoyed it twice. Her only child is from a man who lied to her and said he had a vasectomy.

    Look on the bright side…at least she’s finally figuring out which part of the body sex is meant to be in. I think she’s ready to be your wife lolz.

  65. Sharkly says:

    James,
    my wife has an enmeshed relationship with her son….wifemom …. sonsband….They are quite emotionally involved with one another, with constant bickering and making up, all the time. Often sounds like a couple arguing….to be absolutely clear, there is no sexual abuse going on.

    If you don’t already know; what you have described is called “Emotional Incest” or “Covert Incest”. It is a form of emotionally abusing the child as the wife selfishly uses them as their own surrogate spouse, where she should be going to you for that. The boy will likely be quite messed up by this when he enters a marriage relationship. My wife was used this way by her mother, and is now an Intimacy Anorexic. Just like Overt Incest feels icky to a child, even if they don’t know any better, so too the spousal intimacy just feels wrong or icky to the child, and can lead to them feeling like intimacy is a burden put upon them by others that they are not prepared to deal with and is unwelcomed. My wife apparently learned to loath intimacy when her mom and her were like “sisters”. And she had no real relationship with her father.

    I’d advise you to do whatever you can to get the behavior stopped and get them both help ASAP. Your wife may not realize the damage she is causing to the boy, and you too of course. But her motivations are selfish, to get her own needs met her own way, not based in love for you or her son.

  66. Cane Caldo says:

    @Katecho

    Clearly Wilson isn’t perfect in his appeal to “mom’s happiness” when quotes are being cherry-picked from two different contexts, and from two different decades.

    No, no, he protested! Doug Wilson saying the same things across time and contexts doesn’t show his consistent stupidity. It shows Dalrock cherry-picking, you see…

    Whatever.

    This is Doug’s dance: “These people don’t see what I meant this way, and those people don’t see what I meant that way. I’m just misunderstood because I’m tap-dancing in the center.” He explains away all his criticism in this manner, whatever the topic. Communication is never his problem; it’s always the other guy’s.

  67. Mark says:

    @Dalrock
    Just catching up on your posts and all the comments.Sounds like Pastor Wilson might have been offended by your posts?…..Your criticism is 100% valid….and I would like to say VERY polite.I notice that he has nothing(of any substance) to throw back at you.

    @Joe
    Congrats Joe!….my parents have been married over 50 years…..and you are correct as it does happen.

    @RPL
    “”Not unless someone will take them in. Western media and academia hates on them for being “racist”.”‘………..Yes the SA citizens get that all the time.I have been to SA several times and I love it.I admit that it has changed a lot since Mandela….and not for the better! I know a few South African s that live here in Toronto. I would suggest that they give Canada a shot.

    @GBFM
    “”My girfrliend and I celebrate 30 days this month.
    I just wanted you guys to know that it can be done, after one starts drinking soy products.””

    WTF?…..huffing glue again eh pal?

  68. bdash 77 says:

    @Katecho
    If Doug is the biblical Christian you claim he is
    why does he dodge Dalrock questions.

    What about the fruit of his teachings
    if he is biblical and not feminist
    Why do the men in his church constantly guilt men for not changing diapers or caring for the baby during Church? ( If a man was truly in authority he would do he would see fit not taught to “serve”)

    Why doe he partner and speak with feminists?
    Like Jared Wilson? ( a supposed pastor who was a role reversal house husband)
    Who actively pushes men to be more domestic, at men’s conferences he has insulted men for working hard to provide and protect ( What Christianity taught for 6000 years was how a man served his wife)

    and instead tells them to cook , clean and support their wife’s goals

    The fruit of Doug’s teachings appear to be exactly the same as what the feminists want
    the elimination of gender distinctions
    the denial of authority

    Doug is brilliant at masquerading it as biblical

  69. voxofreason says:

    “You know what its called when you are so uninsightful that you must passively-aggressively cause everyone to suffer around you as punishment for them not behaving the way want them to?

    Its called Borderline Personality Disorder.

    Or being a 3 year old.”

    I beg to differ sir. IMO you are confusing SJWs/lefTARDS with the borderline condition, Borderline hysteria/histrionics is anything but passive-aggressive.

  70. voxofreason says:

    “Communication is never his problem; it’s always the other guy’s.”

    So basically Wilson is contentious or what the KJ bible calls stubborn or stiff-necked which means he’s in a bad place spiritually. Not a pastor you want to follow.

  71. Opus says:

    I have just noticed that America (rather like – I assume – the old Soviet union) does not celebrate either Good Friday or Easter Monday (in lieu of Sunday) as national holidays. For a country which is obsessed with Christianity I find this very odd – yet you take a day off work to celebrate that opportunist scum-bag and debaucher Martin Luther King. Very odd.

  72. voxofreason says:

    “The other kind of unhappiness is that of a woman whose husband really is foolish and unchristlike toward her, in ways that Scripture defines foolishness and Christlikeness. This is a real thing too, and a true barometer of a man’s obedience to God.”

    Waaa! Cry me a river. Employees have to put up with foolishness and unChristlike behavior from their crappy employers everyday and with serious repercussions if they don’t.

    So what’s her response to be? “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. ” 1 Peter 3:1-2

    And where is Wilson teaching this female subjection? Answer: He doesn’t he’s just trying to have his cake and eat it too which is typical of men with feminine ways.

  73. voxofreason says:

    “I have just noticed that America (rather like – I assume – the old Soviet union) does not celebrate either Good Friday or Easter Monday (in lieu of Sunday) as national holidays.”

    Funny that I brought that up to another SJW guy named Wilson at work and you’ll never guess what he did? He deflected onto something about unions going hard against employers or some such which had nothing to do with my original point that the contractors on site during Easter are not going to be paid time and a half for working on Easter. Funny that?

  74. Magneto2975 says:

    Let us look at what St. John Chrysostom, bishop of the tiny backwater of the Byzantine world known as Constantinople, said about the submission of wives to their husbands back in the 4th century. This is solid Christian theology that we have always known. Feminists of both sexes HATE St John when they meet him. Most are complely ignorant of him. Here is a small piece from St John’s homily on marriage – the whole thing is a worth a read.

    “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.”

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm

  75. Paul says:

    Off-topic! Lengthy!

    @earl: “Look on the bright side…at least she’s finally figuring out which part of the body sex is meant to be in.”

