Pastor Wilson will no doubt thank me.

Commenter katech0 writes:

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 katech0 doesn’t understand is that it isn’t possible to prove Wilson didn’t write something in the introduction to Reforming Marriage by pointing to Wilson writing something else somewhere else.  To see what Wilson wrote in the introduction to Reforming Marriage, you have to read the introduction to Reforming Marriage.  There is I’m afraid no way around this fact.

My challenge to katech0 and anyone else who doubts my characterization of the introduction is to spend a mere $8 and buy a Kindle copy of Reforming Marriage and go read the introduction right now.  It will only take a minute or two.  If I’ve pulled a quote out of context, it should be child’s play to show what I’ve done.  This way you can both defend Wilson and support him financially.  And if I’m wrong, you will also have gained a book full of Christian wisdom on marriage!   If I’m right (which I am) you will learn the truth of the matter, which is certainly worth a measly $8.

For example, once you read the introduction you will find where Wilson writes (emphasis mine):

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.

Perhaps you will find that I’m taking this out of context, and Wilson is really quoting someone he disagrees with when he writes this.  Then you can point out my error for all to see.

But I’m confident that you won’t find any such problem with my characterization of the introduction, because I’ve actually read the introduction.  But either way, if you doubt my word, surely you have nothing to lose by spending a few bucks to know for sure.

However, if you are convinced I’m right but don’t want to actually see the truth, by no means should you buy the book and read the introduction.  In that case your best bet would be to avoid reading the introduction and change the subject.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Pastor Doug Wilson. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Pastor Wilson will no doubt thank me.

  1. djz242013 says:

    Actually you dont need to buy the book, amazon lets you read the introduction for free, as well as search the book for various key words

  2. djz242013 says:

    for reference here is a screenshot from the kindle preview: https://imgur.com/uMYviXf

  3. katech0 says:

    Once again, Dalrock needs to acknowledge, at some point, that two different kinds of unhappiness are in view in his alleged contradiction.

    In Reforming Marriage, the wife’s unhappiness is never offered as a free-standing authority in its own right, apart from Scripture. Rather the context clearly refers to “the relationship of husband and wife, as they self-consciously imitate the relationship of Christ and the Church”. In other words, the context of any of the wife’s unhappiness would have to be in things that are attached to actual Scriptural expectations. That’s the context of the introduction to Reforming Marriage, which djz242013 informs us is free for anyone to go and read on Amazon.

    Now this is completely different from the other context of the unhappy wife who is unhappy because she is trying to usurp her husband, or evade her role in the marriage. Wilson consistently rebukes these unhappy mammas, as we have recently seen on his blog. He does not uphold their unhappiness as any sort of standard for men to cower under. I’ve shown this with multiple quotes.

    So where’s the contradiction? How about a fair reading of Wilson?

  4. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Dear Katecho Wilson,

    The Truth Will Set You Free.

    In your book you wrote: “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.”

    You wrote, “Or, put another way, when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”

    You are stating that the success and aroma of marriage depends on the womans’ happiness.

    Do you agree with Genesis that a man is to rule over his wife?

    Or are you the one spearheading the collapse of the family and civiliation?

  5. jeff says:

    So, I f I’m not happy I can blame Christ? After all I am part of the body of Christ in his church.

  6. Gary Eden says:

    This is all just another way of saying it’s a sin to cause your wife to feel bad. A few Christians will even come right out and say that.

  7. katech0 says:

    da GBFM wrote:

    You are stating that the success and aroma of marriage depends on the womans’ happiness.

    Continuing to ignore the context is just a pretext.

    If someone is unhappy, this condition, in itself, tells us nothing about whether they ought to be unhappy, or whether anyone else must change to make them happy. Unhappiness can only compel others to change when the authority of Scripture establishes the obligation and duty of others. I’ve not seen any inconsistency in Wilson concerning this principle.

    Wilson addresses cases where the wife’s unhappiness obligates a change from the husband, and Wilson also addresses other cases where the wife’s unhappiness obligates her to repent and change instead of her husband. As we have seen, the context immediately gives away which kind of unhappiness Wilson is addressing.

  8. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Dear Katecho Wilson,

    The Truth Will Set You Free.

    In your book you wrote: “Or, put another way, when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”

    Are you saying that this actually means that, “Or, put another way, when daddy ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”?

    What are you saying?

    What do these words mean?
    “Or, put another way, when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”

    To me, you seem to be saying, “When mom isn’t happy, nobody is happy.”

    Is that what you mean?

    IF not, what do these words mean to you: “When mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”?

    Please let us know what this means:

    “when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.”

  9. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Dear Pastor Wilson,

    I have never seen a pastor use the word “ain’t”?

    But I do enjoy your books and sermons! They most certainly ain’t no joke!

    Nice chains! Preaching to women that their men must kneel before their happiness certainly brings in the bling in the collection plates. AMEN & HALLELUJJLZOZLZOZA!

  10. katech0 says:

    jeff wrote:

    So, If I’m not happy I can blame Christ? After all I am part of the body of Christ in his church.

    Wilson never suggests that wives should engage in blaming, even if their unhappiness is based on something their husbands are obliged to do in Scripture, so that’s a red herring.

