Challenge not accepted.

A month ago in 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.

Challenges 1&2 were to identify any cheap shots I might have taken against Wilson.  The hallmark of a weasely blog post is to make vague statements about another blogger while being careful to not actually quote their words so your readers don’t notice when you fail to get the job done.  A similar problem occurs if a blogger misquotes or mischaracterizes another writer’s arguments.  None of Wilson’s defenders could find any examples of my having done this.

Challenge #3 wasn’t focused on fairness, but a challenge to his defenders to argue against my criticisms of Wilson.  It was a challenge for his defenders to defend Wilson’s ideas.  In making this challenge I asked Wilson’s defenders to quote what I actually wrote, giving me the same courtesy I have consistently extended to Wilson.  Anything less would be weasely:

Lastly, I would encourage defenders of Pastor Wilson to point out the times I criticized what he wrote when they feel he was right.  For example, if like Wilson you believe it would be morally wrong to pass a law that punished a woman in any way for deliberately killing her unborn child or enlisting someone else to help her do this, please respond in the comments saying something to the effect of “Wilson is right.  Such a law would be morally wrong because even after the law was passed, women couldn’t possibly understand that it was wrong unless they are an abortion doctor”.  Likewise, if you agree with Wilson after further consideration that it is possible to imagine a scenario say 1,000 years from now where it might be moral to pass such a law, please state so in the comments.

To make this as easy as possible for Wilson’s defenders I offered a link to all of my posts related to Wilson and a list of his teachings that they might want to defend.  There were no takers.

That had to be incredibly embarrasing for Wilson’s defenders.  Surely if I was unfairly criticizing Wilson they should be able to find a single case of me failing to quote him or misquoting him.  Barring that, surely they should have been able to find a single example where they agreed with a point by Wilson that I criticized!

I see that Pastor Wilson has now responded, and the good news is his defenders should feel less embarrassed.  The reason they couldn’t defend Wilson wasn’t due to a failure on their part, but due to the simple fact that even Wilson can’t defend Wilson.  Like his defenders he has no interest in quoting where he disagrees with me and then explaining where he thinks I’m wrong.  In fact, all Wilson can bring himself to do is mention my name with a vague insinuation that I’m wrong:

THE DALROCKIAN COMPLICATION:

We live in a time that blames men by default. Our generation blames boys for being boys, it faults men for being men, and it scorns males simply for being males. Resentment of masculinity, and even resentment of residual forms of masculinity, is one of the characteristic sins of our time. So if a marriage melts down, and both husband and wife come out from it telling a horror story about what happened, the wife will get the kind of sympathetic hearing that the husband will almost never get. This is particularly true in vast stretches of the feminized evangelical church.

Now you can’t do that for extended periods of time before a significant number of men begin to kick. They do this in various ways, some godly and some ungodly. Some resort to pornography, others to the MGTOW movement, some muse that sexbots will never become part of the #MeToo movement, others go on marriage strike (Matt. 19:10), and others go the Dalrock route. And countless others imitate B’rer Rabbit—“he lay low.”

I won’t disagree with Wilson that “others go the Dalrock route” which Wilson explains may be either godly or ungodly, because of course there is nothing to argue with.  There is an implied argument there, a suggestion that Wilson has handily defeated my arguments, if only in his head.  But Wilson is careful not to divulge what argument of mine is in error, and for good measure he is careful not to even link to or name whatever post contains the argument he imagines he has just defeated.

It is possible however that I’ve misread Wilson’s point.  It could be that he doesn’t really imagine that he just secretly defeated one of my arguments, and instead he is offering himself to bear the embarrasment in place of his demoralized defenders.  This would explain the title of his post:  Take Me Instead.  It could be that by taking the weasely way out Wilson actually is deliberately attempting to transfer his defender’s immense embarrasment onto himself.  If so, that would be the noblest of weasely moves, and my hat is off to him.

Update:  Pastor Tim Bayly has weighed in on the topic (HT princeasbel)

H/T Heidi

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

271 Responses to Challenge not accepted.

  1. GW says:

    Wilson uses strained and obscure metaphors and meandering prose to distract from the fact he has little of value to say. He’s a fraud who likes to get a rise out of people.

  2. Christopher Nystrom says:

    He has committed the gravest of sins as a writer: he is unclear. What does he even mean by “go the Dalrock route”? What is the Dalrock route? Is it good or bad?