    As I have commented elsewhere, I find the teaching of the RCC on sex,based on the belief of Augustine that “sex is evil” so far-fetched, at times it is just self-contradictory. That is one area of RCC teaching I think needs a major revision. Which is probably not going to happen.

    http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

    In order to be moral, each and every sexual act must be unitive and procreative. Non-unitive or non-procreative sexual acts (i.e. unnatural sexual acts) [Paul: penis in vagina] are intrinsically evil, and do not become moral by being used as a type of foreplay, nor by occurring before, during, or after an act of natural marital relations.

    versus

    “However, acts such as a husband kissing and caressing his wife’s breasts, or a wife kissing and embracing her husband passionately, are not sexual acts per se, and so these acts are generally moral and do not need to be unitive and procreative.”

    versus

    “Is all touching of the genitals prohibited to spouses? No. However, touching the genitals of yourself, or of your spouse, in the same or similar manner as would be done in masturbation (i.e. manipulative sexual acts) is immoral. Any type of masturbatory touching is immoral (regardless of whether or when sexual climax occurs) because it is a sexual act that is non-unitive and non-procreative.”

    To keep the theology of “sex is only allowed if unitive AND procreative” consistent, caressing and kissing your wife’s breasts and touching your own or your spouse’s genitals must be classified as “not sex”. And we can only guess the definition of “any type of masturbatory touching without sexual climax” is. I can touch your genitals but cannot move my hand? And can I touch the genitals with lips or tongue, or is that oral stimulation which is intrinsically evil? Can I only touch with fingers, or are other body parts allowed too? Which parts of the body can be “manipulated” without being intrinsically evil? And with what part of my body I can touch and “manipulate” my spouse’s body? There is almost no end to such critical questions which expose the inherent difficulties in this theological framework.

    It is a theological mess, based on Greek philosophy and a Gnostic view on the relation between body and spirit. It requires a very difficult philosophical framework on what is “natural” and what is not “natural”. And it goes against Scripture in several places. Worse, it heaps sin upon sin on spouses, and burdens them with a troubled conscience. To see the origin, compare with writings of Augustine:

    “In Paradise, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul sexual passion. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by sexual passionful cravings” (City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26).

    He seriously thinks that before the fall sexual desire was not needed, but you could get a stiff penis to procreate by will power alone. To him all sexual desire and passion is evil. Literally. His views were formed by Mani, the founder of the Manichean Gnostic sect of which Augustine was a member for 10 years.

    “Such is the present condition of mortal men, that the connubial intercourse and sexual passion are at the same time in action; and on this account it happens, that as the sexual passion is blamed, so also the nuptial commerce, however lawful and honourable, is thought to be reprehensible by those persons who either are unwilling or unable to draw the distinction between them. They are, moreover, inattentive to that good of the nuptial state which is the glory of matrimony; I mean offspring, chastity, and the pledge. The evil, however, at which even marriage blushes for shame is not the fault of marriage, but of the sexual passion of the flesh. Yet because without this evil it is impossible to effect the good purpose of marriage, even the procreation of children, whenever this process is approached, secrecy is sought, witnesses removed, and even the presence of the very children which happen to be born of the process is avoided as soon as they reach the age of observation.” (On the Grace of Christ, Book II, § 42)

    Augustine even couples sexual desire to original sin

    “Marriage is itself honourable in all the goods which properly appertain to it; but even when it has its bed undefiled (not only by fornication and adultery, which are damnable disgraces, but also by any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any prevailing desire of children, but from an overbearing sexual passion of pleasure, which are venial sins in man and wife), yet, whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of sexual passion, so as to be able to accomplish that which belongs to the use of reason and not of sexual passion. Now, this passion, whether following or preceding the will, does somehow, by a power of its own, move the members which cannot be moved simply by the will [Paul: to get an erectile penis], and in this manner it shows itself [Paul: the penis] not to be the servant of a will which commands it, but rather to be the punishment of a will which disobeys it. It shows, moreover, that it [Paul: the penis] must be excited, not by a free choice, but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on this very account it produces shame. This is the carnal sexual desire, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the reborn, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. It is the daughter of sin, as it were; and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins. Now *****from this sexual desire whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin******, unless, indeed, it be born again in him whom the Virgin conceived without this sexual desire. Wherefore, when he vouchsafed to be born in the flesh, he alone was born without sin.” (On Sexual desire, Book I, chap. 27.)

    In the past such schemes were even more troublesome

    (Brundage, “Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe”)

    Compare this how both the Old and New testament talk about this, and you will not find such instructions. Even the command against male-to-male sex imply no such restrictions

    Lev 20:13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” As-one-does-with-a-woman. If male-male anal or oral sex is meant here, than clearly anal or oral sex is happening between a man and a woman, but between man and woman it is not condemned! Obviously it cannot mean penis-in-vagina sex. So “as-one-does-with-a-woman” has to mean any sexual contact between male and male. But at the same time therefore ANY such sexual contact is NOT forbidden between man and woman. Therefore no bounds are set on a sexual relation between man and woman by this text, it shows a large freedom of sexual expression.

    “as one does with a woman”, remember that.

    And Paul in 1 Cor 7 has made it clear that procreation is no longer a necessity (he recommends celibacy!), but we should have sex to avoid sexual immorality. He does not mention that we should have sex to procreate. He specifically couples it to relieve sexual passion. Furthermore, nature shows that man and woman will have countless sexual releases without producing children. Most seed is “spilled”, and woman are only fertile for a very limited time during their lives (a couple of days each month between 15 and 45). Therefore it cannot be that all sexual acts have to be procreative.

    I’m all for moral sexual behaviour, and God will punish sexual immorality, but the RCC teachings go way beyond any divine revelation and is contradictory in nature. I might be wrong of course, so each should follow his own conscience before God.

  76. squid_hunt says:

    @Scott

    You know what its called when you are so uninsightful that you must passively-aggressively cause everyone to suffer around you as punishment for them not behaving the way want them to?

    Its called Borderline Personality Disorder.

    Or being a 3 year old.

    This comment may just make my week.

    @Spike

    Always look to the base assumptions. The base assumption that “all other relationships in the home are based on the marriage relationship” is false. The relationship that matters most is the one between each individual and Christ. If anyone in the home gets that wrong, there’s going to be discord. That includes the wife and seems to be the piece of the puzzle that is missing from this “if momma ain’t happy” mentality.

