Sure his theology is bad, but he has great taste in TV!

In my recent post An invitation to Pastor Wilson’s defenders I challenged Wilson’s defenders to do any of the following:

  1. Point out any instances where I criticized Wilson without providing a direct quote.
  2. Point out any time that I have misquoted Wilson or misrepresented what he wrote.
  3. Defend any of Wilson’s positions that I had criticized.

There were no takers.

This was true even though I provided 8 different examples of Wilson’s bad teaching for his defenders to back him up on.  All 8 examples were so bad that none of Wilson’s defenders wanted to even try to defend them.

What I received instead were calls for me to become friends with Wilson.  Presumably once I did that I, like his defenders, would become comfortable overlooking his bad teaching.

When the call for friendship didn’t convince me, next his defenders offered his taste in black and white TV shows as a reason to overlook his bad teaching.  MKT wrote:

Like Wilson or not, he posted this on a recent blog. It’s one of the finest moments in TV history, and would make everyone from radical feminists to self-proclaimed conservative complimentarians hysterical if they saw it. If you can’t watch the whole thing, just watch the first minute and last 2-3 minutes.

This is the kind of misdirection Wilson’s defenders love most. Here is Wilson, supporting headship for a make-believe man!  Surely one day soon this will translate into Wilson supporting headship for real life men.  But it doesn’t work that way.

Again, Wilson’s defenders can’t bring themselves to even try to defend his bad teaching.  What they want is for me (and you) to pretend the bad teaching doesn’t exist, or at least pretend that it doesn’t matter.

Likewise, in response to Every Woman’s Battle, commenter Warthog wrote:

To be fair, Wilson wrote that over 20 years ago. He has moved substantially in your direction since then. https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/smash-the-matriarchy.html

In the post Warthog was responding to I quoted Lori Alexander where she rightly pointed out that Satan tempts women into blaming their husbands for their feelings of discontentment.  I agreed with her and added that our entire culture is doing Satan’s work here, including Christian pastors.  To prove this point I gave three examples of pastors doing just that.  Wilson was one of the three.  Note that Warthog doesn’t even try to defend Wilson’s bad teaching.  He merely wants us to ignore it and assume that Wilson has stopped teaching women their husband is the source of their discontentment, referencing the same recent Lone Ranger post from Wilson that MKT did.

Yet Wilson’s much loved Lone Ranger post includes reinforcements for his past bad teaching.  As Wilson explained, the message of the Lone Ranger episode he shared was that the woman’s pathetic husband was responsible for her discontentment:

On this privileged occasion, I recall taking in an episode of The Lone Ranger. The theme of this particular show was about that time when there was this mousy little man, hen-pecked to the outer limits of human endurance, and through a series of circumstances, the Lone Ranger adopted this poor man and made him something of a protégé. The end result of this crash course in masculinity was that the little man headed on home, and the happy ending to the whole saga was him pulling out his revolver and shooting his wife’s dishes off her shelves. It makes me happy just thinking about it. Fade to black, and with her thinking something along the lines of finally!

For reference, here is the opening of Lori Alexander’s post:

Divorce always begins with seeds of discontentment planted in our minds by ourselves or others. Feminism flourished because it appealed to wives’, mothers’, and homemakers’ discontentment. “We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: ‘I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.’” (Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique)

Lori Alexander wants wives to remember that the discontentment comes from within.  Despite what the Serpent is telling them, it isn’t men’s fault they are discontented.

Wilson on the other hand wants us to know that women’s discontentment really does come from men, and besides, it is only the hairy legged feminists who are currently in rebellion.  Women who have children aren’t in rebellion and long for the patriarchy:

So whatever is happening, we are not actually being ruled by fruitful women (a state of affairs that fruitful women actually detest), but rather by men with a homosexual ethos who have recruited a horde of childless and gullible women to serve as their honey-trap shock troops. Such women are those who have accepted the flattering vanities of career “advancement” in place of a truly satisfying life as the active mother of a teeming and energetic pack of yard apes. These duped women have somehow been persuaded that the good opinion of the bureaucrats in HR is somehow far more valuable than the good opinion of the yard apes. It isn’t, by the way.

Moreover, Wilson never stopped teaching what Warthog assures us Wilson no longer believes.  He wrote the book decades ago, but he still sells it today.  Warthog didn’t offer his opinion on why he thinks Wilson still sells a book teaching something Wilson now believes to be wrong*.  But any defense in this matter would really be an indictment.  Does Warthog think Wilson is too proud to admit that what he taught was wrong?  Or could it be that Warthog is accusing Wilson of being too corrupted by the desire for money to stop selling the book?

I’ll try to rescue Wilson from his defenders here and note that I don’t think he has changed his (relevant) theology since he first wrote Reforming Marriage.  I don’t have the link handy, but I have seen a video online where he uses the introduction to the book almost entirely verbatim as a sermon, and the sermon was dated just a few years ago.  However, Wilson could help his defenders stop indicting him in this regard by clarifying if he still stands by what he wrote in Reforming Marriage or if he no longer believes that a woman’s discontentment is proof that God is displeased with her husband.

*And not just wrong in one small part.  The introduction explains that the entire book is based on the premise that if a husband loves his wife as he should, the wife will be happy.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Betty Friedan, Lori Alexander, Marriage, Pastor Doug Wilson, Rebellion, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Sure his theology is bad, but he has great taste in TV!

  1. It’s always good to use one of the most often mis-contextualized verses in the Scriptures in it’s actual context:

    Phillipians 4:11 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. 12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. 13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.

    Wives too can be content in any circumstance– they can do all things through Christ who strengthens them to be content. Whether in humble means or prosperity, filled or hungry, abundance or suffering need.

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    I laughed out loud, a true for-real LOL at that TV show from two generations (50+ years) ago. There is a certain type of Baby Boomer who is always reaching back to childhood TV shows for inspiration. Witness PragerU’s cite of Ward Cleaver (“a stud!”), for example. It’s like some old man immigrant talking about how it was back in the old country when he was a boy. It is equally irrelevant.

    I don’t care what old TV shows Wilson or any other pedestalizer pulls up from YouTube. Right now on broadcast TV, cable TV and the indies like NetFlix a whole different world view is being pushed, hard. Guess which has more viewers, old reruns from 1950-whatever or Modern Family?

    As for that “he wrote that 20 years ago!” squid ink, Pastor Doug is about 70 years old; “20 years ago!” he was 50, with two degrees in philosophy and presumably some kind of Divinity degree. Yet he “didn’t know” or “was mistaken” about this rather basic topic, yet he can’t quite get around to admitting the error? Instead he just squirts out more squid ink to pretend that whatever position he’s adopted lately is the one he always took, pay no attention to the books and sermons behind the curtain! No attention to that at all!

    Same stuff as before. All this just shows how out of touch Wilson and his followers are.

    “Sure, your wife is about to frivorce you because she’s unhaaaaapy and she’ll take your children, your house and most of your salary for the next 18 years, but here’s a TV show that’s older than you are courtesy of Pastor Doug.. .enjoy!”

    Again I LOL.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    The introduction explains that the entire book is based on the premise that if a husband loves his wife as he should, the wife will be happy.

    Which is essentially AMOG’ing of the “you’re doing it ALL WRONG!” variety. Over the last 7 to 8 years I’ve lost count of the number of puffed-up men who have swanned onto some androsphere sites like the late Spearhead, RationalMale, Dalrock’s, etc. to deliver just that message to all the plebes and peasants. Eventually hilarity ensues.

