Blinded by chivalry.

Commenter 7817 asks:

Dalrock, have you read Wilson’s post from last year where he says that one of the beautiful things the puritans did was to enshrine Chivalry in marriage?

From the post:
” This was the origin of the romantic and chivalric ideal of a knight and his lady fair.

What the Puritans did was to take this ideal, keep the romantic and chivalric aspects of it, and then combine it all with faithful and monogamous marriage.”

Given your past articles about chivalry, Wilson’s take is interesting, because he knows what it was, but thinks that our adoption of it in marriage is a good thing.

The post in question is Obeying Your Double Helix, and I had not seen it prior to 7817 asking.  In the post Wilson is right on some points.  The puritans are indeed mischaracterized as being anti sex, when they were quite the opposite.  It is also true that puritans tried to reconcile the idea of courtly love/chivalry with biblical marriage.

But it is not true that in the process of incorporating chivalry into marriage that puritans somehow improved on the biblical view of marriage.  While puritans removed the most obvious problem with chivalry/courtly love (the overt worship of adultery), they still greatly corrupted the idea of biblical marriage in the process.  Chivalry is philosophical cancer;  it is the mechanism that transformed feminist complaining into concrete action.

Even without the overt encouragement of adultery, chivalry is anti biblical.  Chivalry teaches us that women are inherently moral.  As CS Lewis explains in The Allegory of Love (emphasis mine):

It is in courts that the new feeling arises: the lady, by her social and feudal position, is already the arbitress of manners and the scourge of ‘villany’ even before she is loved. The association of love with adultery—an association which has lasted in continental literature down to our own times—has deeper causes.

As the second part of the quote above indicates, even when the overt worship of adultery is removed from chivalry/courtly love, a glorification of adultery remains.  Biblical marriage is antithetical to the kind of wife worship chivalry demands.  This involves associating both women and their feelings of romantic love with virtue and the divine.  As Lewis explains, biblical marriage is anti chivalry because of male headship and because it is based on commitment instead of emotion (emphasis mine):

The love which is to be the source of all that is beautiful in life and manners must be the reward freely given by the lady, and only our superiors can reward. But a wife is not a superior.81 As the wife of another, above all as the wife of a great lord, she may be queen of beauty and of love, the distributor of favours, the inspiration of all knightly virtues, and the bridle of ‘villany’;82 but as your own wife, for whom you have bargained with her father, she sinks at once from lady into mere woman. How can a woman, whose duty is to obey you, be the midons whose grace is the goal of all striving and whose displeasure is the restraining influence upon all uncourtly vices? You may love her in a sense; but that is not love, says Andreas, any more than the love of father and son is amicitia.83 We must not suppose that the rules of love are most frivolous when they are most opposed to marriage. The more serious they are, the more they are opposed. As I have said before, where marriage does not depend upon the free will of the married, any theory which takes love for a noble form of experience must be a theory of adultery.

It is only by doing great violence to biblical marriage that modern Christians can practice marital chivalry.  The specific form of the violence will vary, but the general nature of it remains easily identified. Stoeker and Arterburn refer to a wife’s sexuality as her “soul essence”, which the husband must obey in Every Man’s Marriage:

What I’m trying to say is that the “master” defines your rights (and remember again that though we refer to your wife as your “master,” it’s our shorthand for the fact that becoming one with her essence is actually your God-given master). Why? Because you’re called to oneness and her essence sets the terms.

Wilson himself on the other hand is a bit more circumspect in his book Reforming Marriage, even though he makes what is ultimately the same argument.  According to Wilson, the emotional state of wives is God’s way of telling us if a man is virtuous or not (emphasis mine):

In other words, keeping God’s law with a whole heart (which is really what love is) is not only seen in overt acts of obedience. The collateral effect of obedience is the aroma of love. This aroma is out of reach for those who have a hypocritical desire to be known by others as a keeper of God’s law. Many can fake an attempt at keeping God’s standards in some external way. What we cannot fake is the resulting, distinctive aroma of pleasure to God.

But while Wilson avoids directly equating a woman’s sexual desire for her husband with the man’s goodness in Reforming Marriage, in his blog post The Suitor and His Porn Wilson explains that if a wife doesn’t desire her husband sexually this is an indication that the man is not treating her right:

The most common way this happens in marriage is that a man does not treat his wife right, they start to quarrel and drift apart, and this naturally includes their sex life, and he feels just as entitled as he ever did.

Pastor Doug Wilson, Stoeker, and Arterburn are of course not alone in corrupting biblical marriage with this chivalrous concept.  Pastor Dave Wilson explains in The Art of Marriage that God revealed His displeasure with Dave through Dave’s wife’s (non) burning bush:

Dave:  Yes. Here’s all you need to know about that night—the thing that changed our marriage is when Ann was sharing with me what she felt—I had a pretty unique encounter with God. I sensed God was speaking to me, through Ann;

President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. is surprisingly bold in laying out this same moral vision (emphasis mine):

Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.

As Lewis notes, the very idea of headship destroys the moral order of chivalry.  How can a wife use her divine power to express God’s will if she is supposed to obey her husband?  How can a husband kneel to his Lady, his midons, if she is supposed to submit to him and call him lord? Pastor Doug Wilson clearly has wrestled with this problem, and this lead to him creating a new theology of marriage.  While (in theory) the husband is head and the wife is to obey her husband, Wilson discovered that there is a loophole to headship and submission.  It turns out that the wife is the despot of the home, and her husband should see himself as a guest.  This new theology is nothing if not chivalrous (emphasis mine):

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.

Moreover, since under chivalry women’s romantic love is seen as something pure and holy, the lifetime commitment of biblical marriage is incompatible with chivalry.  This is the very root of our current acceptance of no fault divorce, and this view goes all the way back to the puritans.  The famous puritan poet John Milton wrote in Tetrachordon:

And although copulation be considered among the ends of marriage, yet the act thereof in a right esteem can no longer be matrimonial, than it is an effect of conjugal love.  When love finds itself utterly unmatched, and justly vanishes, nay rather cannot but vanish, the fleshly act indeed may continue, but not holy, not pure, not beseeming the sacred bond of marriage; being at best but an animal excretion… 

This idea that romantic love (and not marriage) purifies sex is not a biblical idea, and in fact the Bible tells Christian husbands that they should approach their wives like a rutting buck!

We can see other signs of the corruption chivalry has wrought on Christian thought in the form of what is commonly called “white knighting” for women’s sins.  Pastor Doug Wilson has drank deeply from this cup, and is uncharacteristically consistent in denying women’s sins.  Wilson teaches us that men sin sexually due to sexual temptation, but women’s sexual sin is more innocent.

If we interviewed a thousand men who were immoral and sexually promiscuous, we would find we had a thousand men with a lack of self-control with regard to sexual temptation. If we were to do the same with a thousand promiscuous women, we would not find a thousand women with a sexual problem, but rather with a security problem. They are generally not looking for great sexual satisfaction, but rather for emotional security.

Likewise in Chapter 9 (Divorce and Remarriage) of Reforming Marriage Wilson explains (emphasis mine):

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

In his conclusion to How to Exasperate Your Wife, Wilson offers “A Chiastic Catechism on Biblical Sexuality” where he explains that homosexuality among men is due to men’s sin:

10. Why are men sexually attracted to other men? It is the judgment of God upon our culture because we would not honor God as God and would not give Him thanks. Therefore God has given men over to the downward spiral of their renegade lusts fueled by father hunger.