  77. Scott says:

    Paul-

    Very interesting. I have some Catholic friends who I love dearly, but they seem really concerned about how passionate my wife and I are about each other.

    That chart, while funny, is kind of how they describe their sex lives to me, and I just scratch my head. I don’t understand how they ever had kids.

    I was only marginally familiar with where this is coming from until your comment.

  78. Scott says:

    voxofreason-

    I’m not sure I am understanding the distinction you are making. The strain of PD that we were very recently calling “cluster B” until the DSM 5 came along tends to manifest itself, especially in what is known as “the honeymoon phase” (not every word of the Duluth model is incorrect) in very manipulative behaviors.

    The most common combination is antisocial male and borderline female. They are subconsciously drawn to each other like flies on s$#t.

    Of course, one of the main problems with the Duluth model is it pretends that the women in those relationships have absolutely zero psychopathology and the men are uncontrolled monsters. It is verboten to ask if maybe the issues between the two parties are mutually “satisfying” to them in the most pathological ways. This is called “blaming the victim” who is always seen as the woman.

    After an explosion, there is a delicate dance one must do around a borderline to keep them from losing it again, and that’s true even if you aren’t an antisocial male. You will receive the silent treatment, sexual withdrawal, sarcastic comments disguised as flirting, (if you confront it you will get, “can’t you take a joke or harmless comment?”) and so on. All of those are passive-aggressive.

    It is important to understand the etiology of PDs, especially the cluster B types to make sense of this. Their formative relationships growing were characterized by instability, push-pull, affection-withdrawal, paying for love, etc. In their romantic relationships, they are desperately trying to work this out, but have little or no insight about it. You are a surrogate for daddy to her and she is stuck in a pattern. Another chance to vicariously fix that relationship.

    The “if mamma ain’t happy, nobody’s happy” mantra is an attempt to rationalize it, but only when women do it. Its related to what Dalrock is writing about when he says that Christian ingested and regurgitated feminism is so over the top, compared to just plain old secular feminism.

    Because I can push my colleagues (all of whom are basically left of center secularists) into a corner with this kind of statement:

    “If a woman is engaged in these manipulative behaviors, it is equally as maladaptive and unhealthy for the marriage.”

    And they are forced to agree that these behaviors are bad, not matter who is doing them. They are in fact, more rational than Christian white knighting pastors.

  79. Scott says:

    I should be a bit more precise.

    During the honeymoon and tension building phases there will be make up sex and sexual withdrawal, respectively.

  80. Lost Patrol says:

    I’m sure Doug Wilson is old enough to know this one.

    When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

  81. seventiesjason says:

    Easy Opus…..Dr. King was isnpirational….and the reason why he is so famous partly is because he was assassinated. Like Kennedy…….it represented the new vigor and direction of a post-war America now twenty years on, a baby boom generation on the cusp of being of age……….and it was quite a time! I wish I was there to witness it.

    I find it funny today in the USA that for all of our hoildays…we only have ONE named after a person. Martin Luther King. Not even Lincoln and Washington have their respected birthdays celebrated anymore…..it’s just called “Presidents Day”

    Dr. King was assassinated at a point in his career when he was indeed crossing a “class” divide in the USA…..not a racial one. He knew something was up. In Memphis where he was assassinated, look in that crowd. Over half the faces were white. He was speaking to “garbage men” about better wages. If the white man had made, and was indeed set…..especially in the South……..why were there so many white “garbage men” and this was just one city.

    The working class blacks and whites in the USA traditionally have ALWAYS worked side by side, and pretty much have gotten along. King I believe was really starting to get this. Look who was fighting in the foxholes in Vietnam together??????? Look who was still subsistance farming together in the South????

    Anyways……as for the USA being “christian” we have a lot of lukewarms here. Professing, but not living. Also that very loud “sperating of church and state thing” that we fought you guys over at one point as I recall 😉

  82. Otto says:

    Eph 5:21 is the last line in the PREVIOUS section that starts at 4:1. It is NOT part of the marriage section.

    Read 4:1 through 5:21 and it becomes obvious it belongs in that section. The phrase “one unto another” is repeated several time on the section. 5:21 is the summary of the points Paul was making since 4:1.

    THEN Paul changes the subject to marriage, leaving the 4:1-5:21 section behind.

    People who include 5:21 in the marriage section are either disengenuous or have never read the book in its entirety.

    https://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2013/08/ephesians-521-is-good-place-to-start.htm

  83. Oscar says:

    @ Scott says:
    April 3, 2018 at 6:43 am

    “Paul-

    Very interesting. I have some Catholic friends who I love dearly, but they seem really concerned about how passionate my wife and I are about each other.

    That chart, while funny, is kind of how they describe their sex lives to me, and I just scratch my head. I don’t understand how they ever had kids.

    I was only marginally familiar with where this is coming from until your comment.”

    Which brings up a question I keep asking my Catholic and Orthodox friends. When Church traditions and the teachings of Church patriarchs (like St. Augustine) contradict the teachings of the Bible, whom do you believe, the traditions and the patriarchs, or the Bible?

  84. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Paul
    Very interesting comment that adds to some previous observations Dalrock has made regarding early church writers. If I remember right, Augustine was a notorious womanizer in his youth, spending quite a lot of time and money in brothels. That surely was a factor in his later writings.

    The flow chart explains some things…

  85. Scott says:

    St Augustine, in particular is an example of one such saint who had some ideas upon which there was no consensus, so you have to look at each example carefully.

    The basic rule is if it is canonized and there was consent (all of the church fathers agreed) then it doesn’t (can’t) contradict scripture. It illuminates it.

    This, for example is why birth control is such a conundrum for me. All of the fathers agreed that it was a sin. In fact, all of the protestant denominations agreed on that until middle of last century.

    For Orthodox, the hierarchy goes something like Scripture–>Canons–>Consent of the saints–>individual homilies–>church tradition or something like that. (Whereas all of those nodes are considered “what the church did” or, in essence “tradition.”)

    The RC has the magisterium and Pope in that mix also.

    Probably someone like Novaseeker has a better handle on the topic though.

  86. voxofreason says:

    “The most common combination is antisocial male and borderline female. They are subconsciously drawn to each other like flies on s$#t.”