    But if jeff could show that his unhappiness is based on Christ’s actual failure to uphold His duties as Husband, then why wouldn’t that obligate Christ to change? Scripture is the standard, right? Show us the basis of the unhappiness. Who is breaking covenant? God has been challenged concerning His Covenant faithfulness by better men than us, and vindicated according to Scripture. Scripture is the standard.

    Do guests on Dalrock suppose that a wife’s unhappiness can never be the result of a husband’s Scriptural failure? Can a husband’s unhappiness toward his wife ever be a self-intoxicated fit of emotion, or is that a sin only reserved for the wife? These aren’t difficult distinctions to parse, if we are willing to see husbands and wives as more than monolithic, Marxist, political classes.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    katecho
    In other words, the context of any of the wife’s unhappiness would have to be in things that are attached to actual Scriptural expectations.

    Who decides when the husband isn’t being sufficiently Christlike to satisfy the wife?
    It is obvious in Wilson’s text, but why don’t you tell us in your own words.

  12. 7817 says:

    “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.”

    This sentence is key, and I’m glad you quoted it Dalrock. Wilson clearly states the key is found in the way the husband is treating his wife. He doesn’t say that the health of this relationship depends also on how the wife treats her husband.

    You can’t run away from this Katie. Wilson puts ALL of the responsibility on the husband.

    A fair reading of Wilson’s book, Reforming Marriage, shows this.

    “Taking a covenant oath to become a husband involves assuming responsibility for that home. This means that men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home.” -Doug Wilson in Reforming Marriage

  13. earl says:

    Calling your wife ‘mama’ might be the first problem here.

    Mother is a term of authority sons use. Your wife isn’t the authority in marriage.

  14. feministhater says:

    Who wants to be apart of Wilson’s gang when they can’t even provide reason or rebuttal without another huge explanation of what is really meant when easy to understand words are written? This is a joke, right?

    Katecho, there is no ‘other’ context when someone states: ‘if X is unhappy, ain’t nobody happy’. It’s an open ended statement. That person’s happiness, their mental state rules the roost. There is absolutely no escaping this. Wilson has made the wife’s mental state the determiner of whether the husband’s actions are good or bad.

    Spin some more!

  15. feministhater says:

    Do guests on Dalrock suppose that a wife’s unhappiness can never be the result of a husband’s Scriptural failure?

    No, we just understand that ‘happiness’ is a fleeting emotion and that life is hard and that making a woman’s happiness the guiding light in a marriage is a recipe for failure. Women should be content they have food in their belly, a roof over their heads, children to raise and are not physically abused. That is all. The rest is just mere fodder to their ears.

    A man rules his house. Wilson should support husbands 100%. He is not a guest, he rules, she submits. If you want men to return to Church, make that the number 1 priority.

    You can never make women happy. There will always be something for them to complain about.

  16. feministhater says:

    “Taking a covenant oath to become a husband involves assuming responsibility for that home. This means that men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home.” -Doug Wilson in Reforming Marriage

    He can’t even do that, he’s a guest remember. She has the authority in the home and he is to do as he is told. Wilson creates a minefield for men to run through and then complains they won’t do it. He’s a prick.

  17. American says:

    I’m afraid Pastor Wussy should be sat down from misministering and forced to work a manly blue collar trade job for a few years, just to find where he left his balls at.

  18. feministhater says:

    Sorry, that should read ‘close-ended statement’.

  19. freebird says:

    Shortest verse in The Bible:
    “Jesus wept”
    I guess he was ungodly at the time.
    Quick fact: %50 or more of women take anti-depressants.Most likely same with Wilson’s congregation.
    That’s a whole heap-o-sinnin

  20. earl says:

    Do guests on Dalrock suppose that a wife’s unhappiness can never be the result of a husband’s Scriptural failure?

    Does Pastor Wilson ever consider the wife’s unhappiness is due to the result of her Scriptural failure as a wife?

    Saying she’s the authority in the marriage is not how God set it up.

  21. earl says:

    I’ve read plenty of accounts from various blogs where the wife began to submit to her husband just as God said to do in marriage…and they’ve more often than not said they were more happy in the marriage. It’s almost like God knew what He was doing when He created the institution.

  22. Nathan Bruno says:

    @katecho

    Your opening salvo on the previous thread started: “I was hoping for a more honest treatment of Wilson by Dalrock.”

    I pointed out in the thread that Wilson literally lied about the quote, and he engaged in a pretend swap of “honored guest” for “true gentleman”. He wrote “honored guest” in the book. He wrote “true gentleman” in his piece where he sent you this way, because he couldn’t admit over there that he literally suggested that the husband should have no ownership or permanence in the home.

    You are dishonest in how you operate if you have one set of rules for Wilson – he may lie if it is to his benefit – and then you charge Dalrock with the very thing Wilson has done.

    Wilson knows you won’t actually read anything he writes, because you’re acting as a sycophant. You might as well be screaming, “I am the Party of Apollos and I don’t care what Apollos does!”

  23. 7817 says:

    Bottom line: Wilson is promoting idolatry.

    Think that’s too severe?

    If the husband is more concerned about keeping his wife happy than he is with serving God, the husband has made an idol of his wife.

    Wilson and many of the rest of the modernist church based marriage counselors encourage this. They talk about how a husband must care for his wife, which is true, but they have inverted the priorities in their confusion. A husband does have the responsibility to take care of his family, and to not treat his wife harshly, but these commands are not unlimited in scope. If a wife is disrespectful, or tries to usurp the husband’s authority, a husband’s proper treatment of her in response may look harsh (just like grounding a child for bad behaviour right before a much anticipated event would look harsh).