However, in the same Catechism on Biblical Sexuality Wilson explains that women’s homosexuality is caused by men mistreating women:

16. Why are women sexually attracted to other women? This also is the judgment of God upon our culture, and is the result of men—fathers, brothers, cousins, boyfriends, husbands, and ex-husbands—mistreating girls and women. Women ineffectively try to build a fortress that will protect them from rebellious male sexuality, but it cannot work. Despite this protest, many self-identified lesbians remain sexually accessible to selfish men, and the “burned by men” phenomenon just gets continually worse. This too is fueled by father hunger.

Men’s sexual urges tempt them to sin, but in the chivalrous world women’s sexuality is pure.  It only results in sin if men somehow corrupt women’s natural purity.  This is not the biblical view, but because Christians have adopted chivalry it has replaced the biblical view.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Albert Mohler, C.S. Lewis, Chivalry, Courtly Love, Dave and Ann Wilson, Every Man's Marriage, Fred Stoeker, John Milton, New Morality, Pastor Doug Wilson, Romantic Love, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to Blinded by chivalry.

  1. Pingback: Blinded by chivalry. | @the_arv

  2. Joe says:

    “Dave’s wife’s (non) burning bush”
    I lol’d at that one…

  3. feministhater says:

    Amazing how these frauds think their wives are God speaking to them when Adam was cursed for harkening to his wife’s voice…

    God is not going to speaking to you through your wife, ever. There, now anyone who says otherwise is a lying fraud. See how simple it is?

  4. Joe says:

    @feministhater
    EXACTLY that! It doesn’t say he’s cursed for disobeying God, it’s says because he listened to his wife.
    I’m going to try to squeeze that in at Church, then stand back and watch the hamster wheel spin!

  5. The Question says:

    Just ask these people where you can learn about how to be “chivalrous” in the Bible without the added commentary.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is a very good restatement and summarizing up of a bunch of your articles, tying together several different threads into a sound, logical argument. I admit that when you first began probing away at courtly love I really did not see the point, but it is like a deep abcess that keeps on festering under the skin.

    Modern Anglosphere feminism is the most virulent form at this time, and the fraud of “chivalry” is a key support. Take it away and Anglosphere feminism would be seriously damaged – take the blank slate away at the same time and feminism must collapse. It becomes unsupportable except as another self-serving gang of political cranks and kooks demanding largesse from everyone else “because, just because!”.

    It’s kind of a surprise to me that we have not seen “the weaker vessel” trotted out more in support of Ye Helpless Wymmen, perhaps that will be a fallback position for the neo-Victorians.

    Wilson’s followers & fanboys have had some time off. We’ll see if they are up to more contesting or not. Bring out your comments! Bring out your comments!

  7. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    This is a very good restatement and summarizing up of a bunch of your articles, tying together several different threads into a sound, logical argument. I admit that when you first began probing away at courtly love I really did not see the point, but it is like a deep abcess that keeps on festering under the skin.

    Thank you. I have to confess that I didn’t see the full larger picture myself until fairly recently. It is truly astounding when you put it all together.

  8. Dalrock says:

    I should add that there is one more piece to the puzzle that didn’t include for brevity. Part of the insidious nature of the switch has been switching romantic love for Christian love. Christianity is about love, but not the sort that comes from gina tingles. Since the words in English are the same the deception is especially easy to pull off. Even worse, men and women are both strongly tempted to worship women’s feelings. We have in a very real way switched from worshiping Christ and elevating the virtue of Christian love to worshiping women’s feelings of romantic love/sexual desire.

  9. Burner Prime says:

    The basic point seems that these pastors are claiming (and misusing the Bible as their cudgel) that relationship problems (i.e. a bush whose fire has died out) stem from men not being Beta enough. You have to double-down, even triple-down on Beta. In the very short term this might have a positive effect – the wife might rationally think, “OK, um, this is what I nagged asked for, so, um, I guess I will have sex with my husband?…”. But this is only temporary, the core instinct will win, and she will quickly become even more disgusted with her Super-Mega-Beta husband.

  10. Wraithburn says:

    Until I read your articles on Chivalry Dalrock, I had no idea about any of this stuff. It just seemed normal. These exposés have helped me understand things a great deal. Thank you for all the effort!

  11. Novaseeker says:

    I have to confess that I didn’t see the full larger picture myself until fairly recently. It is truly astounding when you put it all together.

    Indeed. Many would like the problem to be 1960s and later feminism, but in reality the problem goes back much further and the rot runs much deeper than that, and will therefore be very hard to root out without substantial traumas.

  12. BillyS says:

    Too many Christians think God wants them to be happy today, and this is a part of it. Nothing in the Bible says we should be happy. It does say we should seek joy, but that is a very different target today and few really look for it.

  13. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    That is why those who want to return to the 1950s, or whenever, miss the true picture. Everything led to what we have today and going back would just see us repeat the same errors, if that were even possible. Many have noted that in other threads, but it is worth repeating here.

  14. Fed up with Churchianity says:

    Wilson’s argument can be boiled down to two rules: 1, men are always fault and 2, see rule 1. I just wonder if he has any idea the path of destruction he’s leaving in his wake, “empowering” women to blow up their families in order to win cash and prizes. My ex-wife ate stuff like this up, and it didn’t matter what I said or did, I was always at fault. I was one of the lucky ones, who actually ended up with full custody of my kids. It’s pieces of filth like Wilson that have sown the seeds of marital strife and discord. Families ripped apart, children traumatized, and for what? So that Wilson and his ilk can keep the coffers flowing with their filthy luchre. To quote Charleton Heston from Planet of the Apes, “Damn them, damn them all to hell.”

  15. casparreyes says:

    Quintessential Dalrock; well done!

    I’m going to have to study that “theory of adultery” quote several times to get my head around it and make the logical steps to overcome my long churchian training. Any amplification would be appreciated.

  16. Anon says:

    Indeed. Many would like the problem to be 1960s and later feminism, but in reality the problem goes back much further and the rot runs much deeper than that, and will therefore be very hard to root out without substantial traumas.

    I have been beating this drum for ages. The FI is an innate part of the human psyche, and it once existed for a valid biological reason. Now, that reason is obsolete.

    Anyone who thinks ‘feminism’ is only due to some 20th century events in ONE country, or some meeting back in 1858, or because of a religious group that is just 2% of the population, still doesn’t get it.

    The mythology of every culture Western and Eastern has countless examples of hundreds of men dying to rescue ONE woman. That should be a clue.

    Second clue :
    How many US men died in WW2 : 300,000.
    How many women? Just 16

    So 20,000 men died for every woman who died. WW1 might have been even worse.

    Even in the Civil War, where fighting was on the same soil American civilians lived on, the gender distribution of deaths was extremely lopsided.

    The FI is innate to human psychology. Now, the FI is obsolete.

  17. TMAC says:

    Dalrock,

    Love your thoughts on this (it was helpful for me several years ago – especially the section entitled “Set Up.”)

    https://dougwils.com/the-church/peril-zero-sum-counseling.html

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    Let’s go look at the Puritans
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Puritans

    Religous dissenters in England who opposed much of the culture of their time. Never succeeded in getting enough political power, some left for Holland and then North America during the tumult of religious warfare. Associated with other Protestant traditions, in particular Scottish Presbyterianism.