    Probably it was a lot easier for Pastor Doug to AMOG men 20 or more years ago, especially in a remote location such as Moscow / Pullman. Easy to isolate one or a few men and run any variation of bully-game on them, because each one would be thinking “Well, it’s just me, nobody else sees this, maybe I’m wrong”. Al Gore’s Internet has brought more people together than some expected.

  4. JRob says:

    For those of us who bought into the message of Wilson and his ilk, I’ll wager $176,000 (after the fact) on Dalrock. The $$ is in kiddie rent, alibaloney, and lost assets.

    Sitting for a fireside chat solves NOTHING. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Period. To paraphrase Ravi Zacharias, when you cross the street it’s either you OR bus. Wilson will lead you into the bus’ path.

  5. Jed Mask says:

    Glad to hear you quote Scripture from God’s Word in the KJV Bro. Dalrock.

    … Wished you did that for all the times you quoted Scriptures though.

    Good stuff.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  6. Dalrock says:

    Brother Jed I assume you are referring to my previous post. I prefer to quote the KJV because it is free of copyright. I’ll make it a point to use it more often, unless I think a modern translation will be clearer in the specific case.

  7. Frank K says:

    The introduction explains that the entire book is based on the premise that if a husband loves his wife as he should, the wife will be happy.

    It crosses my mind that the Lord loves humanity more than it is possible for any man to love his wife, yet humanity finds endless ways to make itself unhappy.

  8. Rebekah says:

    A woman’s discontentment can come from all sorts of things. Life is boring. Life is hard. Life goes on and there’s no end in sight. Life is good, and yet somehow, she’s not. Is discontentment a female trait, a purely female experience, or is discontentment a shared and fully human one?

    Are there no men out there who’ve ever been discontent?

    Lori Alexander teaches skewed Christianity. It’s a Biblical womanhood that sort of reminds me of Christian Barbie–out of proportion, a plastered on smile, and in true reality, not even preferable to a real-life person. I’m not talking about Lori as a person. I am talking about the type of woman she tells us God is trying to have us be–submissive sweetness without the balance of spice.

    By spice I mean kindness and goodness and warmth. You can’t quote milk and honey into existence. Some things in life are simply caught and not taught. So we live in a world with discontent and Doug Wilsons. So what? Why can’t we pass along the good we wish we’d had?

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    Are there no men out there who’ve ever been discontent?

    What difference would that make?

  10. Pingback: Sure his theology is bad, but he has great taste in TV! | Reaction Times

  11. Lost Patrol says:

    What difference would that make?

    Men do it too is the pill for every ill!

    Didn’t you teach me that? There should also be some websites, or publications, or TV shows, or marches, or movements, or college courses, or elections, or sermons that address men’s failings; I think. You know, even things up a bit.

    Am I sarcastic, or sardonic…?

  12. Dalrock says:

    I would say Rebekah has made her pro women’s discontentment case. Per the comment policy I encourage her to share her further thoughts on the issue on her own blog or perhaps Lori Alexander’s blog (but no longer here).

  13. Karl says:

    Wait, Wilson posted less than a week ago that social change has been caused “by men with a homosexual ethos who have recruited a horde of childless and gullible women to serve as their honey-trap shock troops.”

    Does he actually believe that feminism and women increasingly moving into careers is a conspiracy led by homosexual men and their duped and childless female lackeys?

    Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti-feminism, this whole concept sounds like the ramblings of a madman. Am I missing something that I’m supposed to read between the lines here?

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looks like the TV show referenced is older than I thought.
    http://tvdatabase.wikia.com/wiki/Lone_Ranger:_Man_of_the_House

    Aired in January, 1950. That’s 68 years ago…although I’m sure it was in reruns for years and years on afternoon TV. Still, 68 years ago.

    Back in 1988, did any pastors try to advise men on life, the universe, etc. by showing silent movies from 1920? I kind of doubt it. Although I personally am fond of Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton and others from that era, I’m not sure I’d use it for such educational purposes.

    Well, except for Keaton’s “Seven Chances”. There’s some education there…

  15. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Back in 1988, did any pastors try to advise men on life, the universe, etc. by showing silent movies from 1920?

    But he really isn’t advising men to follow the example. He is just trotting out a TV show to redirect their attention. If a man in his congregation pulled out a gun and shot the wedding china* off the wall, do you think Pastor Wilson would be supportive (not to mention the legal consequences)? Just the other month Wilson created a hypothetical where a wife claimed her husband said mean things to her, and Wilson pronounced that the Apostle Paul said she was free to go, and that she was like an escaped mistreated slave. If Wilson would butcher 1 Corinthians for a woman whose husband said mean things no one else ever heard, imagine what he would say if one started shooting up the joint!

    This is theater, to show that in theory Wilson is the baddest hombre in the west when it comes to supporting headship. Not actual headship, but the make-believe kind.

    *It is wives who are supposed to break the family china to teach the husband a lesson, not the other way around.

  16. Anon says:

    Dalrock said :

    When the call for friendship didn’t convince me, next his defenders offered his taste in black and white TV shows as a reason to overlook his bad teaching. MKT wrote:

    This is exactly like when Pastorbator Donald Sensing was being exposed by Dalrock. His defenders could not defend his cuckservatism, so they said that Dalrock should like him because ‘he is staunch in the War on Terror’ (aka a whiteknight who thinks Muslim women want to be liberated by US cuckservatives who send troops to do the actual dangerous work).

    Some people are so weak that they just have to follow someone, and when their idol is exposed, it is too much trouble for them to recalibrate. This is how weak people survived in prehistoric times when humans lived in small tribes. Sucking up to the chieftain was their only skill.

  17. Anon says:

    I laughed out loud, a true for-real LOL at that TV show from two generations (50+ years) ago. There is a certain type of Baby Boomer who is always reaching back to childhood TV shows for inspiration. Witness PragerU’s cite of Ward Cleaver (“a stud!”), for example.

    You beat me to it. Jim Gay-ratty’s video about how ‘Ward Cleaver is a Stud’ (but how women have no obligation to be June cleaver) is one of the most convoluted rationalization-hamster pretzels that any cuckservative has produced. Keep in mind that Jim Gay-ratty married a single mother who is older than him.

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    This is theater, to show that in theory Wilson is the baddest hombre in the west when it comes to supporting headship. Not actual headship, but the make-believe kind figureheadship.

    FIFY.

  19. Anon says:

    Karl,

    Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti-feminism, this whole concept sounds like the ramblings of a madman. Am I missing something that I’m supposed to read between the lines here?

    You are correct. When a cult such as Pastorbator Wilson’s is centered around the unshakeable belief that women are truly pure and can never do any wrong, this is the sort of madness that follows.

    Their denial is pathological.

  20. Sharkly says:

    @Dalrock

    Thanks for showing Rebekah the door. I was trying to ignore her, but I could also see myself wasting a lot of time rebutting her Feminist nonsense, if she had been allowed to continue to pollute our space with it.

  21. feeriker says:

    Thanks for showing Rebekah the door. I was trying to ignore her, but I could also see myself wasting a lot of time rebutting her Feminist nonsense, if she had been allowed to continue to pollute our space with it.

    Another churchianette extends her middle finger toward God and His Word.
    ****YAAAWWWWWWWWWN****

    I just wonder what on earth made her think that coming here to do that would gain her any followers or sympathy.

  22. Adam says:

    The tactics Wilson’s defenders use in order to avoid dealing with the real issues are exactly the same ones that the Jordan Peterson fan-boys use to defend their own messiah.

    The real lesson here, I think, is that we must always be personally vigilant not to fall into the same trap. You cannot excuse someone’s failings by any of their positive acts or attributes. If that were the case then any individual’s failings, no matter how horrible, would inevitably become excusable.