  3. white says:

    “There are times when I feel like that peace-making fellow at Gettysburg who decided to usher in national harmony by parading between the two armies wearing a blue coat and gray trousers. The only thing that happened was that he got shot at by both sides, and retired from the field a bit wiser.”

    At least he’s honest enough to finally reveal his cards. I think he’ll come to regret this paragraph.

  4. thedeti says:

    Dalrock:

    I was wondering when you were going to mention this post or respond to it.

    I read this post when someone linked to it somewhere on here. I read it carefully. I saw the headline mentioning you. I read it to see if I could find out what he was addressing or disagreed with.

    I couldn’t find anything. Then I went back and read it again. “I must have missed it,” I thought. “Surely it’s in here somewhere. Surely there’s a link to a Dalrock blog post or a comment that lays out what he’s talking about.”

    Nope. Still can’t find anything.

    I can’t tell what Wilson thinks the “Dalrockian Complication” is. I can’t discern what he’s trying to say.

    Yet again, I have no idea what Wilson’s positions are. Someone who’s this poor of a writer really should…. get a proofreader. Or something. Because if I have to ask a writer what his point is, he’s not a good writer, or did a bad job getting his point across.

  5. Lexet Blog says:

    Can Wilson define “the Dalrock route”? This “master theologian and philosopher” strikes again with his bullshit ambiguity.

    Wilson is an apostate, and his theology has been labeled as such by every major reformed denomination. His “federal” view, where all men receive blame, is insane. It stems from a very incorrect reading of genesis. He takes a very weird approach to sin as well. The only time a man is responsible for sin is when he causes another to sin (such as divorcing for illegitimate grounds).

    Just read his marital counseling hypothetical. The husband is responsible and guilty for his wife’s cheating? Whiskey tango foxtrot

  6. Lexet Blog says:

    And he is a philosopher by training. Yet people flock to him.

  7. Lexet Blog says:

    It’s ironic too, if you know of his history as a southern sympathizer who defended racial slavery.

  8. That Brotha Pedat says:

    He’s playing games. Not only with D, but with his own followers.

    I mean, brah…just admit you’re wrong and keep it pushing. You actually do a good job – most of the time, so show some damned self-respect.

  9. feministhater says:

    Take him where?

    It’s just that boys and men have realised that nobody actually listens to their problems or any of their complications. Society doesn’t pay attention when men state that things are getting out of hand. Society places its metaphorical hands over its ears and bleats “men are to blame! men are to blame!” and that’s the end of it.

    Till now… when men simply say ‘fuck it! I’m done.’ and then everyone loses their minds.

  10. Echo4November says:

    If he’s a weasel, beware of the dance they do to enthrall prey before the strike.

  11. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    I have written Wilson asking what is the Dalrock way. I have also pointed out how Christ treated the Church in Revelation. Ephesus He removed, and Laodicea He vomited out. Also how the only book on marriage in the Bible advises a man to forsake his wife if she becomes unresponsive (Song 5). I applied this advice very publicly to my wife some 20 years ago for spending too much by dramatically cutting back my work hours and forsaking her emotionally. After many months when she realized that no amount of emotional assault from family, our children or any appeal to my duties would help; she stopped spending and submitted to once again obeying me. We are now 37 years happily married, and she still gets goosebumps when I hug her tight. She knows that while she can get 90% of what she wants with sweetness, when after discussion I say no, only God can change that. She knows that my love for her also means there is steel in my resolve. The gods of the copybook headings still teach that when fire burns, water wets, and my wife drips us into a steamy relationship.
    Wilson’s article offers no actual solution to the horrible scenario that he posits when Scripture is quite clear the husband who is cheated on has the right to divorce; and the husband whose money is being wasted against his direct orders has the right to stop working. “Let he who does not work not eat.” also applies to wives in that “she who spends foolishly should have no credit cards.”

  12. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    So if a marriage melts down, and both husband and wife come out from it telling a horror story about what happened, the wife will get the kind of sympathetic hearing that the husband will almost never get. This is particularly true in vast stretches of the feminized evangelical church….

    Now you can’t do that for extended periods of time before a significant number of men begin to kick. They do this in various ways, some godly and some ungodly.

    I wish he’d explain, in specific detail, how a godly man would “kick” back against churches that automatically take the wife’s side.

    How does a man, who’s wife frivorced him, “kick” back at her with his own “godly tantrum,” without being accused of abuse?