    In fact, since a husband (according to Wilson) is responsible for something that can be almost completely out of his control (the mood of his wife), and the mood of his wife is what reveals the health of the relationships in the home, the husband will not make any progress keeping her in a good mood and will always feel like a failure until he repents and decides to worship God and serve God instead of his wife.

    There is a time and a place for everything, and the fact that people like Wilson no longer understand that there is even a proper time for a husband to withdraw affection and purposefully cause his wife to be unhappy for purposes of correction means that people like Wilson’s priorities are far askew.

    Katie, stop your worship of Woman and return to God. Until you do that you will continue in your blindness.

  24. Spike says:

    There are 2 quotes here thrown around in the ”Reforming Marriage” text that are deeply disturbing:

    -“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.”

    -“Taking a covenant oath to become a husband involves assuming responsibility for that home. This means that men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home.” -Doug Wilson

    This means there’s no escape or no way out for a husband to do anything TO MAKE HIS WIFE HAPPY!
    He bears all of the responsibility for her happiness – which isn’t, from what I can tell, a scriptural requirement in life – yet he can’t take any action. He can’t take control, because that would be ”tyrannical”, nor can he walk away after her demanding to take everything over and run it all herself – the thing that makes her miserable, since that would be ”abdication”.

    Is it then any surprise why any man would marry?

    Responsibility and authority are linked. That is a self-evident truth. They cannot be uncoupled.

  25. seventiesjason says:

    Pastor WIlson, and men like him (Driscoll, Platt, Chandler, Idleman, Noble) then wonder why men who are indeed steeped in the Word don’t marry, can’t find a wife to marry and are ignored by women in the church proper 😉

  26. seventiesjason says:

    Hmmmm….

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! No! No! No!
    “Raiders” was MY ‘Star Wars’ I saw it a billion times during the 1981 / 1982 year. 5th grade! May it BOMB in the theaters. May it RUIN the franchise further (it was ruined with that last installment) and may the original three be cherished by all who knew them, loved them and wished they could travel to places like Egypt, China, India, South America and take on Nazis!!!!

  27. Dalrock says:

    Note that katech0 will do anything but quote the introduction while defending the introduction. If I had mischaracterized the introduction this would not be the case.

  28. freebird says:

    Christ wrote a lot about theological leaven.
    I’ve heard some in depth sermons on that.
    Just a tip for someone looking for references.
    I have a hunch these Pastors don’t allow much dissent to be voiced in church or behind closed doors.

  29. 7817 says:

    God Almighty couldn’t even keep his household (the children of Israel) happy. But Wilson thinks a modern Christian husband should be able to go above this level of performance:

    “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.” – Doug Wilson, Reforming Marriage

  30. Oscar says:

    Hmm says:
    April 3, 2018 at 7:11 pm

    “In an exclusive interview, Spielberg nodded when asked if this new-look Jones could be female, and added: ‘We’d have to change the name from Jones to Joan. And there would be nothing wrong with that’.”

    Uh…. isn’t that Lara Croft?

  31. earl says:

    God Almighty couldn’t even keep his household (the children of Israel) happy. But Wilson thinks a modern Christian husband should be able to go above this level of performance:

    He gave them freedom, food, water, their own land, a king, prosperity…but I guess since they weren’t happy he wasn’t fulfilling His Godly duties so they built a golden calf to worship or worshipped Baal or whatever new flavor of god came in that made them tingle.

    You’re right 7817…it’s promoting idolatry. It’s not like this is the first rodeo where women, fertility, and sex have been worshiped.

  32. earl says:

    If rebuking a rebellious wife is seemed harsh to these woman worshippers…how would they judge God when He sent firey serpents to bite the Israelites when they were rebellious?

  33. Hmm says:

    In a brainstorming session today, I came up with three distinct descriptive meanings for “If mama ain’t happy…”) (hereafter, IMAH).

    IMAH1: “Son, you didn’t do your chores, and that makes me unhappy. I will continue to bother you until you fulfill your responsibility.” And once they are done, she stops. This is the most common usage of this phrase, and is relatively innocent. It can easily be extended to papa, or even God, with no loss of focus.

    IMAH2: “She’s not happy, and so she’s going to make everybody else’s life miserable.” This is the BPD usage. The telltale sign is that everybody walks on eggshells around her. In Scriptural terms, these are the Jezebels.

    IMAH3: “He’s making his wife miserable, and because of that, everybody else in the house is miserable, too.” This is the “aroma” usage. Everybody walks on eggshells around him. In Scriptural terms, these are the Nabals.

    It seems pretty clear to me that Doug Wilson is using IMAH3 in his book “The Federal Husband”, and IMAH2 in his more recent article. In this light, Wilson is not being contradictory so much as somewhat equivocal. And it ties in rather well with his comments to Dave today.

  34. 7817 says:

    “If rebuking a rebellious wife is seemed harsh to these woman worshippers…how would they judge God when He sent firey serpents to bite the Israelites when they were rebellious?”

    Exactly so. Fear of God is something we have far to small a supply of.

  35. earl says:

    ‘Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.’