    The term Puritan, never a formally defined sect or religious division within Protestantism, was used rarely to describe people after the turn of the 18th century. Puritan ideals either became incorporated into the Church of England, such as the formal rejection of Roman Catholicism; fell out of favor, such as the beliefs in demonic possession; or were absorbed into the many Protestant sects that emerged in the late 17th and early 18th centuries in the Americas and Britain. The Congregationalist tradition is one such Protestant denomination that claims descent from the Puritan tradition.[3]

    The Puritans had marriage manuals that included explicit sexual advice for mutual satidsfaction. No prudery in the 17th century anyway. It would be a good project to look for a copy or reproduction of one of the Puritan marriage manuals and examine it with The Glasses on.

    The New England Congregationalists gradually mutated, changed and even faded away. The 19th century Transcendetalists came out of Congregationalism; Thoreau, Walt Whitman and others were products of that stream of thought. We should not discount the effects on popular culture of the late 19th and early 20th century of those writers.

    It is no accident that 19th century feminism was deeply intertwined with the Temperance movement as both had to do with controlling men (for their own good, of course), and 99 years ago both succeeded in getting their way in the US: the 18th and 19th Amendments. Prohibition of alcohol via the Volstead act, and women’s right to vote. At least the Congress had sense enough to repeal Prohibition in the 1930’s…

  19. Robert says:

    I would put this down as your best work yet Dalrock. Astounding. Thank you

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Many would like the problem to be 1960s and later feminism, but in reality the problem goes back much further and the rot runs much deeper than that, and will therefore be very hard to root out without substantial traumas.

    It indeed runs much deeper than the 1960’s, or the 1870’s, or the 1780’s, or the 1660’s. But there is a certain “down the rabbit hole” quality to these investigations and arguements. Sometimes it’s a lot like this:

  21. 7817 says:

    Dalrock, your posts on chivalry have helped my understanding tremendously. Thank you.

    I love what Rollo writes as well, but debunking chivalry is another way to arrive at the same destination, and is a shorter trip. Christians that would never look at Chateau or Rollo can get there this way.

  22. Pingback: Blinded by chivalry. | Reaction Times

  23. Darwinian Arminian says:

    “If we interviewed a thousand men who were immoral and sexually promiscuous, we would find we had a thousand men with a lack of self-control with regard to sexual temptation. If we were to do the same with a thousand promiscuous women, we would not find a thousand women with a sexual problem, but rather with a security problem. They are generally not looking for great sexual satisfaction, but rather for emotional security.”

    Yes! After all, God’s Holy Book says itself, “For all have sinned, except for those who the church deemed to have acceptable reasons for their sin.”

  24. Novaseeker said, “Many would like the problem to be 1960s and later feminism, but in reality the problem goes back much further and the rot runs much deeper than that, and will therefore be very hard to root out without substantial traumas.”

    There is the presumption of the Christians (not a monolithic group of course) that there was some pure Christianity in the first place, but one day you might look at the actual (non-theological) scholarship that pieces together the likely/plausible history. The maker of Christian theology, by name branding a particular religious specification, was Emperor Constantine, who defined Christianity as the second religious orthodoxy of his newly reunited empire. The precursor to his religion was a preliminary Jewish movement within Judaism to keep the Jews and add the ‘Gentiles’. There was a schism, essentially Sts. Paul/James vis-a-vis St. Paul. Faithful be faithful (to something, anything), and it’s got nothing to do with reason or an afterlife. The Gentile offshoot was intepreted and reinterpreted relentlessly, and why not? Under oppression worse than what we have now men needed relief, and all they could do was escape insanely inward.

    There is no original Masoretic text. What is original Christianity? As soon as you explain the birth of Jesus as something divinely pure by the ‘tokens’ of female virginity yet intact, you have already lost the war on masculinity inherent in Christianity. Female sexuality is pedestalized or there is an insurmountable pedigree problem by fundamental admission of virginity as proof of the divine. Generic faith permits, and would have permitted, a biological father of a divine because faith simply permits, if it relieves fear and substitutes lust (however abstract in some cases).

    There is surely some good reason why God would reestablish Israel but leave the most sacred ground to a sworn enemy that in no way would become more hostile for loosing control of that ground. Trito-Isaiah is a hint as to the reason. So is Qumran. You’d think Christian Americans would get better service for their tax money and military marvels going to modern Isreal, but your empire was never the objective at the top, of your heirarchy.

    I thought this was brilliant, and surprising: “Chivalry is philosophical cancer”. But how can philosophy matter? Philosophy does not admit subservience to faith by definition, of objectivity. Scholasticism is not philosophy, for example. Maybe chivalry is semantic cancer?

    Was not Joseph chivalrous to honor and marry Mary? To eliminate sex from the equation of the masses, who are organisms not driven by intellectual integrity or philosophy,…you just can’t have a religion without the mass consumer being always right, as in righteous. They (you too I believe) want something for their offering of their secular power: validation of earthly lust and invalidation of earthly fear. The rest is just commentary. I of course read some of that commentary for the yucks. What interesting times for white men throwbacks who trigger the inferiors who want to be the conquering replacements of the historically dominant white men etched into their collective subscious, doing the college and cubical rites of whitey’s world domination but never understanding…the philosophy and the manifested causality of economics and its foundation: culture. It’s the riddle of steel as a plowshare. What good is the gold coin without the laborer to create and barter wealth of his brow’s sweat?

    I achieve as much as you commenting Christians do in this decline. We all need a break from our natural futility in a rigged game. Venting and hoping someone else will gain traction with the magic of our digital words and be our mental meatspace legacy. Who would do that if they could? Meatspace matters, and we all must fight there or be cowards. Meatspace was never pure. How you could expect something pure for the ages to have grow in it, in human practice, for you to discover as the answer to your everything I don’t understand. But I do understand. You’d rather feel your winning more than anything else in the whole world. Your saga continues… Libtards simiply want to win like the animals they are, and you will sacrifice yourselves to bring them to Jesus. If only you did not sacrifice me to meet your objectives. Every Friday is a secular good Friday with you in the world.

  25. Swanny River says:

    This was dense but good, as several commenters have noted. Someone above said “theology of adultery,” was difficult to understand. I agree. It wasn’t spelled out directly, but I think from the comments that the connection between chivalry and romance is a dependence of a woman’s emotions are necessary for validating the man’s efforts. Did I get that right? So the move from a biblical commitment to obey God to not be harsh, but to try to be gentle with your helpmeet and fellow sinner has been transformed by ignoring the woman’s nature and role in an effort of putting her emotions in a place of power that they were never meant to be in?

  26. Swanny River says:

    I too look forward to the Doug apologists to make a showing.
    I think this topic will be more meaningful for me now that I’m understanding the connections better and can now “take it to the street.”