    The second most common must be AvPD Cluster C female and BPD male (See Rick and Morty Season 2 episode 7 for examples)

  87. BillyS says:

    It is a ways back now, but my second “Scott” comment should have been “Jason” since I was talking about how his parents had a faithfulness not seen today. I saw the same in my grandparents and it made me miss the shift my exwife engaged in, letting me be quite blindsided.

  88. Gunner Q says:

    I looked at Wilson’s post and it’s incomplete. Is there a paywall or a section hidden by advertising? Or did he really cut off after reposting Dalrock’s quotations from his book with no added commentary?

  89. Opus says:

    @Jason

    I stand corrected. Even so you do have Xmas Day off and so – surely – Easter should also have a holiday.

  90. DrTorch says:

    I looked at Wilson’s post and it’s incomplete

    Yeah, interesting that katech0 did a better job of addressing Dalrock’s comments than did Wilson.

  91. Gunner Q says:

    Opus @ 12:06 pm:
    @Jason

    “I stand corrected.”

    No, you were right the first time about King. He was famous because he was a top-level Communist infiltrator into the American Church.

    http://gunnerq.com/2018/01/14/mlk-jr-was-a-false-priest/

    I vaguely recall Easter used to be a holiday in my childhood but maybe not. It does annoy me a bit that Good Friday is less popular when it’s actually more important than the Resurrection, theologically speaking, but eh. Maybe we Prots just aren’t the “holy day” types.

  92. Hmm says:

    Wilson’s site today has two letters responding to Dalrock, but one is katecho including his missive here. The other one draws out a bit more commentary by Wilson.

    But katecho responds at length in the comment section, and answers some further commenters from here, including OKRickety.

  93. Paul says:

    @Otto: Eph 5:21 is the last line in the PREVIOUS section that starts at 4:1. It is NOT part of the marriage section.

    I would say it is part, but it is part of a larger whole, and is VERY comparable to 1 Pet 2-3, and is known as the “Haustafeln” (Household Codes) that prescribe authoritative relationships between wives and husbands, slaves and masters, and children and parents. Eph 5:21 can be called “mutual submission” IF you mean by mutual one group to another group, and NOT each to everyone else. Furthermore, there is a linguistic link between Eph 5:21 and Eph 5:22 in that the verb “submit” is missing from v.22, but implied from v.21.

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    katecho
    Obviously there are a lot of compromising pastors out there, but I would invite Dalrock to take a step back and acknowledge where Wilson actually stands, and the punches that Wilson regularly lands against feminism.

    Which “feminism” is it that Wilson lands his punches on? Where can we see these punching texts?

    Further questions for katecho: how is it that a man is a “guest” in his own home? How is it that his wife has total control of the sexual part of their marriage?

  95. Eidolon says:

    @katecho

    Wilson also thinks it’s appropriate to publicly call men failures to their wives based only on the wife’s version of events. That one was pretty recent. How do you explain that one?

    Is that what a real pastor should do? Interfere in the relationship between a man and his wife? Pretend he has authority in the home of another man who presumably isn’t even part of his church? Tell another man’s wife how her husband is failing at things in their marriage without even talking to the man?

    He’s a despicable coward and he teaches false doctrine. He deserves no defense.

  96. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Hmm
    Not very impressive. Fan katecho is just the latest “text janitor”, doing the “cleanup on Aisle W” job. Once again we have the “If you knew Wilson’s words like I know them…” ritual dance. Why can’t Wilson just write clearly, I wonder? Did he not learn that in college? Did no one teach him? What is the reason for the unending, verbose, ambiguity?

    Fact: Wilson wrote that a wife’s happiness is the standard to judge a marriage. Full stop. That is what “If mama’s not happy….” means. Full stop. Now we have a fan doing the usual backing and filling and hemming and hawing and “well, that REALLY means” cleanup. It is not convincing. Especially when Wilson himself is either unable or unwilling to actually clarify his own text.

    Gosh, if only there was a book on “How to write clearly” that Doug Wilson could read and refer to, maybe he’d learn how to actually communicate in writing….

  97. DrTorch says:

    It does annoy me a bit that Good Friday is less popular when it’s actually more important than the Resurrection, theologically speaking,

    1 Cor 15 suggests that’s not true.

    14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
    19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

    20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    katecho
    The tagline to Dalrock’s blog is, “Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world.” Why does Dalrock’s blog feature happiness in such a prominent way?

    I’m not Dalrock, but such a self-descriptive line is not unusual. Note that a self-descriptive line at the top of a blog is different from proscriptive text telling other people “If your wife isn’t haaaaaapy then you are not a proper Christian”. If this concept is too complicated for you to understand I will be happy (but not necessarily haaaaapy) to explain it further.

  99. Eidolon says:

    The incident where Wilson takes it upon himself to directly interfere in another man’s household, which he has no authority to do, is what really clinches it for me.

    As I described in the other thread, here’s what’s going to happen if a man takes Wilson seriously and tries to listen to him:

    1. Single man reads Wilson’s book and becomes a wimp as instructed
    2. Man gets married to a woman who dominates the relationship as man has been taught to expect
    3. Man reads Wilson’s blog; Wilson insults man for believing and practicing what was in Wilson’s book, and learns he must take charge and lead his marriage
    4. Man changes his behavior towards his wife and begins to make the decisions and insist that they be followed
    5. Wife gets upset because she’s not in charge anymore, so she emails Wilson, complaining that her husband is being harsh, making her sad and not loving her properly
    6. Wilson sympathizes with wife in public and insults man again for practicing what was on Wilson’s blog; Wilson says man is failing to understand and properly love his wife; Wilson also says some stuff about how she should follow her husband or something, but she doesn’t pay attention to that part, her husband has been established as a failure and (some of) the problems are clearly stated to be his fault, while the fault attributed to her is quite soft and she can easily rationalize around it
    7. Wife divorces her husband; since he has been publicly established as a failure by a well-known pastor, this is easy to rationalize
    8. Man is denounced again by Wilson for failing to lead properly, since if he had loved his wife as Christ loved the church, she would have been submissive
    9. Woman is accepted at nearly all churches she visits and her grave sin and injustice to her husband are ignored; at best Wilson may complain that this isn’t good but doesn’t change it in his own church

    This is why nothing correct Wilson says can be taken seriously. If he’s changed his views he should state what he was wrong before and take the books off the market. If he does not do so then he continues to endorse their content.