    That’s probably the most important part of the Proverbs 31 passage.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    Based on ysome years of observation IMAH2 is the most common. Plenty of women in this category would not match all the DSM checkboxes for BPD. They are just unhappy women who are willing to share their mood with everyone around them. The more a man seeks to appease them, the worse it gets (yes, this is elementary “married game”, sue me). There is also a workplace version, sometimes in the form of a Queen Bee.

    Queston: Who gets to decide why a woman isn’t haaaaapy? Because as we all know, or we all should know, women will not take responsibility for their own emotions or their own actions when they are in a foul mood – even if that mood lasts for weeks, months, or years. So who gets to decide why “mama” ain’t happy? I think the answer is obvious. But I’d like your opinion, Hmm.

    In this light, Wilson is not being contradictory so much as somewhat equivocal ambiguous.

    FIFY. I no longer believe that Wilson’s ambiguity is a mere accident, by the way. IMHO he’s trying to serve two sets of customers that overlap: conservative churchgoing people and conservative feminists. He has to preserve his Bible-thumping conservative credibility, but he cannot afford to antagonize the conservative feminists by actually teliing women they have to submit even when they don’t want to, in fact especially when they don’t want to. Over half of his congregation is conservative feminist, if it’s anything like every other church. That’s a lot of bank.

  37. The Question says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “I no longer believe that Wilson’s ambiguity is a mere accident, by the way. IMHO he’s trying to serve two sets of customers that overlap: conservative churchgoing people and conservative feminists.”

    I agree. Wilson is trying to preach the Gospel without instigating a rebellion among those who keep the lights on.

    As difficult as it may be, Wilson should take the plunge and risk the consequences. Just state what the Bibles says on the role of a husband and wife in marriage and ask God to help with whatever the fallout may be.

    “There’s something worse than an empty church. It’s an offended God.” – W.B. Hinsen.

  38. Dalrock says:

    @Hmm

    IMAH3: “He’s making his wife miserable, and because of that, everybody else in the house is miserable, too.” This is the “aroma” usage. Everybody walks on eggshells around him. In Scriptural terms, these are the Nabals.

    It seems pretty clear to me that Doug Wilson is using IMAH3 in his book “The Federal Husband”, and IMAH2 in his more recent article. In this light, Wilson is not being contradictory so much as somewhat equivocal. And it ties in rather well with his comments to Dave today.

    This is more of the same. Again, note that none of Wilson’s defenders will quote the introduction while claiming I have mischaracterized said introduction.

    This isn’t clever. You aren’t fooling anyone.

    Moreover, Wilson explains in the introduction that the reason wives are unhappy even when husbands do everything he says they should do is because God withholds the blessing of a happy wife if the man isn’t sincere in his faith. This is according to Wilson how we can identify a hypocrite. The man does all the right actions but his wife isn’t happy.

  39. Dry Holes says:

    To our brave visitor Katecho:

    Please feel no obligation to publicly reply, but may I ask you to privately consider: Is it a concern of God’s that we are insufficiently happy?

    May I suggest (from Scripture, the Fathers and Church History) that God actually cares very, very little about our personal happiness. Happiness is very simply, not a goal of God in His transformation of sinful man to make us obedient children. He wants us obedient, wise, holy and mature- but happy? No, this is not a goal of the program of human transformation (please contrast with Joy).

    Does this seem like madness to you from a 21st Century version of Christianity with God as complaint, subservient boyfriend? The West has progressively over the last 200 years made an idol of our personal “happiness” in a way completely unsupported by 18 centuries of prior Christian tradition (Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant). Calvin and Luther cared no more for the fleeting feelings of congregants “happiness” than did obviously those of Catholics and Orthodox that proceeded them. Even popular US Christianity doesn’t advance the cause of the “feelies” of the laity until late in the game (greatly accelerated in the 20th century; Azuza Street? Health & Wealth Gospel, Etc.). These are plainly very late, American heresies to emphases our feelies (not sourced from historic Christianity) over the path of Christian discipline.

    You and Wilson deeply, achingly care about your feelings – because you have left the Christian Tradition (on these issues, not all) – for an irrational, overwhelming, omphalos-gazing sentimentality. The adoration of such personal emotions is weak, effeminate vanity- not Christian godliness.

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    TLDR: God does not care about your feelings, but rather your holiness. The path of holiness is mostly one of restraint and self-denial, not happiness (sorry). We don’t get to chose both God and Mammon (Chose one). And we generally don’t get both happiness and holiness (again, in most cases, Chose one).

    This is a loving comment, meant for your good (but not for your happiness).

  40. freebird says:

    hmm says wilson uses imah3.
    yet wilson said the wife was the despot,hmm is saying the husband is the despot.

    So no.
    Someone is thinking far too much to try to cover the snake tracks.
    Why did the snake bite the husband?
    Because he wanted his own personal harem for a church.
    mog mog mog

  41. Pingback: Pastor Wilson will no doubt thank me. | Reaction Times

  42. RedPillPaul says:

    As mentioned, who decides when a woman is happy or not and therefore something has to be done by the husband?

    Why is katech0 focused on happiness (and wilson for that matter) when they should be focused on joy?

    How do they get around the fact that 1 Peter 3 basically trumps a womans happiness and she is to silently submit and win over the husband through actions? Its the womans charge to action, not the other way around. And Christ loved the church to “threaten” discipline. Look at the 6 out of 7 churches addressed in Revelations 2 and 3

    At the end of the day, wilson’s shtick is to put the authority of the relationship in the hands of women while confusin….convincing men otherwise

  43. RedPillPaul says:

    Another way to put it, if a woman is not happy that the husband is not loving her as Christ loves the church and to continually wash her in the word to present her spotless to God, she is to silently submit and win him over.