  13. Nick Mgtow says:

    “You’re the worst person I heard about
    _ So, you heard about me!”

    Jack Sparrow

    By mentioning you yet avoiding to debate you Dalrock, what are the people who want to know more about you or MGTOW gonna do? They’re gonna search about you!

  14. Jack says:

    It’s a good sign that Wilson has responded at all, although vaguely. To be generous, I imagine he is still trying to wrap his head around a few things, and isn’t sure how to respond – hence the vagueness. We’ll have to watch his posts over the next few months to see if he has any “epiphanies”. Hopefully, he’ll address Dalrock again in the future.

  15. 7817 says:

    Doug Wilson’s writing means whatever he wants it to mean.

    His defenders are mesmerized by him and blindly defend him.

    Lots of similarities between Doug Wilson and Jordan Peterson.

  16. David J. says:

    My take is that Wilson thinks he is “responding” by elaborating his beliefs about the difference between responsibility and authority, including a Christian husband’s federal responsibility for all that happens in his family. Whether Wilson’s take on a husband’s responsibility (as he defines it — representational, not personal) differs from Dalrock’s, I’ll leave to Dalrock. In my own marriage/divorce situation, I accept responsibility not merely for my own direct wrongdoing (like pornography) and for more indirect failures (like allowing overspending by my wife without consequences, not being in a church that would exercise discipline when things got bad, etc.), but also, as between me and God at least, overall responsibility for the whole situation and the whole collapse. I was the husband and the dad, and therefore I’m the one who was ultimately responsible (humanly) for the fiasco. This is to be distinguished from being *at fault* or *to blame* for my wife’s sins or for the sins my kids commit and attribute to the trauma of the divorce. There’s no forgiveness to ask or repentance to exhibit for others’ sins.

    I’m inclined to agree with Wilson’s — for lack of a better term — doctrine on the husband’s federal/representation take on responsibility. (I’m interested in others’ thoughts on the analogy between what Christ did for us and what Wilson says Adam should have done for Eve.) But I’m unclear how much of the responsibility he teaches is purely spiritual vs. consequential in the real world. And there are gaping holes in Wilson’s doctrine as it’s presented in this article because there’s no application (other than to Adam and Christ) and there’s no discussion of what the husband’s authority is given his responsibility. What was that hypothetical cheated on, wimpy husband actually supposed to do in the real world in light of his responsibility? What was he supposed to be *able* to do and not run afoul of our legal system? How does Adam’s responsibility for Eve play out in today’s Christian marriages when the wife rebels? On these big issues, Wilson doesn’t help. Nor does he explain how his view of responsibility results in better (?) male behavior than whatever he thinks Dalrock’s view is.

  17. Sharkly says:

    My first impression after reading Wilson’s pant-load is that he is still running defense for rebellious Satan bewitched Feminists, enabling them to stay deceived while their husband is forced to take ownership of sin that isn’t his, by church leaders who should be helping him to convict his wife of her sin and turn her to repentance. The “servant-leadership” idea was stolen from Mark 10:44 where folks like Wilson who want to lead men in the church are told to serve them all. His leaven is self serving. He feeds the leaven of Feminism as it rises unchallenged by removing responsibility off of the wife and keeping it entirely on her husband. Was Hosea responsible for Gomer’s horrible sin, when he loved her as God loved the nation Israel? God did not blame Adam for Eve’s transgression, god blamed and “cursed” Eve for it herself. Adam was blamed for obeying his wife instead of God, and “cursed” along with the whole earth, because he listened to her sinful words. Maybe I’m just confused by his writing, but it sure sounds like he is saying The prophet Hosea needed to take responsibility for Gomer cheating on him with so many other men, just like Jesus is “responsible” for the church being full of sin. Perhaps I’m reading Wilson all wrong, if I think our problem today isn’t that women are being too convicted and repenting to remorsefully, but that men like him defend their irresponsibility, all too ready to blame husbands if they don’t “take responsibility” for everything. Doug Wilson is twisting words, and will keep twisting them. According to Wilson; blameless Jesus took responsibility for the sin of all. While in a sense that is true, he provided a way out of it, if we would repent and make Him our Lord God. It is also false in a sense that Jesus did not take responsibility for our sin, but like Job he maintains his innocence, and Jesus demands that we acknowledge our own sin, to have any fellowship with Him, or we get burned alive for all eternity. Unlike Wilson I think Jesus holds the unfaithful sinner responsible not only for their own sin, but for breaking the whole law.(James 2:10) Jesus is prepared to throw the book at unrepentant sinners. However in Wilson’s imaginary scenario the wife who disregarded her husband, was bad, and consulted “always-blame-the-man counselors” is never asked to take responsibility, and when her husband wants her to take some responsibility for what she did, Wilson says he is abdicating his responsibility by not taking it all on himself. He’s still blaming men, but with plausible deniability, due to his subtle wordplay. Now Doug Wilson was more subtle than any other Beast in his field which the Lord God had made, But I am not a woman, and I will not be deceived again after coming to know the Truth. There is an uncivil war between God’s Patriarchy and Satan’s Feminism, and I’ll gladly take shots at that fool “parading between the two armies wearing a blue coat and gray trousers.”