  23. feministhater says:

    Are there no men out there who’ve ever been discontent?

    Women look to others to solve their discontentment and are always seeking to be discontent. They nag for no reason most of the time. Men seek to be content. We seek to solve our discontentment and not to live off the drama caused by it.

    So sure, men can be discontent but the problems associated with it are his. Women, pastors, society in general seek to make a woman’s discontentment the husband’s problem. You get it now?

    Bye, bye then, take your discontentment elsewhere.

  24. feministhater says:

    …next his defenders offered his taste in black and white TV shows as a reason to overlook his bad teaching.

    What? Do you mean the distraction of an old TV show didn’t win you over?! Say it ain’t so…

    Next up will be a Prager U’esque, cigar smoking, by the fireside, serious, serious talk about how men can be more responsible and win over their wives without a word.. That will surely win you over, right?

  25. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I grew up on 1970s sitcoms. They were full of (often sexy) divorcees: The Bob Newhart Show, One Day at a Time, Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, The Odd Couple and Love American Style. Also plenty of TV movies about sexy divorcees.

    That was a thing in the 1970s. Divorcees were depicted as sexy and sex-crazed. I found them both attractive and unnerving. These shows warned me that divorce was a looming threat. Marriage was not a sure thing.

    Interesting, how quickly TV culture changed in only 20 years, from the 1950s to the 1970s.

    Speaking of Love American Style,, this funny skit offers some Red Pill insight:

  26. feeriker says:

    Back in 1988, did any pastors try to advise men on life, the universe, etc. by showing silent movies from 1920? I kind of doubt it … I’m not sure I’d use it for such educational purposes.

    Well, except for Keaton’s “Seven Chances”. There’s some education there…

    Using The Three Stooges films from the 1930s and 40s would be very educational even today, although not in the way that pastorbators of Doug Wilson’s ilk would appreciate or endorse.

  27. feministhater says:

    By spice I mean kindness and goodness and warmth. You can’t quote milk and honey into existence. Some things in life are simply caught and not taught. So we live in a world with discontent and Doug Wilsons. So what? Why can’t we pass along the good we wish we’d had?

  28. RichardP says:

    women are truly pure and can never do any wrong

    Are you sure Wilson believes this and pushes it?

    I’m pretty sure that Wilson believes that “all” have sinned.

    I’m pretty sure that Wilson believes everyone is dead in their trespasses and sins, and only those whom God regenerates have any redeeming qualities. He is a Calvinist, after all. That is, I’m pretty sure he believes that everyone whom God has not regenerated are dead in their trespasses and sins and are nothing but filthy rags in God’s eyes. This would apply to women as well as to men.

    If he does believe women are pure and can never do any wrong, you are probably seeing the Calvinist belief that, once regenerated for real (and we can’t ever be certain that it is for real according to Calvinists), nothing can snatch the person out of God’s hand. In that sense, they would stay “pure” in God’s eyes. This belief is not applied just to women, but to men also.

    I don’t know enough about Wilson to either praise him or condemn him. But I know that he is a Calvinist, and I’m fairly knowledgeable about that belief system. If you are not, you are likely not even on the same page as Wilson when it comes to trying to critique what he has said – because you don’t know about the particular issue in Calvinisim that his writing or speaking is dealing with. You think that you and he are talking about the same thing, and that he is wrong. I fully expect that you and he are not talking about the same thing, and that you cannot fully understand what he is getting at, if you don’t know Calvinism.

    I repeat, because I will be misquoted if I dont: I don’t know enough about Wilson to either praise him or condemn him. I am doing neither in this post.

  29. feministhater says:

    Interesting, how quickly TV culture changed in only 20 years, from the 1950s to the 1970s.

    It’s a form of social programming so of course it fits the narrative of what is being pushed by the social progressives. Haven’t you noticed how all TV shows, Netflix, Movies are all pushing the female empowerment narrative, not a show or two, but everything. Even shows that were once male orientated have been turned into female worship.

  30. feministhater says:

    I don’t know enough about Wilson to either praise him or condemn him. But I know that he is a Calvinist, and I’m fairly knowledgeable about that belief system. If you are not, you are likely not even on the same page as Wilson when it comes to trying to critique what he has said – because you don’t know about the particular issue in Calvinisim that his writing or speaking is dealing with. You think that you and he are talking about the same thing, and that he is wrong. I fully expect that you and he are not talking about the same thing, and that you cannot fully understand what he is getting at, if you don’t know Calvinism.

    In other words you couldn’t be bothered to…

    1) Point out any instances where Dalrock criticized Wilson without providing a direct quote.
    2) Point out any time that Dalrock has misquoted Wilson or misrepresented what he wrote.
    3) Defend any of Wilson’s positions that Dalrock had criticized.

  31. RichardP says:

    Both radio and television were developed as a means to sell product. And mostly to women, since women do most of the buying in the family. Radio and television are trying to attract female and gay eyeballs. They don’t care about regular male eyeballs, because the industry knows those eyeballs are likely at work and can’t be attracted anyway.

    Radio and television have been forever, and continue to be, trying to attract female and gay eyeballs. No one should be surprised, ever, that radio and television push what they think will be attractive to female and gay folks.

  32. RichardP says:

    In other words you couldn’t be bothered to…

    Reading comprehension???

    My entire post was dedicated to only this:

    women are truly pure and can never do any wrong
    Are you sure Wilson believes this and pushes it?

    Why do you think I should be bothered to do any of what you stated? I didn’t need to do any of what you said to respond to the statement I responded to, in the manner I responded.

  33. RichardP says:

    women are truly pure and can never do any wrong

    That statement, to which I responded, was not made by Dalrock. I was not critiquing anything that Dalrock has said about Wilson. Therefore, feministhaters comments to me are not necessary or valid.

  34. Spike says:

    Doug Wilson, unfortunately, is typical of Pastors in general.
    I went to church today and I was rostered on for music. Okay so far. Trouble brewed, though, when I saw a para-church ministry’s evangelist, 38 y.o. single female professional university evangelist, in the foyer.
    Yep. She gave the sermon. In it, she twisted every verse where women were seen to have obligations. The commandment to “be silent in church” is actually ‘let women learn in silence without being interrupted”. She elevated Deborah and other “prophetesses” in the OT with the prophets. She said that Patriarchy was evil and never was supposed to last. She rationalised away the New Testament patriarchal system to be “like slavery”, which was “taken for granted” at the time.
    Not content with trashing scripture, she told the congregation that Donald Trump said evil things about women and still got elected. She told us that #Metoo and #Timesup have shown that women are still being oppressed. Glass ceilings, 1-in-5 sexual assaults. The whole lot.

    Question time came. A married woman told everyone how great the talk was, with jumps through the Bible “instead of banging on about a single verse”.

    I didn’t contribute to the discussion, as I was rostered on for music. I didn’t want the service to end in an uproar, which would have happened had I opened up. I have gone and made my concerns known to the pastors.

    Should I stay and fight, or is it just going to be too hard?

  35. RichardP says:

    Spike – your are supposed to be the salt. What good will you be if you lose your savor? Or simply leave? God didn’t send us out to preach to the choir. And every ministry doesn’t have to be from the pulpit. You can quietly let God lead you to those he would have you minister to with a quite word of encouragement, or a well-timed, well-worded question. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, when did he change his mind about Adam ruling over Eve (as God told Eve Adam would do), and where is that change of mind recorded in the Bible? There are many different ways of asking this question – and it gets at everything troubling that you stated in your post. The answer to this question should help clarify in the mind whether what the lady teacher said is consistent with God’s word or not. You don’t need to argue against each of her points. Just ask your listener to answer the question I posed above.