  27. Hmm says:

    BillyS:

    Happiness is nice but overrated. C. S. Lewis even wrote an article for the Saturday Evening Post, published a month after his death in November, 1963, called “We Have No ‘Right to Happiness'”.

    https://adropofhemlock.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/we-have-no-right-to-happiness-by-c-s-lewis/

  28. Purple Tortoise says:

    Dalrock,

    I think there is a broader theme than chivalry that is driving Doug Wilson’s views. I don’t know how closely he is associated with it now, but he comes out of the Theonomic/Reconstructionist movement. I won’t describe that movement here, but one core tendency is the application of the earthly promises of God to O.T. Israel to Christians in the N.T. era. God promised the people of Israel that if they obeyed His laws, He would bless their earthly lives in the Promised Land, so Theonomists/Reconstructionists tend to hold the view that if Christians obey God’s laws, then God will bless their earthly lives here in America. How this fits with the earthly suffering and heavenly rewards given in response to the obedience of the apostles and the early Christians, I will leave as an exercise for the reader. The bottom line is that in areas of life other than marriage, a perusal of Wilson’s writings indicate that he holds the view that if people would only repent of their sins and start obeying God, they will prosper in their earthly lives. Of course, Wilson wouldn’t say this is an automatic outcome, but I do think he sees it as a strong tendency. So when it comes to marriage, it’s not that Wilson thinks women don’t sin, but he thinks that if the husband is a fine upstanding Christian, then God will work in his wife’s heart so everything will go well, just like God will grant him success in his career, etc. I don’t think Wilson would say this in so many words, but it seems to be the underlying attitude if you read his writing. So it’s not just that Wilson has a hard time believing that a husband could be one of the best Christian men around and yet have a sinning wife who makes his life miserable, Wilson seems to have a hard time believing that a man could be one of the best Christians around and yet have a life filled with injustice and suffering. Again, whether that’s biblical, I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

  29. PokeSalad says:

    If we interviewed a thousand men who were immoral and sexually promiscuous, we would find we had a thousand men with a lack of self-control with regard to sexual temptation. If we were to do the same with a thousand promiscuous women, we would not find a thousand women with a sexual problem, but rather with a security problem. They are generally not looking for great sexual satisfaction, but rather for emotional security.

    “You cheated because you’re an asshole…..I cheated because I was confused.”

  30. BJ says:

    @Purple Tortoise

    I have a pretty strong grasp of Wilson and his teaching. Honestly, I think you are purt near spot on. He is not driven by a tendency to placate women as far as I can tell (though I know many on here would disagree). He does, however, have a very high view of the law and the prosperity that stems from keeping it.

    I would tend to agree with his assessment about keeping the law and it bringing about blessings, though I wouldn’t want to be too specific about his application of this idea in marriage.

  31. Oscar says:

    “Pastor Dave Wilson explains in The Art of Marriage that God revealed His displeasure with Dave through Dave’s wife’s (non) burning bush” ~ Dalrock

    If her bush is burning, it might be crabs.

  32. Jack Russell says:

    How would the “Wilson Bros.” explain the Samaritan woman who had seven husbands (correct me if I am wrong). Did she have to go through that many husbands and still not have emotional security?

    Here is an old Elvis tune, called Clean Up Your Own Back Yard. The first few lines are about a hypocritical Preacher. They suit modern Churchianity well.

  33. Marquess of Rawrberry says:

    “Wilson seems to have a hard time believing that a man could be one of the best Christians around and yet have a life filled with injustice and suffering.”

    “I would tend to agree with his assessment about keeping the law and it bringing about blessings…”

    The stalwart wretches eaten alive by lions would probably take exception to his thesis. (I expect their rewards were spiritual.)

  34. Cane Caldo says:

    But Dalrock: If we don’t embrace chivalry it will prove we aren’t members of the gentry–true gentlemen of the middle class. We’ll be revealed as…commoners!

  35. Luke says:

    Cane, I know you are being ironic. That said, for the benefit of anyone reading your post, I will respond to it as if you were being serious.

    By definition, most women are common women. “Ladies” are something unusual.
    A lady can easily enough lower herself to CW status, while the reverse is nearly impossible IMO.
    Past sluts/meth heads never become “pure” in soul and body again, after all.

    The old saying was “it takes three generations to make a lady”. I could see that.
    A mystery-meat, abused/neglected LD bastard has what prospects of nobility? Exactly.

    A partial but adequate list of behaviors or characteristics where confirmation of even ONE of them would unambiguously place a female adult human in the common woman category, never to rise out of it, would be easily enough compiled. I’d say failing even two of Dalrock’s tests to see if a woman would make a good wife would suffice, also.

  36. Hmm says:

    @Purple Tortoise:

    I think you are spot-on in your analysis of Wilson’s thinking in this area, and I have read his work for almost two decades. As a recovering theonomist, I have seen a tendency to tie obedience and God’s blessings more closely together than perhaps the New Testament does.

    And there is certainly some reality to this. John Wesley noticed that as the common laborers he ministered to became believers, they put aside their drinking, returned to their homes, became better fathers to their children, and spent their money more wisely, and became more financially stable, even wealthy. This dynamic worried Wesley that their newfound wealth would draw the believers away from the church in their newfound self-sufficiency.

    Now all of us as Christians have some form of this belief. We believe our lives are better because we believe in God – that he blesses our obedience in some degree. The difficulty is trying to work the process backward: if you are not blessed, you must not be faithful. Jesus condemns this kind of thinking roundly in the Gospels at least twice: first, in the story of the Tower of Siloam in Luke 13, and second and most profoundly in the story of the man born blind in John 9. And really the whole book of Job exposes the fallacy of thinking that you can judge a man’s faithfulness from looking at his circumstances. In fact, one manosphere answer to Wilson in this area might be “Remember Job’s wife!”

  37. GK says:

    Chesterton (in The New Jerusalem) on Islam and chivalry:

    The male Moslem, especially in his own family, is the king and the priest and the judge. I do not mean merely that he is the master, as many would say of the male in many Western societies, especially simple and self-governing societies. I mean something more; I mean that he has not only the kingdom and the power but the glory, and even as it were the glamour. I mean he has not only the rough leadership that we often give to the man, but the special sort of social beauty and stateliness that we generally expect only of the woman. What we mean when we say that an ambitious man wants to have a fine woman at the head of the dinner-table, that the Moslem world really means when it expects to see a fine man at the head of the house. Even in the street he is the peacock, coloured much more splendidly than the peahen. Even when clad in comparatively sober and partly European costume, as outside the cafes of Cairo and the great cities, he exhibits this indefinable character not merely of dignity but of pomp.

    Chivalry is not an obvious idea. It is not as plain as a pike-staff or as a palm-tree. It is a delicate balance between the sexes which gives the rarest and most poetic kind of pleasure to those who can strike it. But it is not self-evident to a savage merely because he is also a sane man. It often seems to him as much a part of his own coarse common sense that all the fame and fun should go to the sex that is stronger and less tied, as that all the authority should go to the parents rather than the children. Pity for weakness he can understand; and the Moslem is quite capable of giving royal alms to a cripple or an orphan. But reverence for weakness is to him simply meaningless. It is a mystical idea that is to him no more than a mystery. But the same is true touching what may be called the lighter side of the more civilised sentiment. This hard and literal view of life gives no place for that slight element of a magnanimous sort of play-acting, which has run through all our tales of true lovers in the West. Wherever there is chivalry there is courtesy; and wherever there is courtesy there is comedy. There is no comedy in the desert.

  38. Paul says:

    It is painful to see how the distorted view on women and their sexuality has turn men into goddess worshiping idolaters. I do not think it is coincidence that on the skirts of modern feminism we went from ‘girl power’ to ‘you go girrrl’ to ‘goddess’.

    Early in the history of the Church Gnostic thinking, which itself was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, created a dichotomy between ‘material-evil’ and ‘spiritual-good’, which has since then left its influence on the teaching of the Church both on sexuality/lust and on the view on woman. It is no coincidence that there are uncannily many similarities between wife worship and Maria worship. Not to mention that ancient practices of female fertility rites and goddess worship have always been lingering below the surface, probably because these fit very well the fallen state of women.