    He doesn’t show that Dalrock took him out of context in any way. All he demonstrates is that he’s inconsistent. If he teaches wrong doctrine anywhere, he’s a false teacher; showing that sometimes he teaches right doctrine also is worthless, and on top of that the stuff he teaches that’s right he undermines continuously to the point that it might as well be wrong too.

  100. katech0 says:

    Anonymous Reader wrote:Fact: Wilson wrote that a wife’s happiness is the standard to judge a marriage. Full stop. That is what “If mama’s not happy….” means. Full stop.If Anonymous Reader could make this case, believe me that I would have no use for Wilson. Fortunately, this charge is easily refuted. Here’s a quote from Wilson’s blog post, titled “Miserable Wives”:
    ——-
    So what is his problem? It is, in short, the fact that he is afraid to stand up to you in your emotional fluctuations. In brief, he is being a great husband to you in every area except the one place where you most desperately need a husband. And this is why you are in a constant state of frustration. Can you name one time when Jon helped you to confront and conquer a blue funk? I know he has thought about attempting it a number of times, but the slightest motion in that direction causes him to become the object of your unhappiness—which usually happens later on anyway. Trying to lead you in that moment seems to him to be a sure fire way to make things worse.

    When the mood is upon you—and you say they are increasingly frequent since last winter—you feel exasperated, pulled thin, alienated, useless, and unloved. The hidden assumption in this (for both you and Jon) is that you take these emotional states as reliable and authoritative, instead of rejecting them as being the most manifest and bald-faced liars. You say that you know Jon loves you, but then you say in the next breath that you feel unloved. And in every battle between your knowledge and your feelings, which one wins? You take the word of your lying feelings over the word of your accurate assessment, over against your knowledge. Your feelings are your authority, even when you know they are being deceitful. Worse yet, Jon takes them as authoritative as well.
    ——-
    (I highly recommend the entire post, which can be read here: https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/miserable-wives.html)

    Wilson also wrote elsewhere on his blog:In the emotional realm, women bruise easily (1 Pet. 3:7). Some have concluded from this, falsely, that women have a right to any offense. But in Eph. 4:31-32, Paul tells us what we must do with the sins committed against us.

    Wilson also did a whole sermon series on “Marriage as Manifest Glory” where he wrote:Many women need to be aware that they are in as much danger of violating the tenth commandment when they get their Pottery Barn catalog as their husband would be with a copy of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. And oftentimes, the wife drifts into the position where she “hands her husband the apple,” urging him to make more, ask for a raise, etc., or, through foolish debt, she creates a situation where he has to do that kind of thing. … In just the way lust is artificially provoked (and inadequately satisfied) through pornography, so a woman’s emotions can be artificially stirred (and inadequately satisfied) by sappy romance novels or sappy chick flicks. Just as a man can be tempted to mental unfaithfulness by a pornographic image so a wife can be tempted to emotional infidelity to her husband. This sin, when indulged, introduces additional discontent into the marriage.

    Notice how Wilson consistently rejects that the wife’s emotions are to be the standard. The only time a wife’s emotional unhappiness is diagnostic is when it attaches to actual Scriptural obligations. That’s the context of Wilson’s use of the “mamma’s not happy” remark. And the problem is not with Wilson’s clarity.

    So as a friendly word of advice, rather than continue the easily debunked attempts to tear Wilson down, why not recognize the tremendous good he is doing and offer more constructive criticism where it is needed? It would do much to rebuild the credibility of the Dalrock blog.

  101. Dalrock says:

    @katech0

    Anonymous Reader wrote:Fact: Wilson wrote that a wife’s happiness is the standard to judge a marriage. Full stop. That is what “If mama’s not happy….” means. Full stop.If Anonymous Reader could make this case, believe me that I would have no use for Wilson. Fortunately, this charge is easily refuted. Here’s a quote from Wilson’s blog post, titled “Miserable Wives”:

    What you are arguing is that Wilson elsewhere contradicts what he teaches in the introduction to the book in question. That Wilson frequently contradicts himself is something everyone (including his defenders) agrees on. Buy a copy of Reforming Marriage and read the introduction yourself. It is exactly as I wrote in my post If mama ain’t happy.

  102. katech0 says:

    Eidolon wrote:

    Wilson also thinks it’s appropriate to publicly call men failures to their wives based only on the wife’s version of events. That one was pretty recent. How do you explain that one?

    Is that what a real pastor should do? Interfere in the relationship between a man and his wife? Pretend he has authority in the home of another man who presumably isn’t even part of his church? Tell another man’s wife how her husband is failing at things in their marriage without even talking to the man?

    Where did Wilson do this? Who was this man? Where did Wilson take only the wife’s version of events? What was the woman’s name?

    Wilson addresses quite a few hypothetical situations on his blog, and sometimes the fictitious wife is primarily at fault, while other times the husband is at fault. If Eidolon is not referring to these hypothetical cases, is he referring to the context of Wilson exercising his authority as pastor, within his church, for counseling, or for church discipline, etc?

    An accusation like this needs a few specifics to go along with it.

  103. Dalrock says:

    I should add, anyone who doubts that my characterization of Wilson’s introduction to Reforming Marriage should drop a measly $8 and buy the Kindle version to instantly see for themselves. If I’m wrong, you have financially supported Wilson, and (presumably) have gained a book full of great Christian wisdom about marriage! If I’m right (which I am) you will learn the truth of the matter, which is certainly worth a measly $8.

  104. Eidolon says:

    @katecho

    I see, you’re arguing in bad faith. What a laughable attempt to imply that Dalrock’s blog has the credibility problem and not Wilson himself.

    You found some quotes you like, good for you. People with any position on the matter can find quotes they like, that’s one of the many problems. If you’re a feminist you can go with the “aroma” nonsense about how wives’ happiness is the barometer of a husband’s success, and tell your husband he’s a “guest” who better not tell her what to do or he’s doing wrong. If you actually believe scripture you can find places where he says things that line up with scripture.

    You know who else sometimes quotes accurately from scripture and sometimes says things that are contrary to it? That’s Satan’s M.O. He loves to mix truth with falsehood. That’s what Wilson does.

    On top of that you’re favorably quoting from an example of Wilson being totally inappropriate. What kind of a man says “he is being a great husband to you in every area except the one place where you most desperately need a husband. And this is why you are in a constant state of frustration. Can you name one time when Jon helped you to confront and conquer a blue funk? … His one great failing is not one that places him anywhere in the neighborhood of being an abuser.”