    He still isnt doing what he is supposed to do? Keep your mouth shut and win him over with your actions. It doesn’t say to force him over, win him over.

    Women are called to act, not the men EVEN when he isnt doing his part. She still has to silently sumbit and WIN him over with her actions. She is still called to love and treat the husband like the former prostitute Mary Magdalene and wash and kiss Jesus feet (how mary loves Jesus is how she is to love Jesus and comanded by Jesus to submit)

    I know, a hard teaching for women. They can take it up with Jesus if they dont like it

  44. Hmm says:

    Dalrock,

    Not trying to be clever. Trying to make sense of it in a way that thinks the best of Wilson. And I misspoke (mis-wrote?) – of course the book in question is Reforming Marriage.

    On IMAH3, Wilson: “The health of all other relationships in the home depends on this relationship, and the key is found in how the husband is treating his wife. Or put another way, when mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” How is the way I defined this not congruent?

    You say this: “Wilson explains in the introduction that the reason wives are unhappy even when husbands do everything he says they should do is because God withholds the blessing of a happy wife if the man isn’t sincere in his faith. This is according to Wilson how we can identify a hypocrite. The man does all the right actions but his wife isn’t happy.”

    Having the book in hand (and having verified that the introduction in my 1995 edition is the same as the 2012 revision), I fail to see anything like what you say. Certainly you aren’t arguing that merely following external commands is enough to assure God’s blessing for the home. All Christians know that whatever outward obedience does not flow from a heart of faith is sin, and usually will not be (I dare not say never is) blessed by God.

    And in the final paragraph, Wilson is very clear to warn husbands against idolizing their wives, or placing them ahead of Christ. In fact, he says “Those who place their wives before God will lose their wives.” Certainly much of the testimony in the manosphere attests to the truth of this.

  45. Jim says:

    He can’t even do that, he’s a guest remember. She has the authority in the home and he is to do as he is told. Wilson creates a minefield for men to run through and then complains they won’t do it. He’s a prick.

    Wilson’s not a pastor (I refuse to recognize him as such) he’s a woman worshiper and therefore an idolator. This makes this maggot worse than an unbeliever. At least the pagans were honest about their idolatry.

  46. Hmm says:

    BTW, I don’t know if anyone else said it, but the introduction to Reforming Marriage can be read in its entirety (5 pages) in the Amazon book preview.

  47. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @feministhater
    A man rules his house. Wilson should support husbands 100%. He is not a guest, he rules, she submits. If you want men to return to Church, make that the number 1 priority.

    You can never make women happy. There will always be something for them to complain about.

    Damn right on this. But that last line you wrote is key. There will always be something for women to complain about. Wilson has never understood this, and it’s a big reason why he ultimately fails at teaching the Bible: In spite of his reputation as a “conservative” he has absolutely zero game and zero understanding of the red pill. Dalrock’s already provided a great demonstration of this on the multiple occasions in which he eviscerated the bad advice that Wilson gives to husbands and to men in general. But it can be just as informative — and entertaining! — to watch how badly things go when he switches gears by trying to pander to females. A couple years back, he tried praising the women of the church with a blog post whose title says it all:

    Why Christian Women are Prettier
    https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/on-why-christian-women-are-prettier.html

    If you thought all the “Christian” ladies might possibly take that as a nice compliment, just google the title of Wilson’s piece to watch hilarity ensue. And then afterwards, maybe spend some time in the company of a fellow known around here as Roissy. I’d recommend the same to Wilson, but unfortunately he’s not likely to ever understand why the crude things said about women at the Chateau will never make them half so angry as his attempt to say nice things about them already did. Because as Rollo put it: Women would rather be objectified than idealized.

  48. Darwinian Arminian says:

    *Damn, botched the formatting tags on that last post. Feel free to delete it if you like and let this one stand in its place instead.

    @feministhater
    A man rules his house. Wilson should support husbands 100%. He is not a guest, he rules, she submits. If you want men to return to Church, make that the number 1 priority.

    You can never make women happy. There will always be something for them to complain about.

    Damn right on this. But that last line you wrote is key. There will always be something for women to complain about. Wilson has never understood this, and it’s a big reason why he ultimately fails at teaching the Bible: In spite of his reputation as a “conservative” he has absolutely zero game and zero understanding of the red pill. Dalrock’s already provided a great demonstration of this on the multiple occasions in which he eviscerated the bad advice that Wilson gives to men. But it can be just as informative — and entertaining! — to watch how badly things go when he switches gears by trying to pander to females. A couple years back, he tried praising the women of the church with a blog post whose title says it all:

    Why Christian Women are Prettier
    https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/on-why-christian-women-are-prettier.html

    If you thought all the “Christian” ladies might possibly take that as a nice compliment, just google the title of Wilson’s piece to watch hilarity ensue. And then afterwards, maybe spend some time in the company of a fellow known around here as Roissy. I’d recommend the same to Wilson, but unfortunately he’s not likely to ever understand why the crude things said about women at the Chateau will never make them half so angry as his attempt to say nice things about them already did. Because as Rollo put it: Women would rather be objectified than idealized.