    The antidote the NT teaches:
    1. don’t marry if you can control your sexual passions
    2. marry and have sex with your spouse whenever one feels like
    3. be faithful until death do part you
    4. a wife should obey her husband as she obeys the Lord, a husband should love his wife as his own body.

  39. FPD72 says:

    Great insight concerning the pervasive influence of the concept of chivalry within Christian teaching on marriage and sex. You have been performing valuable work for Christ and His church for a number of years.

    That said, there is an exegetical issue with your interpretation of Proverbs 5:19. The word you are translating as “buck” is ya’alah, which is the FEMININE form of the noun ya’el. The word is being used to further describe the wife, not the husband. According to the Theological Workbook of the Old Testament [TWOT], this word refers to an Ibex, a mountain goat. But even if the reference is to a deer, it is a FEMALE deer, not a buck.

  40. Bee says:

    Impressive to see that CS Lewis was red pilled.

  41. Dalrock says:

    Thank you for the kind words FPD72.

    But even if the reference is to a deer, it is a FEMALE deer, not a buck.

    Agreed. But the advice is to the husband, to approach his wife as a doe. Unless you read the proverb literally (as a sort of bestiality), this makes the husband the rutting buck in the imagery.

  42. Pingback: Marriage is… | Christianity and masculinity

  43. Dalrock says:

    @Purple Tortoise

    Dalrock,

    I think there is a broader theme than chivalry that is driving Doug Wilson’s views. I don’t know how closely he is associated with it now, but he comes out of the Theonomic/Reconstructionist movement. I won’t describe that movement here, but one core tendency is the application of the earthly promises of God to O.T. Israel to Christians in the N.T. era. God promised the people of Israel that if they obeyed His laws, He would bless their earthly lives in the Promised Land, so Theonomists/Reconstructionists tend to hold the view that if Christians obey God’s laws, then God will bless their earthly lives here in America.

    Interesting. However, this would only explain a very small part of what I covered in the OP, and even there, the two ideas (Theonomy & chivalry) would be complimentary, not exclusive. Theonomy would fit with the mechanism Wilson describes where the wife’s mood is a sign of God’s pleasure (or displeasure). But it doesn’t explain why Wilson points the causal arrow the way he does. 1 Pet 3 tells us that wives win their husbands via submission, it does not tell us that husbands win their wives via headship. Theonomy explains why Wilson goes overboard in how he view’s God’s blessings, it doesn’t explain why Wilson reversed the biblical model here.

    Theonomy also doesn’t explain why Wilson thinks men’s sexual temptations are just that, sexual temptation, but women’s sexual temptation comes from men perverting women’s natural purity. Nor does it explain Wilson’s theological invention of the wife as house despot with the husband as guest who does what he is told. Likewise it doesn’t explain numerous other examples I didn’t specifically cover in the post, as in Wilson’s claim that women who abort their children don’t (and can’t!) know it is wrong.

    Chivalry (and not Theonomy) explains all of these, and Wilson directly tells us he believes that chivalry improved on what Scripture teaches us.

  44. I remind you of the sinister propaganda that was “The Plow Horse and the Princess” (2012). Apparently, no one here fell for it. I compared the comment thread names. It was posted by a woman at A Voice For Men. It normalizes the idea that the woman is a princess, whether good or bad, and that the man is a draft animal for her pleasure, but one with firm limits and rights damn it! The crumb of glorifying ‘proper’ treatment of the draft animal is the bait for the yoke. Remember that spooky, sick movie: “Vanity, vanity!” A man ought to to value his labor capacity as his natural right of ownership. (I am libertarian but not a pacifist.) It is for the woman to serve the man in family and civilization, or there is no family or civilization. That AVFM website also normalizes the idea that a woman can speak for men (per the URL and authorship). You must have some idea why PUAs think little of M(H)RAs.

    If you are going to put women in their place, no, if you are going to not accept a woman putting you in your place (outside of your professional life), what about Christian charity in general? You know what subsidies of the uncivilized begets, right? Christian alms are not magically different from government welfare because somehow we are overrun by base humanoids who don’t know the difference. I have no idea why it works that way. Nor have I heard of the Vandals. Is that a feminist folk band with Gloria Allred on de base? Keep connecting the dots, guys.

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    Chivalry (and not Theonomy) explains all of these, and Wilson directly tells us he believes that chivalry improved on what Scripture teaches us.

    “God-as-vending-machine” theology is way above my knowledge base, although it does remind me a bit of Gary North’s true believers back in 1999. Not to mention Joel Osteen. Or Creflo Dollar…

    Returning to Chivalry, now I finallly can understand why traditional-conservatives are always suckers for women in general and feministas in particular. God speaks to the Trad-Con from a woman’s mouth (or other opening) therefore appeasing women is a religous duty. Being a sock-puppet for radfems? Just like a really good church service. Tearing down your religion, culture and country in the hope of gaining women’s approval? Like an extreme cultist in a moment of emotional, religious excitement cutting off his testicles and throwing them onto the altar of his goddess as a sacrifice.

    Come to think of it…well, that rabbit trail is for later.

    Novaseeker called it. These beliefs go very deep, they cannot be rooted out without some serious pain. Challenging the notion of women’s moods as the barometer of God means challenging the “vending machine” theolody. But if that theology underpins a man’s entire self-image, that’s an attack on the very “self”. It sparks up the amygdala just like seeing part of a lion under the tree or some other dire danger from the dim past.

    It can be physically painful to resist that amygdala startup, that “fight-freeze-flight” dump via the limbic system. If the amygdala startup conflicts with the forebrain, cognitive dissonance likely results, the condition of having to believe both “A” and “Not-A” at the same time.

    Much food for thought here, Dalrock.

  46. Novaseeker says:

    Wilson’s claim that women who abort their children don’t (and can’t!) know it is wrong.

    Wow. Talk about lost.

  47. BJ says:

    @Marquess of Rawrberry

    I agreed only his that assessment 😔, because it had this caveat: “Of course, Wilson wouldn’t say this is an automatic outcome, but I do think he sees it as a strong tendency.”

    Those stalwarts you mentioned are of course Giants in the faith, without question. But the OT also makes explicit connections between obedience to the law and blessings.

  48. BJ says:

    Apologies, no idea where the face icon came from

  49. Dalrock, I certainly hope Doug Wilson doesn’t have you killed. Your logic is sound and can’t be refuted. I’m sure Doug just wants you to shut up and go away.

  50. Purple Tortoise says:

    A point of clarification:

    I certainly agree that if a man stops doing drugs, cleans up his life, starts working diligently, and saves his money, then he will likely prosper more than he did before. But this is common grace that God extends to believer and unbeliever alike. The Theonomist/Reconstructionist (Wilson’s) view is different from this — it is that God will especially bless believers when they faithfully obey , just like God promised blessings to O.T. Israel that He did not extend to the other nations even if they cleaned up their lives, etc. So sure, if a man stops drinking and starts spending his money wisely and becomes a better father then his life may go better, but Wilson has in mind something more than common sense.

  51. Mychael says:

    I’m working a shift in the ER today. Apparently Scott went to the store and bought a bottle of wine. He took a picture of it on the kitchen counter and sent it to me. The accompanying text read: “stay at home date tomorrow night.”

    No question mark. No “would you like to share this bottle with me, m’lady?” Just a statement.

    So I guess I will be spending tomorrow evening after the kids go to bed getting buzzed with my husband.

    Not very chivalrous. But it works every time.

  52. Lost Patrol says:

    Well, sure. Everyone here would be happy to drink with Scott. (Insert smiley face if you know how).