  36. RichardP says:

    Spike – focusing on “she is supposed to submit” puts the action with her, and lets ladies say things from the pulpit like you described in your post. If you focus on what God actually said – “he will rule over you” – that puts the action with him, where God intended it to be. Her submission comes from her doing what God created her to do – help him. If he has nothing he needs her help with, if he does not rule over her in the way God said he would, then she cannot do what God created her to do.

    In order for her to do what she was created to do, to help him, he has to need her help, has to request/require her help, has to tell her what he needs her to do. The action is with him, not her – at least not until he tells her what he needs from her.

    I proposed that you note refute every point she make but rather ask this question in some form or other: If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, when did he change his mind about Adam ruling over Eve (as God told Eve Adam would do), and where is that change of mind recorded in the Bible? Note that the question assumes that he is ruling over her (and if he is not, then that suggests an avenue for action/recommendation on your part). The question does not assume anything about submission, and so the conversation cannot (or at least should not) get sidetracked about doormates and abuse and everything else that gets dragged up in the discussion about submission. God did not tell Eve that she should submit to Adam. God told Eve that Adam would rule over her. If he is not doing that, she cannot help him. You should not let yourself get dragged into any discussion about her submission whenever you ask the question I suggested. If you can do this, I predict your conversations will be much more fruitful.

  37. Anon says:

    Speaking of bad theology :

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/college-student-reinstated-after-18-day-exile-from-christianity-class-for-gender-speech

    “Lake Ingle, a religious studies major at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, was kicked out of Christianity class earlier this month for saying there are only two genders. “

    “Ingle told Fox News he was booted out of Downie’s classroom for challenging the feminist theology professor on the biology of males and females and the gender wage gap during a Feb. 28 lecture in which she allegedly asked only women to speak following a TED Talk by transgender ex-pastor Paula Stone Williams. Williams discussed the “reality” of “mansplaining,” “sexism from men,” and “male privilege.”

    Not only are both of the italicized excepts insane, but they are also contradictory. How can the femtwat expel the man for saying there are two genders, when she also rails about the ‘pay gap’ and ‘mansplaining’ (premises that both assume there are two genders, and that one is oppressing the other).

    Of all belief systems in the world. ‘Feminism’ is the one ideology that comes closest to pure evil.

    This is a ‘theology professor’ in a ‘Christianity Class’.

  38. Spike says:

    Richard P: Thanks for your very caring posts. You’re right: It’s easier to run than it is to fight, and fight we should. I’m pretty angry about it all, since the more I think about it, the more she skated toward blasphemy, with phrases like, “Jesus compares God to a woman, in the parable of the Pearl of Great Price, sweeping out the house and finding the pearl”, and Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem. The mangina elders just nodded along with her, didn’t correct her. Even when an elder’s wife rubbished men’s sermons from the pulpit.
    I’d imagine her response to a question such as the one you posed was, “In the New Testament, Christ made a new covenant where He made men and women equal and blah blah…”. But I will try posing this question, especially since you have given this to me in brotherly advice and I’ll honor that.

  39. feministhater says:

    Should I stay and fight, or is it just going to be too hard?

    Let RichardP handle it. Do not lift a finger to help these churches. Any Church that allows women to Preach or hold authority is one you should withdraw your support from.

  40. feministhater says:

    My entire post was dedicated to only this:

    Yeah…. that’s how you can then write an entire diatribe about it. The disagreement is merely in the details. Wilson obviously knows women sin, his problem is then turning around and blaming their sins on men.

    But I know that he is a Calvinist, and I’m fairly knowledgeable about that belief system. If you are not, you are likely not even on the same page as Wilson when it comes to trying to critique what he has said – because you don’t know about the particular issue in Calvinisim that his writing or speaking is dealing with.

    The disagreement isn’t his Calvinism… it’s his entire side stepping of Scripture to pursue the point that woman’s sin is the fault of men, most especially her husband.

  41. Opus says:

    It is said that the true mark of an intellectual is someone who can listen to the last part of the Overture to William Tell without thinking of the Lone Ranger and frankly that Gallop is far better suited to the T.V.show than it is to its original context of Rossini’s rather tiresome 5 Act Grand Opera – not that I have ever seen it but I did know one of the female dancers in the Corps de Ballet on one of its rare outing at Covent Garden and that was her view. What now amazes me is that as a child my Mother would not allow me to watch certain British Shows like Coronation Street (as it was too working class) thus making me culturally ignorant and the butt of mockery amongst my pier-group school-mates yet she had no problem with me being indoctrinated with imported American westerns like The Lone Ranger or Rawhide or the endless clips of Doris Day (not that I have any complaints there) as Calamity Jane. Apparently then I would have been prone to picking up bad English from British shows but not prone to picking up American idioms and twang from American shows. Funny that.

  42. feeriker says:

    Should I stay and fight, or is it just going to be too hard?

    Tough call, IMO. I’d personally be tempted to stay and fight on principle, but at the same time would be prepared to be “de-fellowshipped” for “causing divisions within the body” (the favorite go-to excuse used by churchian “leadership” to expel those who expose their heresies and misconduct).

  43. Jake says:

    That’s not promoting headship. It’s seventeen minutes of cringe inducing absolutely painful bad behaving woman, a man so out of sorts it makes men want to look away, and then after wounding your sense of order they throw a cartoonish balm on it so you tune in next week.

    They couldn’t get away with doing the stuff they wanted to this shit was just meant to dull your nerves.

  44. Jake says:

    Sorry for double post. Few red flags from spikes post.
    “Didn’t want to cause an uproar”
    “Let my concern be known to the pastors”

    If the violence of heresy doesn’t make you want to cause an uproar then you need to pray about that. Letting your concern be known to the pastors so they can nod along with you and express their concern about the live human sacrifice of a baby take place before the congregation.

    Wait sorry it was even worse than that? It was false teaching by a false shepherd? Pretty much the only thing God reserved a special place in hell for? Not teaching in error, but teaching specially designed to lead others into error? An actual wolf was allowed into your congregation, began feasting on the sheep, and you were concerned.

    I’m concerned. I’m concerned that there wasn’t a single man called to start laying about with a whip. That means that God probably hasn’t been present for a while.

    It may be that perhaps you were silenced and sidelined so you would not be destroyed. Forgive me if that is the case. The time to fight has passed though. If there was meant to be one it was then. Pray about it. You don’t need advice from the internet. Give it to him that made you. That put you in that room. He knows. Perhaps you were just meant to see the mask slip.

  45. Gunner Q says:

    “In my recent post An invitation to Pastor Wilson’s defenders I challenged Wilson’s defenders to do any of the following… There were no takers.”

    Mic drop, victory lap!

    Spike @ 1:28 am:
    “Should I stay and fight, or is it just going to be too hard?”

    In the long run, you’ll feel better about yourself if you protest. But there’s not much hope once Pastor Barbie can take the pulpit without an uproar. The leadership has already abandoned Christ.

  46. JRob says:

    Visited a SBC church today at the request of an elderly male family member. From the pulpit, the pastor said, “And we need to be very careful who we marry. Some of us have tried it two or three times and still haven’t gotten it right.” Not tongue-in-cheek.

    My youngest son was there, he caught it immediately and nudged me. Of course we’ll never darken the doors there again.

    Attempting to discuss it with the family member and his wife spun her into orbit and somehow led to him telling a story of when he was a deacon. The church secretary divorced her husband and ran off with his kids because “…he went square dancing on Saturdays instead of staying home with her.” The kids all left her and moved in with him and she wound up destitute living on church handouts. He and his wife waxed poetic how they “stood in the gap” for her dumb frivorcing ass. These “churches” deserve to fail. Good riddance.