  49. SaltMark says:

    I recall the statues of WWI and WWI solders standing around town and on university campuses during the 60’s and 70’s that were routinely defaced with graffiti and suffered broken noses, arms, decapitations, ruined weapons, etc. by parasitic anti-government, anti-war, anti-society, anti-American hippies. It was a cowardly means to strike at the ultimate authority that the image represented.

    On earth, who was made in the image of God?

    Doug Wilson is a theological hippy. Just like the rebellious, opportunistic parasites of his generation he enjoys the benefits of the country and church culture he lives in at the same time spraying verbal graffiti all over men – God’s image.

    This behavior of his is anti-God.

    Furthermore, he’s a coward. Giddy with delight at his cleaver graffiti, and enjoying the secret thrill of being naughty, when caught tries to weasel out of the deed by claiming to be a patriot of the manosphere.

  50. Anonymous Reader says:

    @katecho
    @Hmm

    I repeat the question both of you have failed to answer:

    Who gets to decide why a woman isn’t haaaaapy?

  51. Hmm says:

    @AR: I tried to give one of the key signs in my post on the different types of IMAH. Which partner is the one you need to walk on eggshells around to prevent his / her anger?

    If it’s his fault you’ll generally see the woman being quiet and mousy. If it’s hers, you’ll see the man as henpecked or circumspect and afraid to speak anything except, “Yes, dear.”

    The signs in a man that can go either way: workaholism, abdication, depression.

  52. Hmm says:

    @AR: I realize that I gave a what, not a who. Ideally it’s those who know both people well. Unfortunately, if there’s abuse, the abusive partner will work to keep the abused one from other people.

  53. Paul says:

    @7817: “The health of all other relationships in the home depends upon the health of this relationship, the key is found in how the husband is treating his wife”

    Exactly my thoughts! THAT is the damning evidence towards Wilson.

    He is effectively ignoring ANY contribution of the wife to the relationship. He is denying that women can SIN. He is pedestalizing women, making them into infallible goddesses here. And making ONLY men responsible not even for their marriage, but for ALL relationships in the home, which would mean the relationships toward his children. This is sick. This is heretical.

    I can tell you that many a child has been messed up by the relationship with his mother, irrespective of how his father was acting.

  54. Scott says:

    This is according to Wilson how we can identify a hypocrite. The man does all the right actions but his wife isn’t happy.

    Its the “woman as divining rod of all things holy” and “you just don’t get it” and “light years ahead of men spiritually” stuff.

    If you are doing everything you can think of (and have been told) and she is still miserable, its because she can see your true intentions, like Jesus.

    It must be really cool to have that power of perception.

  55. Opus says:

    I thought all wives were supposed to be unhappy; certainly most and I speak from hearsay and observation seem to be that way. It would be tempting to ascribe this state of mind to the fact that since women abandoned motherhood for the corporate cubicle they have nothing to do other than complain and yet although that must be a factor wifely unhappiness is clearly not a new thing.

    Pursuit of happiness as in your declaration of disobedience to the crown – what you call independence – hardly helps.

  56. squid_hunt says:

    @Katecho

    Do guests on Dalrock suppose that a wife’s unhappiness can never be the result of a husband’s Scriptural failure?

    Happy is the man whose God is the Lord…

    I have learned in whatever state I am in, therewith to be content…

  57. feeriker says:

    I have learned in whatever state I am in, therewith to be content…

    I now begin to wonder if it is even structurally possible for women to be content. Expecting a woman to be content is like expecting a fish to give milk. It just wasn’t designed to do it.

  58. BillyS says:

    So who ever writes, “If dad isn’t happy, ain’t nobody happy”? That would definitely be true for a strong male leader. Clearly “momma” is allowed to be a lot more controlling in the family as well in the eyes of many, including Wilson.

  59. squid_hunt says:

    @feeriker

    It’s an effort for everyone. Women have to work at it just like men.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    @AR: I realize that I gave a what, not a who. Ideally it’s those who know both people well. Unfortunately, if there’s abuse, the abusive partner will work to keep the abused one from other people.

    Thanks. So in the case of a member of Doug Wilson’s church, the answer would be “Wilson”, whose decision would probably be final with no appeal possible.

    Of course, “abuse” has a very fuzzy definition in the modern world. A woman who shouts or screams at her husband on a regular basis would not be abusive, whereas the reverse is not only abusive but under Duluth is justification for legal intervention by the government.

    Is nagging abusive? Or is it just a woman trying to get her lazy husband to live up to his potential? Is complaining about his many faults to other women abusive, or is it just “letting her hair down”?

    Do you and I really have to go any further through this exercise?

  61. voxofreason says:

    “Do guests on Dalrock suppose that a wife’s unhappiness can never be the result of a husband’s Scriptural failure? ”

    Of course not but the wife’s unhappiness doesn’t negate the man’s authority nor her subjection to that authority. What if society approached ALL authority in society ie… government, workplace, parental etc.. in the same way Wilson leads churchians? There would be rebellion everywhere were someone wasn’t “happy”.

  62. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Oscar

    Yeoman’s effort on Wilson’s blog. I commented myself in the same thread with you and Jill; don’t know if it helps, not that anything can or will. Every comment is one more bit of evidence (I say this every time I visit places like that) of the wisdom of prohibiting women from teaching in the assembly.