  53. Purple Tortoise says:

    Thanks for your response, Dalrock.

    The way I would put it is that Theonomy is what prevents the empirical evidence from pushing Wilson away from Chivalry.

    Until recent decades, there has been strong social pressure for women to be chaste and nurturing, and this persisted longer in the church than in the outside culture. Just as fish don’t notice the water they swim in, many people didn’t see the social pressure and instead attributed chastity and nurturing to innate characteristics of women. In such a culture it is easy to view the relatively rare episodes of female sexual sin and procurement of abortion as aberrations and blame them on men.

    The turn of away from Christian religion by the broader culture relaxed the social pressure on women and allowed them to act as they wanted with less social consequence, and the result was a huge increase in female sexual sin and abortion. One response to this empirical evidence would be to conclude that women weren’t so innately chaste and nurturing as was thought since they became big sinners once the consequences were eliminated. But this does not fit well with Wilson’s theonomic O.T. framework. Instead, Theonomy says that America turned away from God, so God punished America with female sexual sin and abortion.

    Another key part of the Theonomy is its extreme focus on covenantal representatives — you see this in Wilson’s continual emphasis that the husband is responsible for everything in the marriage. In this view, if the covenantal representative (king in O.T.; husband nowadays) is right with God, then everything goes well. The idea that a husband might be doing everything right before God and a wife might still be sinful and rebellious doesn’t fit well into Theonomy, so Wilson ignores the evidence and sticks with Chivalry.

  54. Anon says:

    IBB,

    Dalrock, I certainly hope Doug Wilson doesn’t have you killed. Your logic is sound and can’t be refuted. I’m sure Doug just wants you to shut up and go away.

    ‘Have him killed’? How? How would he get away with that? For starters, no one even knows Dalrock’s identity.

    We don’t know how many of Pastorbator Wilson’s followers are even aware that he is being exposed as a fraud.

  55. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @purple tortise
    Your description of theonomy is novel. It would certainly not be recognized by Bahnsen or North. You also conflate covenantal theology with theonomy. While most theonomists are covenantal they are very different things. Theonomy would hold the OT laws are still in force except what has been abrogated by scripture, fulfilled and satisfied in Christ and then those that enhance the general equity should still be followed. A theonomists would stone women for adultery, including divorce-remarriage and would allow men to be polygynous. Wilson doesn’t even come close. On the covenantal front even righteous kings had to do justice at home, so even if a husband’s way pleased the Lord he might still have to discipline a contentious wife. Again Wilson misses the forest for the trees. It is not theonomy or coventalism that plague Wilson, but his desire to be respected and admired especially by women.

  56. seventiesjason says:

    this conversation is way over my head now.

  57. Lost Patrol says:

    Same here. I’m trying to maintain snorkel depth. Good stuff though.

  58. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Dalrock, I certainly hope Doug Wilson doesn’t have you killed. Your logic is sound and can’t be refuted. I’m sure Doug just wants you to shut up and go away.

    Wilson doesn’t have the courage to openly criticize a bunch of powerless bluehairs. He doesn’t even allow people to disagree with him in his own comments section. He seems a total coward: morally, intellectually and physically.

    ‘Have him killed’? How? How would he get away with that? For starters, no one even knows Dalrock’s identity.

    I’m Dalrock. Come and get me, bitches.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  59. Anon says:

    He seems a total coward: morally, intellectually and physically.

    Indeed. He will probably have a meltdown if he sees that I called him a Pastorbator.

    I wonder why IBB became so frightened of a cowardly pastorbator.

  60. Purple Tortoise says:

    Jonadab,

    Unfortunately blog comments do not lend themselves to precise and comprehensive descriptions of theological movements. But you are correct that Wilson is not a thoroughgoing theonomist and that he might have more biblical views on women if he was. At least then he might extend men authority to go along with the responsibility he assigns them.

    My point in drawing a connection between theonomy and Wilson is both apply to Christians (or even whole nations) the promise of God to O.T. Israel that He would specially bless in an earthly manner those who obey His laws beyond any common grace available to believers and unbelievers alike. The convenantal approach lays the whole burden on the husband, and if things are going bad for him it must be because he has turned away from God like O.T. Israel did. Of course, they wouldn’t directly say that, but that is the underlying attitude.

    A contrasting view is that the N.T. teaches that Christians receive spiritual blessings as they turn to God. After all, who served God better than the Apostle Paul, and who experienced more earthly suffering than him? In this framework, it is quite possible that a husband can be a faithful Christian and yet have his life made miserable by a sinning wife.

  61. Opus says:

    Chivalry: I thought Cervantes had dealt with that four centuries ago: Confusing Whores for Ladies of the Castle, Swineheardess-ess for great Ladies. Is not the consumption of Chivalric romances the male equivalent of reading Chick-Lit.

  62. Spike says:

    If I understand this right, then even the great CS Lewis got it wrong when it came to the nature of woman.
    What you say here makes sense, Dalrock. I always had wondered about chivalry in Anglo culture. Having European parents, I had a far different view about man-woman relations. It was based on pragmatism: women had sex, men had labour / money and the two honorably paired in marriage. Anglo culture had a cult of chivalry that, I think, skews relationships.
    The Puritans didn’t have a bad view of sex: John Donne’s romantic poetry was held in high regard by them; John Calvin wrote erotic poetry to his wife (which I read as a student but haven’t found on the Net since). I would agree that the Puritans welded chivalry to biblical marriage and this was a mistake that we are still paying for today since it laid the philosophical foundation for feminism.
    The problem with the Wilsons and Mohlers of this world is that they are being read and sermonised by the current crop of well-meaning but naive pastors and it makes the Jezebel spirit rampage. Jesus warned the church about idolatry and fornication in Revelation with regard to the Jezebel teaching. Luke tells us Acts 15 to abstain from idolatry and fornication.

    Yet here is the diabolical cult of chivalry in our midst and we all would think it normal save for a dose of red pill.

  63. Spike says:

    Postscript: Oh no, Dalrock
    The Christian movie ogre is about to strike again.
    I haven’t seen “God’s No Dead 3” yet, but the trailer has an ultra cringy moment in it where Pastor Dave’s wife says to him, “It’s okay to be broken, Dave. It means God’s still shaping you…”
    Ugh.
    You’re going to have a field day. I just know it!

  64. Kevin says:

    Satan is in it for the long game. Laying the seeds that emotions sanctifies sex not promised to God did not bare fruit in the majority of people while their was still some sense of obligation to God, but as that has eroded it has become the justification in and out of religion for any immorality of women.

  65. DrTorch says:

    I don’t really like tabloid coverage of celebrity marriage/divorce, usually coverage is one-sided and sensational, and provides nothing beneficial. And frankly, I got tired of this show rather quickly.

    But, these slides suggest there was a lot of legitimate health issues in this celebrity marriage that broke:

    https://www.cheatsheet.com/health-fitness/flip-or-flops-tarek-el-moussa-says-divorce-worse-than-cancer-as-christina-moves-on-with-new-boyfriend.html/?ref=YF&yptr=yahoo

    And that Christina’s solipsism and hypergamy came out in full display.

    It emphasizes the quotes from above, ,“How can a woman…be the midons whose grace is the goal of all striving and whose displeasure is the restraining influence upon all uncourtly vices?

    “where marriage does not depend upon the free will of the married, any theory which takes love for a noble form of experience must be a theory of adultery”

    Indeed. And the conclusion is easily predictable

    Christina El Moussa seemed to move on from her divorce fairly quickly compared to her ex-husband.