    Galatians 6:7, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”.

  47. Lost Patrol says:

    Spike,

    That story is sobering. A church lady was brought in to preach the sermon, and the sermon was about empowering church ladies. Are you sure that place is not in its death throes?

    I sympathize with your predicament though I have never faced anything that egregious yet. I am in a location that is on a much slower slide to its eventual woman preacher, the operating principles being based hook, line, and sinker on the complementarian model from CBMW. It could be a training aid for Dalrock’s posts. Read it here, see it there.

    I have pointed out anomalies (Bible states vs. church does) to the leadership at my location. These are wonderful men that do a lot of good. The poor are fed, orphans are fostered and adopted, prisoners are visited, The Gospel is affirmed, &c. I like these guys. But these men are also blue pill, tradcon, white knight, woman pedestalizers that are very much taken aback by observations that they (we) are sidestepping Biblical admonitions or watering them down to keep the peace. They have not asked me to stop but the distance between us is widening.

    What happened when you did this?

    I have gone and made my concerns known to the pastors.

  48. Nick Mgtow says:

    Virtuous women being deceived by men again. Wait, I forgot it was PUAs who were disingenuous with women…

    Being a dinner whore is now wrapped with a new, trendy term now. Dalrock.

    https://nypost.com/2018/10/10/sneating-is-the-online-dating-trend-that-feeds-on-chivalrous-men/

  49. Spike says:

    Lost Patrol: I’m meeting with the pastor present today. I am going to warn him that I’m going to admonish. If she appears again, I will rebuke.
    As you said, the men are trad-con, Blue Pill white knight, manginas. NONE of them can smell the ugly sulfur of Satanism coming from the pulpit. I have heard the fake feminist justifications for working around scripture coming from them.

    Everything written on this Blog is true. The false expositions of scripture were exactly as Dalrock and /or various others, plus other blogs like this have warned us. I’m glad, since here, my brothers have sharpened me up exactly like Proverbs 27:17 says we should.

    I say to Christian men here and elsewhere: That you’re here is a good sign, a sign that you want to ”contend for the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints”. The Enemy is subtle. If he showed up in all his ugliness, everyone would know to fight him (the church ladies wouldn’t – they would want to defeat him by sleeping with him, in a sort of perverted reverse James Bond way).
    No. The Enemy appears in a package you suspect the least, that you feel reluctant to fight and that you definitely wouldn’t run through with the sword. But that’s what’s got to be done.

  50. Nick Mgtow says:

    Earl, Dalrock, Larry Kummer, RedpillLatecomer, there is more…

    https://www.bolde.com/many-smart-gorgeous-women-single-almost-epidemic/

  51. Opus says:

    I attended a service today, an Armistice Day service – I wore a poppy. A crowd I would say of well over one thousand. I learnt that we are indebted to those men and women who gave their lives for our freedoms – as if men and women died in equal number. We also said a prayer for the planet (as if it needs our help) and I also learnt that we are citizens of the world – which sounds rather like colonialism to me – but pehaps I do not understand. The service was entirely Christian and although they found a black boy to say a prayer (I did not see him but the accent gave it away) and the male voice choir before singing Rock of Ages opened with a negro spiritual (not exactly patriotic I was thinking) there was little sign of any diversity amongst the attendees.

    There was then a parade and I leaned that the Girl Guides have the largest Girl Guide troop in the country (based at my Maternal Grandnother’s old school). There were Boy Scouts too but not so many of those and of course adult marchers from the three services. We were there for over an hour but the rain ceased a little before the start which proves that God shines his light on the righteous.

    That then I think is that for another century.

  52. Anon says:

    Being a dinner whore is now wrapped with a new, trendy term now. Dalrock.

    https://nypost.com/2018/10/10/sneating-is-the-online-dating-trend-that-feeds-on-chivalrous-men/

    On one hand, her rationalization hamster is the size of a River Mammoth : “I don’t really feel I need to pay”.

    On the other hand, guys who still fall for this deserve to be ripped off. I keep the costs really low, and am almost impossible to sucker into a dinner before sex. More often, the cost before sex is almost zero. There *should* be a tax on men who are still blue pill after 12/31/2015 (as I said for years before that date). Anyone who is blue pill at this point *wants* to be blue pill.

  53. PokeSalad says:

    I’d like to comment on Rebekah’s blog, but its private. How do I do that?

  54. Warthog says:

    “Note that Warthog doesn’t even try to defend Wilson’s bad teaching. He merely wants us to ignore it and assume that Wilson has stopped teaching women their husband is the source of their discontentment, referencing the same recent Lone Ranger post from Wilson that MKT did.”

    Um, no, I don’t want you to ignore Wilsons bad teaching on this point. I appreciate you pointing it out. But Wilson has recently admitted that in the current environment it is almost impossible for church leaders to ask women to repent about anything. I don’t know if he reads your blog, but I think there is a fairly good chance he may soon see the light on this subject. Keep doing what you are doing, until Wilson actually states a substantial change on the primary issue.

  55. PokeSalad says:

    But Wilson has recently admitted that in the current environment it is almost impossible for church leaders to ask women to repent about anything.

    well, there ya go. Nothing we can do about it. Its all clear now.

  56. Warthog says:

    “So whatever is happening, we are not actually being ruled by fruitful women (a state of affairs that fruitful women actually detest), but rather by men with a homosexual ethos who have recruited a horde of childless and gullible women to serve as their honey-trap shock troops.”

    Yes, I see the problem that Wilson is assuming that women don’t sin unless bad men dupe them into it. It’s almost as if he thinks women today are like Eve in the garden, unfallen, and constantly being seduced by new serpents. When the curse on the woman was that she would desire to rule over her husband. So the fallen women is discontent by default.

    A friend of mine used to say, “Estrogen is the most volatile substance known to man. It doesn’t need a reason to explode.”

    Applied more generally, women don’t need a man to teach them how to rebel. The early suffragettes like Elizabeth Cady Stanton came up with feminist doctrine without any help from men.

  57. Paul says:

    On sneating:
    “I started being more strategic about the guys whom I matched with on Tinder. Guys who said they were old-fashioned or knew how to treat a lady were in. They were the ones who were likely to pay on a first date. Guys who said they were modern or into equality were out — they were clearly Dutch daters all the way.”

    Blue pill: in, others: out. Suckers!

  58. Jean says:

    I think we’re seeing increasing amounts of bad teaching, half-truth teaching, and Dr Phil-esque self-help sermons because so many churches have become businesses, seeking to sustain numerous full-time employees and to pay for unnecessarily elaborate facilities. The gospel message done right (as Jesus did it) is countercultural and challenging and uncomfortable to those who have become complacent or indifferent to their sin. Trouble is, none of those things pack in the crowds and get them to open up their wallets. So the sermons get watered down and some topics never get addressed and we adopt the world’s current views on equality and sexuality and add some more programs…. Pretty soon we have community centers with crosses on top and everyone’s happy, right?

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’d like to comment on Rebekah’s blog, but its private. How do I do that?

    Ask her for permission.

  60. Nick Mgtow says:

    Anon says:

    On one hand, her rationalization hamster is the size of a River Mammoth : “I don’t really feel I need to pay”.