    That’s AMOG-ing garbage. He’s saying “yeah, he’s doing great — except where it’s important! Not like me, I know just what to do. But you’re stuck with that guy, so good luck and try to listen to him if you can manage it.”

    Not to mention that earlier he said: “I am just sending this letter to you and not to Jon.” Yeah, big surprise.

    He has no right to interfere with her husband’s authority to such an extent. He says some stuff that’s right, sure, but it’s clear that he sees himself as being in charge of their marriage, and he gives her a thousand outs, instead of saying “it’s wrong to leave your husband, period. He has legitimate authority over your home and you need to listen to him. Your feelings have no bearing on doing a duty you volunteered for.”

    About 80% of it is emotional garbage that’s making excuses for the little bit of Biblical truth that’s hidden away in there. If he doesn’t know better than to make it easy for her to rationalize whatever disobedient behavior she wants to engage in then he has no credibility as a pastor.

    In that very missive he also says this lie: “I have often wished that more women would be willing to be Abigails in dealing with their Nabals, and those situations are scarcely rare. I know that there are marriages where the husbands are thugs and bullies, and that their wives need to learn how to bring things to a head.”

    Setting aside the needless slander of husbands, and the fact that even according to him this has nothing to do with the situation he’s talking about, Abigail didn’t “bring things to a head,” she did the opposite. He’s either too ignorant to be a pastor, he’s a liar, or his interpretation is so opposite to scripture that you can’t possibly listen to it. Take your pick.

    As usual, defense of Wilson makes him look terrible. Dalrock noted this previously and it holds true.

  105. Eidolon says:

    I was incorrect before, I see that in his hypothetical Wilson did talk to the husband “Jon.” (I would hate to be named that in his congregation.) I was also incorrect in saying that he publicly called out the man, since the hypothetical letter would not have been made public, obviously. I had a hard time reading it because it was so obnoxious, but I did a poor job of reading comprehension there.

    However, if it was in private, as he states in the “letter,” then he’s blatantly AMOG-ing the husband to the wife. He acts in a totally inappropriate way. He’s saying the husband is a loser, not like himself.

    He needs thousands of words to excuse the little nugget of Biblical truth, like giving someone a whole chocolate bar in which to hide a tiny pill. Most likely she’s going to remember the taste of candy and not get any effect from the pill.

    He also lies about scripture to his theoretical congregant, and encourages rebellion against her husband:

    “I have often wished that more women would be willing to be Abigails in dealing with their Nabals, and those situations are scarcely rare. I know that there are marriages where the husbands are thugs and bullies, and that their wives need to learn how to bring things to a head.”

    Sure, he goes on to say that in this specific instance that isn’t called for, though if that’s the case then there’s absolutely no reason to bring it up. Would any wife have any trouble going from what he said here to “well this situation is different, and this time he’s definitely being Nabal” after the very next argument?

    Who gave her the authority to decide when to listen to and when to defy her husband? Why it was her pastor! (“I have often wished that more women would be willing to be Abigails in dealing with their Nabals…”) Surely he’s a higher authority than her husband!

    She does not have this authority (“be subject to your husbands in all things”). He does not have the authority to grant it to her. Their pastor doesn’t get to step into their marriage and tell her that she’s allowed to veto him in a particular case (or “bring things to a head,” whatever that’s even supposed to mean; if it’s not threatening divorce then I don’t know what he’s implying). Wilson either knows this is wrong and is lying to please women or he doesn’t know, in which case he’s more ignorant of scripture than anyone arguing here. Take your pick.

  106. katech0 says:

    Dalrock wrote:

    What you are arguing is that Wilson elsewhere contradicts what he teaches in the introduction to the book in question.

    Unbelievers also say that the Bible contradicts itself, and they put forward texts that are quite plausibly contradictory at first glance … until one reads the context, and harmonizes with the rest of Scripture. That’s all I’m doing with Wilson, and it’s easy to do. Wilson has shown himself to be a powerful writer, but he isn’t always equally powerful and clear. No one is. Not even Scripture is always equally clear. But it’s just not that difficult to grasp Wilson’s points when you aren’t trying to read him in the worst possible light. You really have to try pretty hard to miss his larger points.

    Look, if Dalrock simply needs to see Wilson as an enemy of men, in some identity-politic fashion, then there is probably not much that anyone can do to sway him. But if he wants to accurately portray Wilson’s actual views on husband and wife relations, then he needs to be a whole lot more honest and fairhanded than he has been. The “gotcha” stuff about “mamma’s happiness” won’t do.

    It’s one thing to offer constructive ways that Wilson can improve his arguments and delivery (I believe Wilson would welcome that), but it’s another thing to try to cast Wilson as a closet feminist, or as some kind of enemy of true biblical masculinity, as several folks on this blog appear to want to do. For a blog that exalts masculinity, the school yard stuff needs to be reigned in.

  107. Pingback: Pastor Wilson will no doubt thank me. | Dalrock

  108. katech0 says:

    Eilodon wrote:

    I was incorrect before, I see that in his hypothetical Wilson did talk to the husband “Jon.” (I would hate to be named that in his congregation.) I was also incorrect in saying that he publicly called out the man, since the hypothetical letter would not have been made public, obviously. I had a hard time reading it because it was so obnoxious, but I did a poor job of reading comprehension there.

    I appreciate this acknowledgment by Eilodon. We all make mistakes. But I hope that Eilodon now has some sense of how unfounded his accusations about Wilson sound, from the perspective of someone who didn’t make that mistake.

  109. RedPillPaul says:

    Maybe kateco0 is a woman and therefore invested to wilsons shtick because it is unbiblically beneficial for her. Cant let the men wake up and have a moment of clarity and get off the plantation….no, they must stay in confusion ergo, stay on the plantation

  110. seventiesjason says:

    Not a closet feminist. He is a feminist. Pretty clear from his own works, and writings

  111. DrTorch says:

    Unbelievers also say that the Bible contradicts itself, and they put forward texts that are quite plausibly contradictory at first glance … until one reads the context, and harmonizes with the rest of Scripture. That’s all I’m doing with Wilson, and it’s easy to do.

    Actually Kate, you’re doing the opposite. You’re picking out pieces of Wilson’s writing from the context and showing how they are fine. It’s in context, and in relationship with each other, where the contradictions start, and that’s what you avoid. You even brought that up when you criticized Dalrock from quoting from books written a decade apart.