    Wow, pretty blonde easily finds company after leaving ill husband. That’s a dog-bites-man story.

  66. Swanny River says:

    Can someone explain to me what is meant by a marriage depending upon the free will of the married means? Is an arranged marriage an example of people without free will? Women freely divorce and commit adultery by marrying another, so how is that different than a theory of adultery?I

  67. PokeSalad says:

    Can someone explain to me what is meant by a marriage depending upon the free will of the married means?

    Sure, it means the same thing as, “I will submit to your headship as long as you go in the direction I wanted to go anyway.”

  68. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Dear Dalrofokas!!

    Thankz for another excellent blogz!

    speakingsz of bestializityiesz, jesus is a lionz dontya knowz!!

    lzozozlzlzzlzol

  69. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    afeter da ministerz read the “doe is a deer a female deerz” sermon today, da gbfm was inopired, hailled da lordz hallejulllaha, and wrote a song todayz:

    lzozozozmzgzlzlzozozo

  70. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Prince Caspainzlzozozo is my favorite Godly C.S. Lewsi work, so much better dan da sily and uptight KJV Matthew MArk Luke John!

    C.S. Lewis wrote: “In Prince Caspian Lewis opens to us his true heart: (The quotes are somewhat long in order to show the context as Lewis has it.)

    p. 152 – “The crowd and the dance round Aslan (for it had become a dance once more) grew so thick and rapid that Lucy was confused. She never saw where certain other people came from who were soon capering among the trees. One was a youth, dressed only in a fawn-skin, with vine-leaves wreathed in his curly hair. His face would have bee almost too pretty for a boy’s, if it had not looked so extremely wild. You felt, as Edmund said when he saw him a few days later, ‘There’s a chap who might do anything — absolutely anything.’ He seemed to have a great many names — Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram, were three of them. There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he. There was even, unexpectedly, someone on a donkey. And everybody was laughing: and everybody was shouting out, “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi.””

    Yasss! In my HOLY church of GODZ we dance around a big cat and sing “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi.” “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi.” “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi.” !

    lozozozoomgzzlzo

  71. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    As C.S. Lewis wrote, “He seemed to have a great many names — Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram, were three of them. There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he.”

    Da GBFM called this Ram dude “Bro!”

    Der were a lotz of girls with the RAM dude Bromios Bro, so da GBFM said, “Yo Bro! Lotzozoataz cocoaszzkz for a ladiesz hail high hallejulla C.S. Lewis so much better dan Jesus which is why C.S. Lewis never actually quotes da KJV BIble never never never ever.

    And den ad Ram dude Bro, da GBFM, and all the wild girls, as wild as da Bro dude, went to da church and danced and sang and “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi” and it plese pastor Wilson and da feminists and churianz and bankerz were all very pleased with what Satan had wroought via C.S. Lewis da antichristzlzzozozozozllzoolzo

  72. PokeSalad says:

    Gents, totally off-topic, but….. R. Lee Ermey has passed through The Gates Immortal. God Bless, and Semper Fi.

  73. Swanny River says:

    PokeSalad,
    Thanks. Your comment confirms how I understand that quote. That is why I am confused, that excerpt by Lewis is anti-chivalry to Dalrock, but I am not able to get the connection between what Lewis wrote, and a distaste for Chivalry from that passage. Like you, a statement about free will makes me think of an entitled harridan.
    I would’ve expected Lewis to say something like, “A woman who is unconstrained by anything, that is, free to love whom she chooses, is rudderless and unable to give a faithful commitment. ” I am missing something that helps me understand Lewis’s excerpt better.

  74. Swanny River says:

    I called it an excerpt, but my confusion is only over the bolded part of Sentence 83.

  75. Swanny River says:

    Also, how is looking at romantic love as noble a direct lead into adultery? I know Lewis is making sense, but the leaps are too big.
    For example, he isn’t saying Song of Solomon is something leading to adultery, so what is he thinking when he says “noble” that distinguishes what he is saying from the good of SoS? As Dalrock says, we are as rutting bucks, but that is different than making love a noble experience. Why?

  76. Swanny River says:

    I like Lewis, so maybe I should take a class on him instead of clogging Dalrock’s blog about one sentence.
    Ok, things start to make sense if Lewis is saying that if women are our superiors then men’s love for them is not freely given, because we do it for a reward and not for the person or for God. And if it is freely given, then it has to be biblically, with the husband in authority, or a betrothed expecting that authority to come. And if I keep in my mind that the women is superior as I seek her, and if I call such a chase as noble, then that is making the premarital bonding so significant that it crosses over into adultery because the woman I am chasing or seeking approval of, is not my wife???

  77. mgtowhorseman says:

    Interesting article from women acknowledging men not “hunting” women to date. The solution? Ignore the passive, detatched “gatherer” men and focus on the few hunters.
    Yup like men hunting the few unicorns. Basically women embrace chivalry.
    Very interesting, thoughtful if misguided piece.

    At least shows mgtow etc is having an effect.

    https://pairedlife.com/dating/Why-Women-are-Frustrated-and-Confused-about-Men-and-Dating

  78. mgtowhorseman says:

    Similairly. Stay at home clubs of women given up. In their early 30s!!
    But wait for the baby rabies. A different approach to the same effect.
    Too bad they have no clue as to the cause.

    http://www.flare.com/tv-movies/stay-at-home-club-giving-up-dating/

  79. mgtowhorseman says:

    http://www.flare.com/tv-movies/why-being-single-sucks-what-no-one-wants-to-talk-about/

    Modern female life summed up in a sentence
    “Then I climb into bed and try not to think, How can I last another night in this same bed in this same room in this same loveless life and wake up alone and do it again the next day and the next and the next?”

    And not a clue as to how they got here.
    At least they are acknowledging single life is not really “fabulous.”

  80. mgtowhorseman says:

    Interestingly buried at the end of the loniliness article is this gem

    It takes strength to hold out for a person who loves you just the way you are. I’m asked on dates by so-so guys that I politely decline. I don’t frantically prolong fizzling flings. I could have married my lovely ex years ago. Not having someone is hard, but settling for just anyone is harder.

    I could have married my lovely ex!!!

    Hmmm assortitive mating maybe was a good thing??

  81. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    Dalrock’s exposition of this theme is wonderful: “When the puritans incorporated chivalry into marriage they killed biblical marriage. Even Milton understood this, which is why he argued that when the feelings of romantic love were gone, a marriage could no longer exist.”

    Dalrock–how did you find out that Milton had said that? Is there a Milton essay I could read? Also, what all are the places where C.S. Lewis expounded on this? Perhaps you have already shared this and I should search your blog!

    Milton comes across as quite anti-Biblical! Are these “romance sanctifies marriage” sentiments expressed in Paradise Lost?

    Who else has expounded on all this? Is it found ANYWHERE in the Bible at all? In other great books?

    Keep up the great work! I feel that in this singular theme you have unified a lot of the decline–from the feminists to the pastor wilsons, all with a common, singular cause, which has hitherto been largely unsung. ‘Tis the goal of science & philosophy!

    Thanks!

    [D: I ended up pulling my comment to Swanny and turning it into a post. The essay by Milton is Tetrachordon. I have written on it here.]

  82. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    Thank you! Perhaps we need to rethink Dante and his Beatrice too!