    It’s always about how they feel. Not surprising that boys of single mothers grow up thinking they can act like they feel it rather than what is right/morally right…

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Warthog
    I don’t want you to ignore Wilsons bad teaching on this point. I appreciate you pointing it out. But Wilson has recently admitted that in the current environment it is almost impossible for church leaders to ask women to repent about anything

    So by the time he’s 80 or 90 years old, do you think he might know as much about women’s nature as the average 25 year old Pick Up Artist (PUA)? Or is that too much to expect from an educated man like Doug Wilson?

  62. Hmm says:

    I was one of Wilson’s early defenders here, and Dalrock has brought me to see the problems with some of Wilson’s writing on the topic of men and women.

    Wilson’s religious trajectory has paralleled mine. We are of an age, and both of us were more or less products of the Jesus movement of the early 1970s. We both wound up in vaguely evangelical churches (he as a pastor, me as a layman), and both became Reformed Calvinists (me earlier than he, but I spent more time in a non-Reformed churches).

    I first came upon Wilson in the context of theonomy – a group that believes that the laws of the Old Testament are binding in detail down to today. This was all the rage among many Reformed Christians in the early 80’s, and it was a very highly patriarchal culture (as you would expect from the portion of the Bible based on the patriarchs). Wilson was at his church in Idaho then, and published an occasional magazine called Credenda-Agenda.

    Theonomy went off the rails in the early 90’s, and Wilson began backing off from it, especially the hard patriarchy. This was about the time he started publishing books. As nearly as I can understand, he also began to find truly cruel patriarchal homes among the families of his church, and this has shaped some of his subsequent screeds about wife-beating men and “prairie muffin” women. So when he writes about some men being hard-hearted husbands, he knows whereof he speaks, and it is not a trivial number. In my gentler area of the Midwest, I have seen only a couple such in my twenty years as an elder.

    Whatever else he is, Wilson has always been a good husband and a good father himself, as evidenced by his wife and faithful children. His success in the area led him to the first of his teachings I disagreed with: if your children don’t believe, it’s somehow your fault as a father. Now in this he claims some Scriptural basis (1 Timothy 3, qualifications for an elder include “submissive children”), and Wilson’s church considers any man with one or more unbelieving children as unfit to be an elder (i.e. that this is God’s indication to the man that he shouldn’t take on that responsibility, but should look to his own house first). And when my daughter, in the 8th grade, declared her unbelief, I followed Wilson’s teaching in my own evangelical church and resigned the eldership. I was later convinced that this is not the Scripture’s teaching (my daughter remained submissive while in the home, and continued to go to church with my wife and me).

    I believe this is the same blind spot that Wilson has with wives. In his ideal world (based on his life experience – always a dangerous starting point for doctrine), God promises that a faithful man will have a faithful wife. And following logic, if the wife is not faithful, that means the husband is somehow not faithful (note that I’m not necessarily talking about sexual unfaithfulness here). We may not see how he is unfaithful, but God is showing us through his wife.

    Strange that I saw the issue with the children as bogus, but not the similar one with wives. Perhaps this is because I too have a lovely and faithful wife, who has never betrayed me.

    I have already gone on too long here. But I will write more later.

  63. BillyS says:

    Judging a man by how faithful his children are would have more merit if the father had any control of that. Modern society works against a man who tries to control that at all. And preachers regularly call him out for being too controlling, unloving, etc.

    I am getting sick of hearing “rules without a relationship breed rebellion” for the incomplete picture it paints. A relationship cannot happen when the other party (children or wife) refuse, yet rules are required to some extent in both relationships.

    Penalize a man when you take away his tools to do a job.

  64. Lost Patrol says:

    I learnt that we are indebted to those men and women who gave their lives for our freedoms – as if men and women died in equal number.

    Armistice Day (Remembrance Day). The slaughter formally ends on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.

    A friend of mine that publishes a column in his local paper noted this about the last day of The War To End All Wars: (I have permission to share from his work.)

    “Supply Sergeant Henry N. Gunther, Company A, 313th Infantry Regiment, was in his mid 20s, an employee of the National Bank of Baltimore, engaged to Olga Gruebl. At 1059 Henry Gunther was struck in the temple by machinegun fire; he was the last American killed; 1 minute later the guns fell silent.

    For 11 November 1918, Armistice Day, casualties were as follows:
    US losses estimated at 320 dead and 3,240 wounded.
    British losses estimated at 2,400 killed or wounded.
    French Losses estimated at 1,170 killed or wounded.
    German losses estimated at 4,120 killed or wounded.

    Total losses are estimated to exceed 11,000 casualties, to include more than 1,000 dead – on the last morning of the war.”

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    In his ideal world (based on his life experience – always a dangerous starting point for doctrine), God promises that a faithful man will have a faithful wife.And following logic, if the wife is not faithful, that means the husband is somehow not faithful (note that I’m not necessarily talking about sexual unfaithfulness here). We may not see how he is unfaithful, but God is showing us through his wife.

    Classic tradcon emoting.

    Two words: “Job’s wife”. Well, his first wife…

  66. sipcode says:

    The ongoing “I see nothing” by the church.

    Rather, like Rodney King, they state “Can’t we just all get along?” …on the wide path to Hell.

  67. Sharkly says:

    @Spike

    Get out of that false church. Come out from among them, and be ye separate. Not only will you avoid casting your pearls before the swine,(you knew a dose of the truth would cause an uproar with them) but you’ll also avoid being dirtied and bloodied by them and wasting your time, time that could be spent with the actual body of Christ, which obeys Christ. Those clowns are a mockery, and right now you’re part of their team. Leave! Everyday is a new blasphemy with them. It won’t be long before they disgustingly try to say that God is part female, or has feminine attributes. Those satanic wretches will try to emasculate God our Father as part of their blasphemies if they haven’t already. Don’t think he won’t send the whole lot to hell. Don’t be a fool, see the evil coming and flee from it. Don’t be at enmity with God, be at enmity with those worldly hypocrites who claim the name of Christ, but are actually ashamed of His words, to the point they feel like they have to twist God’s word into saying something different, that is not so offensive to them. Take the narrow road out of there. Christ can be your companion. Leave the fellowship of self-deceived fools. Plus, that Feminism has got to be grating on your Godly soul. And why associate with those who try to make you out to be a villain for having the blessing of having been born male, born to rule yourself and others, born a man bearing God’s image and glory. I have never sat through a woman’s sermon in my life, nor do I plan to, so help me God.

  68. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Nick Mgtow, that article is funnier than a parody. It’s chock full ‘o every bad attitude of modern women. Every paragraph is worthy of its own separate Dalrock post: https://www.bolde.com/many-smart-gorgeous-women-single-almost-epidemic/

  69. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: I learnt that we are indebted to those men and women who gave their lives for our freedoms

    Indebted? Sorry, Opus. I respect the men who died on both sides. But none of them died for anyone’s freedoms.

    World War One was the greatest tragedy of the past several centuries. 1914 was the year that Western Civilization committed suicide. A pointless, self-destructive war among European brothers, started, and dragged on, by vile or brainless politicians, imperialists, and financiers on both sides.

    World War One led to mass death and destruction, Bolshevism, women’s suffrage, Zionism, Stalin, Hitler, World War Two, Mao, lost self-confidence among Europeans, lost faith in Christianity, the current Mideast map and its resultant crises and wars, the current Third World migrant invasion, and much else.

    So many of today’s crises can be traced to the death of the West in 1914-18. I think of the world back then, the Victorian Era, the pinnacle of Western culture and civilization. Yes, it had problems. But the war broke the hornet’s nest and unleashed those problems. They might have manifested anyway, but maybe not all, and maybe not so destructively.

    Those brave men you wore a poppy for not only died for nothing. Their deaths (and the deaths of their opponents) left the West worse off.