  63. katech0 says:

    Earl asks:

    Does Pastor Wilson ever consider the wife’s unhappiness is due to the result of her Scriptural failure as a wife?

    Yes, Wilson explicitly addresses this case in his blog post, titled “Miserable Wives”. (You can easily search for that title on his blog, and I highly recommend the whole post.) Wilson clearly references the wife’s unhappiness in that fictional case, and he explicitly rejects that a husband should cower to any unscriptural unhappiness on her part. I quoted a lengthy passage from that post here on Dalrock’s blog. It got quite a reaction, but no apologies for the false accusations about Wilson.

    Earl wrote:

    Saying she’s the authority in the marriage is not how God set it up.

    Agreed. Fortunately, Wilson nowhere says that a wife, or her emotions, becomes an authority in the marriage. Wilson simply observes that a wife’s unhappiness can be the result of a husband’s failure to live up to his genuine Scriptural obligations in the marriage. Only in that context is a wife’s unhappiness an indicator of his need to change.

    Given that Wilson identifies so many instances of sinful discontent among wives, the only thing that could possibly give a wife’s unhappiness any authority is the authority of Scripture itself. Wilson has never said otherwise. Ever.

    For the sake of Dalrock’s own credibility, I hope he can acknowledge these distinctions some day.

  64. katech0 says:

    feministhater wrote:

    You can never make women happy. There will always be something for them to complain about.

    In responding to that, Darwinian Arminian wrote:

    There will always be something for women to complain about. Wilson has never understood this, and it’s a big reason why he ultimately fails at teaching the Bible: In spite of his reputation as a “conservative” he has absolutely zero game and zero understanding of the red pill.

    Apparently the red pill restricts the swallower to draw conclusions about women as one monolithic class, rendering the swallower incapable of ever acknowledging a woman’s qualities as an individual. This is otherwise known as identity politics. It’s a classic feature of cultural Marxism. It’s also a violation of the Golden Rule, assuming red pillers don’t want to be treated that way.

    Wilson identified this problem recently on his blog:

    Dave, the problem with your analysis is that it is playing at identity politics. You are thinking in terms of husbands/wives. But there are four key variables, not two. There are husbands/wives and there are also people who are obedient to God/disobedient to God. This gives us multiple situations—a happy marriage is obedient husband/obedient wife. But we also have many other possibilities—the most miserable being disobedient husband/disobedient wife. But there is also the obedient husband/disobedient wife and disobedient husband/obedient wife. If you have some kind of a mess that you just heard about, but you already know whose side you are on because you happen to share their sex, then you have already been captured by the cultural Marxists. From the outside, a godly man’s sympathy should go to the godly partner in an unhappy marriage, whether that person is the husband or wife. The same goes for a godly woman. Her sympathy should go to the godly partner, not the one who happens to be part of the sisterhood.

    As an aside, notice that, contrary to the misrepresentations on this blog, Wilson clearly distinguishes the “happy marriage” as the one with the obedient husband and obedient wife, which means that he identifies happiness (or unhappiness) as the kind that is being conditioned by obedience to Scripture, not merely the whims and emotions of the wife.

  65. katech0 says:

    It would be clearer to have said “measured by” rather than “conditioned by”, in my previous post.

  66. Cane Caldo says:

    @katecho

    It is sad you think that Wilson gave a relevant comeback to Dave, or an actually on-point analysis of Dave’s remarks. Dave spoke of husbands and wives just as the authors of the Bible do. Wilson retorted that Dave was playing identity politics by identifying husbands and wives as distinct things with distinct roles, and noticing that pastors treat them differently. Cultural Marxism is a thing. It is not that thing Wilson said.

    What you’re doing (though I doubt you are clever enough to know it) is gaslighting. I suspect Wilson knows what he is doing to you.

  67. earl says:

    I now begin to wonder if it is even structurally possible for women to be content.

    The more she trusts in God and less in her own abilities, the more content she comes. Everything is possible with God.

    And I’d give the same advice to men too.

  68. katech0 says:

    Cane Caldo wrote:

    What you’re doing (though I doubt you are clever enough to know it) is gaslighting. I suspect Wilson knows what he is doing to you.

    Uh huh. Dave was clearly cheerleading to promote his own male identity group, without regard for whether the husband or the wife was the godly party in a given dispute. feministhater and Darwinian Arminian were stating a conclusion about the innate discontent of all women, as a single uniform class, regardless of any consideration for any individual woman. I shouldn’t have to be the one to inform Caldo, but that’s precisely what identity politics is.

  69. 7817 says:

    The phrase “Cultural marxism” is being used by Katech and Wilson as rhetoric to signal to Wilson’s followers that red pillers who talk about masculine and feminine roles are the out group and should be shunned.

    It’s a dishonest argument, meant to throw slime at the opponents of feminism.

  70. 7817 says:

    “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.”

    “the key is found in how the husband is treating his wife.”

    You can’t defend that Katech.

    The Bible lays down rules for how husbands are supposed to treat their wives, and how wives are supposed to treat their husbands.

    Ignoring a woman’s requirements is very culturally acceptable. Your position is the mainstream cultural position, and takes no backbone to defend.

    You are crowing and attacking those who acknowledge the fact that wives also have responsibilities in order to show yourself to be the “only real man in the room.”

  71. Paul says:

    @DA: “Why Christian Women are Prettier”

    I just checked that link, and hey presto! Whoever still doubts that Wilson is pedestalizing women:

    “If we are talking about glory, and not authority, woman surpasses man.”