    Wikipedia: “Following their first meeting, Dante was so enthralled by Beatrice that he later wrote in La Vita Nuova: Ecce Deus fortior me, qui veniens dominabitur michi (“Behold, a deity stronger than I; who coming, shall rule over me”). Indeed, Dante frequented parts of Florence, his home city, where he thought he might catch even a glimpse of her. As he did so, he made great efforts to ensure his thoughts of Beatrice remained private, even writing poetry for another lady, so as to use her as a “screen for the truth”.”

    But it is important to note that Dante never feels lust towards Beatrice. Or does he?

    Did he feel lust for her, and then pen a poem about how pure she was, so as to sanctify his love?

    I’ll ask him if I see him at Coachella tonight! Eminem goes on at 10:20 PM, so he’ll likely be there!!

  83. feeriker says:

    And not a clue as to how they got here.

    Of course not. How well do women do at cause and effect?

  84. feeriker says:

    “I could have married my lovely ex!!!”

    Cheer up, sweetie. You can’t imagine how eternally grateful to you that he is for having dodged the bullet that is you. You can also console yourself with the thought that, while he’s probably fucking some younger, hotter chick today, she’s probably even more of a selfish, hypergamous, bat shit-crazy bitch than you are.

  85. OKRickety says:

    Boxer,

    He doesn’t even allow people to disagree with him in his own comments section.

    What is the basis for this statement? While it is true that Wilson does now restrict comments to only two posts a week (usually) and only for a limited time, that is not preventing disagreement with him in his comments section.

    In fact, some commenters from here have recently disagreed with Wilson in his comments and, to the best of my knowledge, he did not prevent this.

    That said, Wilson has banned some commenters. Without being certain of the reasons, I know one such person is InsanityBytes. Since Dalrock has also banned her from commenting here, I don’t see reason to suppose Wilson’s bans are significantly different from Dalrock’s.

  86. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    While it is true that Wilson does now restrict comments to only two posts a week (usually) and only for a limited time, that is not preventing disagreement with him in his comments section.

    In fact, some commenters from here have recently disagreed with Wilson in his comments and, to the best of my knowledge, he did not prevent this.

    I’m in general agreement. I don’t think his handling of comments in particular is a problem. It does seem to point in the same direction as what I would consider the real problems with Wilson, but it is not the real problem.

    The real problems as I see them are:

    1) Wilson’s method of responding to criticism regarding his theology of women. When someone criticizes this theology, Wilson does everything but address the critical argument. The squid ink comes out in different colors at different times, but the sum total of the response is squid ink. Wilson’s fans have taken this message to heart, which is why whenever one criticizes Wilson in this regard the responses from his defenders are so consistently absurd. The defenses include “Yes, but you don’t understand, Wilson doesn’t know how to write.” and “Yes, but you don’t understand, Wilson is too afraid to say what he really means.” and “Yes, but you don’t understand, Wilson directly contradicts what he writes elsewhere.” and “Yes, but you don’t understand, all of Wilson’s theology is bad, not just regarding women, so his error isn’t about women.” I’ve never seen a man whose defenders were so eager to slander him. As Cane Caldo wrote to Wilson “I do not believe you have grappled with your contribution to Justin’s folly.”

    2) The other real problem I perceive with Wilson regarding criticism is his hesitancy to post his wackiest theology on his blog. One would think he would be so proud of his house despot theology that he would regularly reference it in his blog. He does make it a centerpiece in his books. But on the blog there is only one reference, and it is a carefully calculated glancing reference at that. Likewise, Wilson features his theology of “If mama ain’t happy” as the foundation for his books on marriage, and (according to Wilson) he regularly preaches this message. Yet I can’t find a single blog post of his promoting/defending this theology. Note that when I directly challenged both wacky theologies, Wilson took great care not to address either one even when responding to my criticism.

  87. Isidore the Farmer says:

    Dalrock – Please continue exploring this topic. This has been your best review of Wilson’s work. It helps show its flaws without assuming that we will all just ‘get it’. Plus, Wilson is a good target because he is generally quite orthodox and also generally on the same side as us in the culture wars. I respect a chunk of Wilson’s work, and he is a gifted writer. One of the challenges, and one of the reasons he is a good target for engagement, is that Wilson generally seems to reject modern feminism. Yet, this article helps show the flaws that still exist due to his views of chivalry. This is a factor into why even Christians who seem to reject a large chunk of modern feminism nonetheless find they are unable to gain any ground in the culture wars: while they are mocking the most laughable forms of feminism while watching out their front door, their views of chivalry are sneaking most of it back in through the back door.

    Thus, they can recognize we have gone in the wrong direction, but the last 40 years of Evangelicalism has been powerless to stop it. Observing the victories of feminism over modern / American Christianity are similar to observing how government unions get such great deals: it is easy to win when you are basically negotiating against yourself.

    I suspect that a light form of chivalry can exist relatively harmlessly in a culture that is thoroughly and deeply Christianized. That doesn’t mean it is virtuous, just that it isn’t overwhelmingly destructive. However, we are in this respect, entirely un-Christian. Thus, defeating this disease will require cutting chivalry out entirely. Just as a healthy person can enjoy a beer in moderation without issue (it can even add joy to social engagements when not abused), a light form of chivalry in a healthy, Christian marriage culture would probably be okay (at least, not actively harmful). But we are not healthy. We are a drunkard whose only hope of recovery is to stop cold turkey. We can’t risk even one drink, given our current state (‘if your eye is causing you to sin, cut it out’). Chivalry, in this moment, has to be rejected entirely to show that the model we’re operating under has nothing to do with Christianity.

    Anyway, good post. A lot to think about – this one clicked for me in a way that previous ones had not.

  88. Morgan says:

    Dalrock,

    Very enlightening post, thank you. I believe that only that which continues to have value will continue to exist. Chivalry, at one time, must have had a value for both men and women’s sexual strategies. Perhaps, at a time when arranged marriages were falling out of favor, it was a way for the man to demonstrate that he would be a good and caring leader to the woman who selects him as her life long mate. Brutish men were less likely to catch the top mates than chivalrous men, once marriages were no longer business arrangements of mutual need. It works as a demonstration of quality, but not as a foundation of marriage. Peacock feathers are advantageous while selecting qualities of a mate, but worthless and risky after mate selection. Chivalry can work when the problem is that women must select a mate they will submit to for life. It does not work when the problem is that the woman is unhappy after 10 years and a couple of kids no matter who she selects. Chivalry doesn’t create happiness, it displays values. The reasoning that got us into the box will not be able to get us out of the box. We’ve entered a new age of marriage, one from arrangement, to mutual benefit, to individual desire. All external forces working to keep marriages intact have been removed. If she married him out of a need for stability and security and children, she can just as easily divorce him and keep his stability, security, and children. If he married her for her support, her children, or as a “despot for the home” he can just as easily lose all those things in divorce.

    The end result of any theory of marriage based on romantic love will always be, “Well, you had better keep her happy, because that’s the only thing keeping her around. And we sure as hell aren’t going to tell her she has to submit to anybody, even if that was her elected choice.”

  89. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock,

    I just noticed that in the quote following “Likewise in Chapter 9….”, you have inadvertently repeated the text (at least I presume that Wilson, even with his wordiness, did not repeat himself to that degree). Perhaps you would like to correct that.

    [D: Good catch. Thank you! Fixed.]

  90. Pingback: The failure of chivalry in Biblical marriage, works and desire, and the failure of game | Christianity and masculinity

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

w

Connecting to %s