    BTW, I had two grandfathers who fought in World War One. They died before I was born, but I’m told that both returned disillusioned about the war.

  70. feeriker says:

    I’d like to comment on Rebekah’s blog, but its private. How do I do that?

    Why waste the time and server space? Anyone who restricts access to their own blog while thoughtlessly defecating in someone else’s isn’t worth dignifying with recognition.

    But Wilson has recently admitted that in the current environment it is almost impossible for church leaders to ask women to repent about anything.

    So Dougie admits that he’s a coward who fears (wo)man more than he fears God. IOW, a typical churchian hypocrite parasite who uses Jesus’s name as a meal ticket while essentially rejecting Him by refusing to hold his flock accountable for living by Jesus’s teachings.

    But hey, if what you claim above is true (and I don’t for a second doubt it, but howzabout a link?), then I’ll at least give Dougie props for having the decency to admit what his peers are too cowardly to own up to, even as they obviously live it.

  71. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Are last week’s midterm elections a case against women’s suffrage? http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1118/women.html

  72. feeriker says:

    Jean says:
    November 11, 2018 at 6:59 pm

    BINGO.

    I’ve locked horns with others here over this in the past, but I’ll repeat and stand by the assertion:

    As long as:

    1. pastors are full-time paid church employees who depend on tithes and collections for their supper,

    2. churches insist on being property-owning, pseudo-corporate organizations,

    3. pastors see themselves as a hybrid of Dear Leader and CEO rather than shepherd, and

    4. pastors, elders, and the congregations think that being a Christ-follower means being able to paint a pseudo-Christian veneer over their obviously worldly lives so as not to have to suffer for their faith,

    the church will NEVER be salt and light.

    Or, the TL;DR version: Compare today’s western “Christians” to their First Century antecedents and tell me that Jesus isn’t going to grind today’s version of the “church” into dust when He returns.

  73. BillyS says:

    AR,

    Do we know Job had another wife?

    I don’t think she thought things through well, but I do see her comment to “curse God and die” was not necessarily as horrid as some think. Not bright and even stupid, but could be caused by a false focus on ending his pain. Remember that even Job didn’t know it wasn’t God causing his problems. Very little understanding of that had come forth at that point (the Scriptures) and Job didn’t have the view we get when reading the first part.

  74. BillyS says:

    That Bolde article sounds like most of the dating profiles I have seen.

    Girls rule! Boys drool! /s

  75. Scott says:

    RPL-

    But none of them died for anyone’s freedoms.

    Agreed, and its till true. It reminds me of the Cole Swindell song “Ain’t worth the whiskey.”

    In it he says he will drink to those “saving our ass over seas.”

    Nobody is saving our ass over seas.

  76. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The Washington Post celebrates a 5 foot tall girl who “scored the winning touchdown” — then went on to become a homecoming queen!: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/highschools/she-ditched-cheerleading-for-running-back–and-then-scored-a-record-setting-touchdown/2018/11/08/f766e616-e1ec-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1d1acab179b8

    Forty brawny football players stretched across six wide tables in the Long Reach High cafeteria on a mid-October Saturday morning, devouring mountains of chocolate chip pancakes doused in maple syrup.

    Among the jocks at this pregame meal for the varsity football team was 5-foot, 130-pound Mimi Britt, who cracked jokes and debated the NBA’s best point guards with her teammates over breakfast.

    While most Long Reach players wore black sweats and sandals, Britt dressed more formally in a light gray sweater, dark gray leggings and black Air Jordan sneakers.

    Note that it’s always important to inject a bit of fashion gossip into any football story.

    She hadn’t want to run for homecoming queen, but she’s become an inspiration at the Columbia school, so her peers voted for her anyway.

    Just because she oozes kick-ass grrrl power, doesn’t mean she’s not also amazingly feminine.

    This season, Britt, 16, became the first girl to score a touchdown in Howard County high school football history, running for a five-yard score in a win over Centennial.

    She is representative of the recent increase in girls joining football teams as position players. While many girls have been kickers or punters for high school teams since Title IX’s enactment in 1972, only in the last decade has there been an uptick in players such as Britt trying out at running back, defensive back or even linebacker.

  77. Anon says:

    Again, Wilson’s defenders can’t bring themselves to even try to defend his bad teaching. What they want is for me (and you) to pretend the bad teaching doesn’t exist, or at least pretend that it doesn’t matter.

    Both Pastorbator Wilson and his Quistian defenders have exposed the ugly truth about themselves :

    They possess a complete lack of genuine faith.

  78. Spike says:

    Sharkly November 11, 2018 at 9:43 pm

    “Get out of that false church”.
    That was my first instinct.
    I have learned today that I will be in the crosshairs of the eldership, who resorted to behind-the-scenes bureaucratic mechanisms to implement the policy of women preaching.That happened behind the backs of the conservatives.
    So it’s a matter of time before I either get some sort of action against me, or else I will slowly get left out and isolated.

  79. Spike says:

    BTW Apologies to Dalrock for being off-topic for this thread.

  80. Opus says:

    One day a few years ago and at about this time of the year I boarded the train to London. A Father with his young daughter had also boarded the train and I overheard the daughter ask her Father a question – perhaps having seen a poppy-seller – and the Father’s response to his daughter’s question was that it concerned WW1 which he explained to his eight year old had been ‘a very silly war’. Nearly a century earlier however the war had been met with great enthusiasm – I have photo’s (inherited) of crowds gathering around a board placed outside a town hall with lists showing which men had been allowed to ‘join-up’ – most soldiers were volunteers, conscription not being introduced until 1916. I also possess a printed copy inscribed by the author to my Paternal Grandfather by its author Harold Owen’s of his play ‘Loyalty (presented in 1917 at The St James’ Theatre and latterly seen in a performance at The Haymarket Theatre before Her Majesty Queen Alexandra and her daughter) which is a pro-war play taking Shavian-type arguments and reversing them. (It is I have to say the worst play I have ever read – although very well written).

    My Mother always told me that one day in 1919 she had early one morning gone into her Mother’s bedroom and been surprised to see that there was a man in her Mother’s bed. She, then aged five or six had never previously seen and thus did not recognise her Father for he had spent the entire war in the southern hemisphere firstly on board one of His Majesty’s Battle Cruisers and then in Heart of Darkness territory as Commander of of a Gun Boat.(HMS Fly). His brother my Great Uncle also escaped WW1 unscathed having returned in the early twentieth century from St Catherine’s, Ontario where he had been a farmer (or oranges?) and had then joined the Army and seems to have spent the entire war stationed at the regimental barracks. I know of no other involvement by any of my ancestors in WW1 (other then my Maternal Great Aunt who was a VAD nurse stationed in Egypt who died unmarried and childless in the early 1920s).

    I remain puzzled not merely as to why Great Britain became involved in the then latest of the Franco-German squabbles but why The United States should too have felt the need to do so. Had America stayed at home then President Trump would not yesterday have been at the American Cemetary of Suresnes.

    May I add that the slaughter of British men in WW1 was so great that in later decades there were a vast number of British females unable to find husbands and who were thus condemned to spinsterhood and childlessness – WW1 put an end to female ’empowerment’ for fifty years – a lot of that in Agatha Christie and for those who like Fawlty Towers the little old ladies in the show are the tail-end of that spinster demographic.

  81. wilandmari says:

    Off topic: God says it is not good for man to be alone but “science” now says otherwise. https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/what-happens-to-men-who-never-marry-or-become-fathers/

  82. Novaseeker says:

    The Washington Post celebrates a 5 foot tall girl who “scored the winning touchdown” — then went on to become a homecoming queen!:

    My son’s HS football team had one of these who was on the roster, but she didn’t get any snaps and she quit the team after a year (she was also trying to be a running back).