  112. seventiesjason says:

    That chart was hilarious btw………

    It’s the message I get as a single man. Sex is awesome. Amazing. God’s gift to you. Brilliant. Awesome. It’s great!

    Only if you are married…but if you have sex, don’t worry God will forgive you! Only if you are married…..but if you father a child out of wedlock, Jesus will undersatnd. He loves babies! Only if you are married…….the praise leader has bedded all the top tier women in the congregation but Jesus loves him so very much….he gave him such talent! Only if you are married….but if you had sex before you were a Christian, THEN got saved make sure you lectrure in thunderous tones and attitude about how ‘holy’ you are. Only if you are married, but if you are deemed one of the “cool people” in the church, it’s okay….nobody’s perfect. Only if you are married…..but we’re putting our daughter on birth control because “you know” we don’t want her to make a mistake with the “wrong” boy and we want her to be independent and get an education, and be well traveled, and have all the things we could not when we were younger. Only if you are married but if you have been dating for awhile, and you “might” get married “someday” it’s okay. Only if you are married, but don’t you DARE ask out any women until you are 100% sure the woman you are asking out will be your wife, if not…..then you have to wait on God……..if yes, its okay to have sex IF you are going to get married. Only if you are married….but God looks at the heart first and he forgives. Only if you are married, but. Only if you are married, but. Only if you are married, but……..

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    katecho
    It’s one thing to offer constructive ways that Wilson can improve his arguments and delivery (I believe Wilson would welcome that),

    There is no evidence to support your belief. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Like other celebrity preachers he has pride to protect.

    but it’s another thing to try to cast Wilson as a closet feminist,

    Wilson is a conservative feminist, like most men his age.

    or as some kind of enemy of true biblical masculinity, as several folks on this blog appear to want to do.

    We are discussing facts. Wilson’s words routinely contradict; he says one thing one time to one audience, and a different thing a different time to a different audience.

    For a blog that exalts masculinity, the school yard stuff needs to be reigned in.

    1. You might want to read this blog a bit before you conclude what it exalts.
    2. You are almost certainly female, and do not understand how men converse.

  114. Sharkly says:

    Eidalon: He’s a despicable coward and he teaches false doctrine. He deserves no defense.
    He’s either too ignorant to be a pastor, he’s a liar, or his interpretation is so opposite to scripture that you can’t possibly listen to it. Take your pick.
    Wilson either knows this is wrong and is lying to please women or he doesn’t know, in which case he’s more ignorant of scripture than anyone arguing here. Take your pick.

    I have no compassion for the wolves, that feast off the sheep either. I agree. No false teaching should be tolerated. And when you publish false doctrine, it deserves a published refutation.
    My thanks to Dalrock for doing this service for Christ.

    KateCho: Unbelievers also say that the Bible contradicts itself, and they put forward texts that are quite plausibly contradictory at first glance … until one reads the context, and harmonizes with the rest of Scripture. That’s all I’m doing with Wilson, and it’s easy to do. Wilson has shown himself to be a powerful writer, but he isn’t always equally powerful and clear. No one is. Not even Scripture is always equally clear.

    Lord have mercy! the divine Doug Wilson’s writing never contradicts itself, so if you see some contradiction obviously you’re not understanding it right. Just as Hermeneutics is applied to the Holy Bible, so too, we owe the assumption of divine inerrancy to the great and all knowing Doug.
    Seriously, Doug’s fan-girl is so in love with him that in her mind the man is on par with God.
    That’s pretty cultic! Sometimes you’ve just got to laugh, even though false doctrine is deadly evil.

  115. SaltMark says:

    @ Eidolon April 3, 2018 at 3:02 pm

    Excellent.

  116. SaltMark says:

    @ katech0

    Unbelievers also say that the Bible contradicts itself, and they put forward texts that are quite plausibly contradictory at first glance … until one reads the context, and harmonizes with the rest of Scripture. That’s all I’m doing with Wilson, and it’s easy to do. Wilson has shown himself to be a powerful writer, but he isn’t always equally powerful and clear. No one is. Not even Scripture is always equally clear.

    Gosh, sounds like Doug has earned his stripes. He can’t exactly add to the biblical cannon, but we should respect his interpretive teaching from it?

    But it’s just not that difficult to grasp Wilson’s points when you aren’t trying to read him in the worst possible light.

    You shill. Both you and Doug are squirming under the white light of truth. How dare you call that the “worst possible light?”

    If Doug would write and speak clearly and of the truth, he would easily pass upon closer inspection and this blog would have little issue with him. And like Obama accusing anyone who questioned him as racist, you’re dismissive towards the men of this blog as unbelievers because Doug’s getting roughed up – and not for his truths, but lies and deception.

  117. SaltMark says:

    @ katech0

    …but it’s another thing to try to cast Wilson as a closet feminist, or as some kind of enemy of true biblical masculinity, as several folks on this blog appear to want to do. For a blog that exalts masculinity, the school yard stuff needs to be reigned in.

    Doug IS and enemy of true biblical masculinity. Seems to me you are either a blue-pill beta orbiting around Wilson, or you’re a woman.

  118. SaltMark says:

    Wouldn’t I be surprised if katech0 was my ex-wife. I caught her while we were married writing on Doug’s blog. Ordered her to stop it.

    Now that I think of it, it thinks and sounds like her…

  119. earl says:

    @Paul

    Where has it been made stated by the RCC that their teaching of sex was based off Augustine’s beliefs? Augustine was mentioned nowhere in that link to the lengthy dissertation you provided.

    As I have commented elsewhere, I find the teaching of the RCC on sex,based on the belief of Augustine that “sex is evil” so far-fetched, at times it is just self-contradictory. That is one area of RCC teaching I think needs a major revision. Which is probably not going to happen.

  120. Paul says:

    @earl: Where has it been made stated by the RCC that their teaching of sex was based off Augustine’s beliefs?

    I don’t know where that is STATED, historical development of RCC dogma is not my speciality, and maybe you can help here. I do know that Augustine is recognised as saint and Doctor of the Church (both in RCC and Eastern Orthodoxy), and has greatly influenced many other theologians, including Thomas of Aquino and the former pope. But you don’t need to look further than dogma to recognise his influence. The idea that sex should always be focused on procreation. That sexual desire is evil, even within marriage. His influence on the penitentials.

    Can you show a RCC statement that denounces these beliefs of Augustine?