    “The first woman was made from the rib of the first man, not from dirt (Gen. 2:22). This means that man was made into the image and glory of God out of dirt, and woman was made out of the image and glory of God to be the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7)”

    “This is why apostles in the New Testament spend a surprising amount of time instructing Christian women on the importance of being beautiful.”

    “We are no longer under condemnation, and have been set free to pursue the standard apart from the accusations of guilt. This grace is active and alive in this world, and is working wonderfully. And that is why Christian women are as gracious and as lovely and as glorious as they are.”

  72. Swanny River says:

    Katecho,
    It seems you agree with Dalrock, that is, Wilson is full of contradictions. You write as if Dalrock wrote, “Wilson is always wrong on everything.” He didn’t write that. He wrote about errors on the introduction and you are saying Wilson wrote poorly, he teally didn’t mean those thing given that he wrote a few correct things later. You don’t like other’s conclusions. Thank you for your concern and warning but your efforts at making the case that Wilson is a clear thinker square on the bible and doesn’t pander to women is unpersuasive.

  73. Paul says:

    And from that same post some more confirmation of his crippled views on authority:

    “Men must be rebuilt in the area of authority, learning how to take responsibility as a true head, without grasping, demanding, or browbeating. This is done by imitating Christ — so that men learn that authority bleeds, and never bullies. And women must be rebuilt in the area of glory, learning how to be a true glory, without ostentatious or seductive display.”

    So men, start bleeding for your wives and help her rebuild her glory.

    The sad thing is, he quotes the NT 1 Pet 3 while explicitly avoiding at all costs to even mention what it says about submission

    “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, **by submitting to their own husbands**” (1 Peter 3:3–5, ESV)

  74. Paul says:

    Wilson:
    “If we are talking about glory, and not authority, woman surpasses man. [..] woman was made out of the image and glory of God to be the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7)”

    … and we all know that HAIR is even MORE glorious than women!

    1 Cor 11:14,15 Does not nature itself teach you that [..] if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?

  75. Bee says:

    Katecho,

    Regarding Doug Wilson’s answer to Dave.

    “This is otherwise known as identity politics. It’s a classic feature of cultural Marxism. It’s also a violation of the Golden Rule, assuming red pillers don’t want to be treated that way.”

    What Wilson answered was bait and switch. Dave responded to general views of men and women in marriage that Wilson writes about and Wilson immediately switched to personal counseling mode for specific, personal individuals. Wilson detailed how in a personal counseling mode he does not generalize but identifies if it is the husband or wife that is at fault. That had nothing to do with what Dave wrote.

  76. Hose_B says:

    “ Dave was clearly cheerleading to promote his own male identity group, without regard for whether the husband or the wife was the godly party in a given dispute.
    Wait……..”godly party??” Who is the judge of this??? Wilson seems to be saying that each person in the church should judge which is the “godly party” and then offer full sympathy to that half. They should do this based on their judgement and not whether that person n is of the same sex………. Guess what?!?!? THEY ALREADY DO THIS. The wife is the “godly party.” Period. Full stop. I say this from experience.

    We are NOT supposed to be judging who is the godly and ungodly partner. We are to tell men: You are the Glory of God. Lead your wives like Christ, gently as the weaker sex, washing her in the word, live for God, die for your wife and family if necessary.
    We are to tell women: You are the Glory of Man. Respectfully submit to your husbands leadership like he was the Lord, EVEN if she judges him to be disobedient to the word.
    and to BOTH: married folk, don’t not deny the other sex/affection of any kind. NEver use sex as a weapon or leverage. Give affection and sex freely, without string, conditions or earning it. Give affection freely.

  77. Hose_B says:

    Correction…..should say DO NOT deny sex or affection. Double negative kills the statement.

  78. TMAC says:

    Here’s the question that needs to be asked (and maybe is has been – I tried to read through all the comments but I didn’t see it):

    Is it possible for a man to be doing everything correct from a Christian perspective and his wife STILL not be happy? THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. Does Wilson say this anywhere? If he doesn’t, then he either needs to – or he is definitely part of the problem.

    Sometimes a man is a jerk to a good wife and that’s his fault………………. BUT……………. often the man is doing what he is called to do and she is still not placated enough to be happy. That’s the issue.

    The whole, “Well, maybe it looks like you are doing everything correctly, but surely there must be something you are hiding that is causing your marital strife…” is ridiculous.

    If the man is not openly committing some sin (porn, adultery, physical abuse, drugs, drunkenness, unwillingness to provide – reasonably, and maybe one or two other clear, scriptural mandates) then how would anyone accuse him of not doing enough to make his wife happy? Is he screaming profanities at her? There should be witnesses or evidence for all of these things – not just her accusations. If no one else can attest to it (and that should be someone not already in her corner like her mom or best friend) then there is no way to Biblically charge him with ANYTHING.

    I do think men need to spiritually assess the situation closely to see how they might be contributing (women should do this as well) but aside from PROVEABLE sins, you can’t just say someone is “probably” doing something, and it needs to be admitted that it IS possible (and often at that) for a man to be a good husband (biblically speaking) while still having a wife who is the primary contributor of the strife in the home.

    If you deny this – you are simply a coward and have no business dispensing marriage advice to anyone.

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.