    I don’t get very excited about this kind of stuff any longer because I think the writing is on the wall for football in general in terms of declining participation among middle and upper middle families due to CTE and concussions, and it just seems likely to me that including girls in the lower levels of the sport will simply accelerate the process of changing the rules such that it becomes a different sport. This is already happening at all levels of football — my guess is that a modest increase in the participation of girls in the lower level of the sport simply accelerates the process.

  83. Joe says:

    @Spike…

    If it ever happens again, stand up wherever you are, even if it’s in front of everyone, and walk out.
    Better yet, find out who agrees with you (which should be all men who are not afraid of their wives) and all agree to walk out simultaneously within a minute of a women teaching. Include Sunday School in this.
    A large group of men (and their money) walking out the door can have an impact.
    If it doesn’t, then you know beyond a doubt that you need to leave and find a new Church. Which I know is not easy.
    While I do not expect that this will happen at my Church, that’s my plan if I’m ever blindsided by a women waking up to the pulpit to teach.
    I purposefully speak up frequently, offer to read scripture, and pray in my Sunday school class when volunteers are asked to do these things. Because I know if I sit there and do nothing, the women will do it.

  84. Anonymous Reader says:

    Spike
    I have learned today that I will be in the crosshairs of the eldership, who resorted to behind-the-scenes bureaucratic mechanisms to implement the policy of women preaching.

    This appears to be the standard path. Nobody comes out to the general churchgoing member and says “Say, we in leadership are going to change some things soon”, it just happens. Decisions are made by an individual, or a small group, and presented as an accomplished fact. This has happened at the denomination level as well.

    Depending on how your church is organized, there may be a violation of church governance rules that you could point out, however you need allies to push back at the leadership.

    In my extended family and social circle, more than one church split has begun with some sort of high-handed action by a small group in leadership.

  85. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    I remain puzzled not merely as to why Great Britain became involved in the then latest of the Franco-German squabbles but why The United States should too have felt the need to do so.

    Our British cousins directed an enormous amount of propaganda at us beginning in 1915, aided by the nascent public relations industry. The sinking of the Lusitania was deemed a casus belli but it was preceded and accompanied by massive anti-German propaganda from overt and covert British sources.

    Recently I obtained two small books written by Edward Bernays that I expect will be interesting, both written in the 1920’s: Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923) and Propaganda (1928). Bernays was a nephew of Sigmund Freud and appears to have had a much firmer grasp of psychology than his uncle in some ways. Certainly he may have known a bit more about “what women want”.

    One of Bernays campaigns of the late 1920’s succeeded in increasing cigarette smoking among women. Simple techniques such as hiring models to walk down 5th Avenue while casually smoking were used. A more interesting example required hiring a small number of women to smoke while participating in the New York City Easter Parade. Just a few women walking out from each church along the route, lighting up as they walked, were more than enough to provide social proof to many, many other young women. Not to mention profit to the tobacco company that had hired Bernays…

    Edward Bernays may have been involved in US government propaganda in 1916 – 1918.

  86. Gunner Q says:

    Opus @ 5:40 am:
    “I remain puzzled not merely as to why Great Britain became involved in the then latest of the Franco-German squabbles but why The United States should too have felt the need to do so.”

    The US gov’t was stuffed with globalists sensing opportunity. It’s not a coincidence that they attempted to create a world government immediately in the wake of both world wars.

    It’s the same modus operandi as the American Civil War. Claim you’re coming to the rescue with pure motives then carpetbag the hell out of them.

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

  88. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    I don’t think she [Job’s wife] thought things through well, but I do see her comment to “curse God and die” was not necessarily as horrid as some think. Not bright and even stupid, but could be caused by a false focus on ending his pain.

    Not if she told Job to “curse God”.

  89. Oscar says:

    @ Spike

    I didn’t contribute to the discussion, as I was rostered on for music. I didn’t want the service to end in an uproar, which would have happened had I opened up. I have gone and made my concerns known to the pastors.

    Did Jesus ever cause an uproar?

    Should I stay and fight, or is it just going to be too hard?

    That’s a false dichotomy. “Too hard” isn’t supposed to be a criterion for why a Christian should, or should not, do something.

    There may, however, be a good reason for you to leave. I was in a similar situation not long ago. I stayed and fought. Then I found out that there were even bigger problems in that congregation. At that point, I concluded that congregation was on a collision course with judgment, and I didn’t want my children to be on board when it happened. So I left, and took my family with me.

  90. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: I remain puzzled not merely as to why Great Britain became involved in the then latest of the Franco-German squabbles but why The United States should too have felt the need to do so.

    I had read that Britain was looking for an opportunity to destroy the German navy. It was growing, and Britain worried that a strong German navy might compete for overseas colonies.

    There’s a reference to this attitude in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life:

    Keep China British.

    I’ve also read that financiers (including Morgan) worried that an Allied loss would mean their war loans to Britain would not be repaid. So they used their behind the scenes influence to push the U.S. into the war. This included Balfour, who had promised Britain to use his Jewish financier connections in the U.S. to pressure the U.S. into the war, in exchange for British support for a Jewish homeland in the Mideast (i.e., the Balfour Declaration).

  91. Spike says:

    Oscar says:
    November 12, 2018 at 11:57 am
    @ Spike
    I didn’t contribute to the discussion, as I was rostered on for music. I didn’t want the service to end in an uproar, which would have happened had I opened up. I have gone and made my concerns known to the pastors.
    Did Jesus ever cause an uproar?
    Should I stay and fight, or is it just going to be too hard?
    That’s a false dichotomy. “Too hard” isn’t supposed to be a criterion for why a Christian should, or should not, do something.
    There may, however, be a good reason for you to leave. I was in a similar situation not long ago. I stayed and fought. Then I found out that there were even bigger problems in that congregation. At that point, I concluded that congregation was on a collision course with judgment, and I didn’t want my children to be on board when it happened. So I left, and took my family with me.

    Oscar: I take your point. I was trying to be polite, ordered and disciplined. This is the problem: If you are those things, women and Blue Pill men take that as a sign of acceptance and/or weakness. Jesus didn’t give them that option, as you point out.
    I met with the pastor in charge yesterday, who was away on holiday when the policy on women preaching was formulated. He was handed the policy when he returned. He has now resigned over this issue.

    The way I see it, I have nothing to lose by getting into a fight, apart from false accusations where nothing would stick, and being called names like ”extremist”, which would be a compliment. My children are grown up. I can leave any time. But as you point out also, there definitely ARE deeper problems here, a type of ”Jezebel Spirit” lurking ( and no, I’m not Pentecostal but dyed in the wool Evangelical). What is it the eldership were afraid of? Who is tugging away at them?

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    Spike
    I met with the pastor in charge yesterday, who was away on holiday when the policy on women preaching was formulated. He was handed the policy when he returned. He has now resigned over this issue.

    Machiavelli would suggest that the vote within the leadership may not have been unanimous, and would wonder who on that board got “run over” by the rest.

  93. Spike says:

    Anonymous Reader, Sharkly, Oscar, Joe:
    Thanks for your support in the past week.
    I think the right initial strategy is Pence Defence. Simply, If Christians want their church to be a feminist hell like the secular culture around them, then men should protect themselves accordingly. I am going to begin a default-distrust position with the church’s women and eldership, changing from default-trust.
    I’m not sure exactly how this is going to work out, but it’s going to be fun watching what happens. I’ll let this site know how I go..

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.