  121. Magneto2975 says:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that there are two “goods” of sex in marriage: the “pro-creative good”, and the “unitive good”. When sought together, sex is good. It does not say sex in marriage is evil. It sinful to separate the two goods because then sex becomes a selfish act closed to God’s design.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

  122. Dalrock says:

    @katech0

    Unbelievers also say that the Bible contradicts itself, and they put forward texts that are quite plausibly contradictory at first glance … until one reads the context, and harmonizes with the rest of Scripture. That’s all I’m doing with Wilson, and it’s easy to do.

    This then is the source of our disagreement. I don’t approach Wilson’s writings as if they were Scripture, because they are not. I approach his essays as if they were essays, his books as if they were books, all written by a man. I don’t approach them as if they were God breathed and inerrant.

    So while we won’t agree, at least I understand the source of our disagreement. With his in mind, help me understand the rules you are operating under. Are all of Wilson’s writings on the level of Scripture in your mind? Or are there non canonical Wilson writings that shouldn’t be consulted when trying to decipher his canonical works?

  123. squid_hunt says:

    @Dalrock

    I don’t approach Wilson’s writings as if they were Scripture, because they are not. I approach his essays as if they were essays, his books as if they were books, all written by a man. I don’t approach them as if they were God breathed and inerrant.

    Hahahahahaha!!! That’s awesome.

  124. Paul says:

    @magneto: It sinful to separate the two goods because then sex becomes a selfish act closed to God’s design.

    How does sex become selfish if you don’t limit it to penis-in-vagina?

  125. squid_hunt says:

    @Magneto @Paul

    Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:

    Period. Catholics can reinterpret it however they like for their relationships personally. The Word of God is clear. The priests and the pastors can stay out of my bedroom. Perverts.

  126. Magneto2975 says:

    If you interfere with the sperm being allowed to enter the woman’s body and seek out an egg, you close the act to the potential of conception. This can be done by the use of condoms, diaphragms, withdrawal, etc.

  127. Magneto2975 says:

    Just to clarify, I was answering a question about the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which I answered by referencing the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

    Of course, every man is free to choose to do as he pleases – I am not advocating that anyone me here follow the teachings of the Church – I was just trying to answer a question about it because it is something I have experience with. For the record, I am not personally under the authority of Bishop of Rome, but the teaching I quoted and summerized is from the Vatican.

  128. squid_hunt says:

    @Magneto

    I understand. I was responding to the teaching, not any particular view you might have.

  129. Paul says:

    @Magneto2975: If you interfere with the sperm being allowed to enter the woman’s body and seek out an egg, you close the act to the potential of conception.

    In general that is bullsh*t, as MOST of the time a woman is not fertile and conception is not possible. You can even measure when a woman is fertile. Why should you in the cases when a woman is not fertile deposit your sperm in the woman’s vagina? It will be spilled anyway. Secondly it just repeats that all sex acts should be reproductive. It still does not answer the question why it is *selfish* to not limit sex to penis-in-vagina.

  130. Paul says:

    @Magneto2975

    And to come back to my original comment; I wrote that according to Augustine “sexual desire” is evil. You responded by talking about unitive and procreative aspects of sex (which I already mentioned). You avoided my remark on “sexual desire”.

  131. Magneto2975 says:

    You can read the Catechism for yourself, as it contains many agreements and examples from scripture. It does a much better job than I could ever do. According to the Roman Catholic Church, sex practiced properly between two spouses is both unitive procreative, and it is a “noble” act filled with the grace of God. Sexual desire is neutral, it all depends on what the spouses do with their desire. If that desire ends up in a grace-filled act, I’d be the last to call it “evil” in and of itself.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that not everything every canonized saint of the Church ever said is considered to be correct – so it is possible that one or more aspects of what St. Augustine wrote is acceptable to the Church, and others are not. St. Augustine is not writing Scripture, and what he says is open to the possibility of being in error.

  132. Magneto2975 says:

    @Paul – Interfering with the normal transmission of sperm turns the woman into a vessel for masturbation, to be used for the gratification of the man. That is why it is selfish – the man (and maybe the woman) receives pleasure, but they are telling God they don’t want the act to be open to the transmission of new life, which might inconvenience them with a baby you have to raise. No one knows when a woman is fertile for sure – they can only guess – and that is part of God’s design: Not every act of sex results in conception.

  133. Magneto2975 says:

    @Paul – my final word is that there are Roman Catholics that can explain it better than me, so perhaps it would be best to let them explain it further. I am now at the limit of my understanding.

  134. seventiesjason says:

    Was at a men’s fellowship last night at the large AG church here in town……they do have a decent fellowship……better than most.

    We had a nice dinner prepared for us too. Pastor got up to the podium and said “Good meal tonight huh brothers? You single brothers out there…….a treat for you, right?” (lots of laughter) and a pause…..timing….done just perfectly, he continued “And a lot of you married brothers too out there…..probably the best meal you had in awhile too!”

    Howls of laughter and applause.

    He then asked “how many of you men cook dinner or a meal a few times a week?” Most of the room raised thir hand…….”No, not you single brothers….you single men are probably the best cooks in the room! All I hear is how your wives are tired and you all don’t do enough in the house…….yet most of your married brothers are helping out. We should think about this for a minute. Give me some time, Maybe on Fathers Day I could give a sermon about what you men do…..movin’ sixteen tons a day in the Fresno heat ain’t easy….and I know a lot of you are street level workers…….”

    Lots of shouts and actually, genuine applause. This keeps up, perhaps I will have found a new church……

    He went into prayer and message….

  135. Wraithburn says:

    That’s really good to hear Jason. We forget sometimes there’s others out there.

  136. Sharkly says:

    Seventiesjason,
    Was at a men’s fellowship… Then the speaker proceeds to stroke you guys. The real test is what would he say to the women’s group about themselves, and about men. Some of these ministers can be like slick politicians, and they know their audience. I’d look to see what he says in front of women, if it changes very much, he is a double minded and two faced self-seeking opportunist. If the message and point stay the same, then you’ve found a rare man.

  137. sipcode says:

    This is the MO of every marriage book or sermon or blog or discussion: add a lie to the truth you just spoke: Jesus is Lord. Jesus is not Lord. The husband has the authority; the wife has the final say.

    It is not much different the the politicians that speak out of both sides of their mouth.

    Wilson and his “damnation that slumbereth not.”

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.