  18. Moses says:

    OT: File under “Weak men keep screwing up feminism.”

    Tl;dr – Feminists angry that men now avoiding women in professional contexts in order to protect themselves from false, career-destroying sexual harassment allegations.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

  19. Cindy says:

    “We’ll have to watch his posts over the next few months to see if he has any “epiphanies”. ”

    Forget it, Jack. He’s a boomer.

  20. feeriker says:

    Moses says:
    December 5, 2018 at 6:49 pm

    Women providing example number 543,678,214,098,346,456 of how hopeless they are at connecting cause and effect.

  21. Hmm says:

    Sharkley,

    Hosea did take responsibility for Gomer – he bought her back when she had deserted him and indebted herself. But he was not to blame for her sin. Since Hosea is a picture of God, and Gomer of rebellious Israel, Hosea did not sin in all this.

  22. BillyS says:

    Adam should definitely taken responsibility for his own sin, but God never chastised him for blaming his wife. (Please point me to the Scripture if I am missing that.)

    Thus it was Eve’s fault for misleading Adam, but his own for disobeying.

  23. Mycroft Jones says:

    Lexet, could you answer Cane Caldo’s challenge in the comments thread re Marriage License?

  24. “Some resort to pornography”

    Whoa, I’m reading the wrong blog!!!

  25. Pingback: Challenge not accepted. | Reaction Times

  26. Usury kills says:

    Dalrock. I have been a lurker here for several months. I seek truth and only truth. I learn something from you and the commenters in every article. No one but God himself knows all truth. I believe you to be a truth seeker too. I mean this genuinely. Keep hammering on the false prophets! Untold thousands are listening to these types and being led a stray.

    As for Pastor Wilson “2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

    This may sound like heresy but, God wants those who seek him not, to be deceived. Woe to those that follow them…

  27. Spike says:

    What does ”go the Dalrock route” mean? Does it mean that one should try to analyse the circumstances he’s in? Does it mean he should be attempting to expose the evils of the system around him, and warn others of the traps and snares that lay in wait for the unsuspecting? If so, what is wrong with this?

  28. gdgm+ says:

    I’ve read over Wilson’s post several times. I STILL don’t clearly “get” just what he’s trying to say, but I suspect he’s now claiming that husbands absorbing, accepting, or overlooking wives’ sin is Christ-like in his view, as they should take responsibility for the wife’s sins along with their own:

    “Now husband cannot duplicate the substitutionary, vicarious, federal death of Christ on the cross for the sins of His people. Let me say that again. Husbands cannot be a federal head at the same level that Adam was, or that the last Adam is, in the same way. But what we cannot achieve completely, we are nevertheless commanded to imitate.”

    Not sure if he’s being deliberately unclear, or if he doesn’t have a direct point to make (outside of his own mind and in-group).

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

  30. Lexet Blog says:

    At least Peterson is clear and consistent.

  31. Paul says:

    Although Wilson does get some points absolutely right, and announces he supports the patriarchy, his interpretation is where things get tricky

    Now husband cannot duplicate the substitutionary, vicarious, federal death of Christ on the cross for the sins of His people. Let me say that again. Husbands cannot be a federal head at the same level that Adam was, or that the last Adam is, in the same way. But what we cannot achieve completely, we are nevertheless commanded to imitate.

    […]

    Christ is the head of the church, and He took full and complete responsibility for the sins of all His people. When Christ died on the cross that was not a moment where God was somehow deluded into thinking that Christ had somehow sinned. Christ never sinned, even on the cross.

    […]

    And yet . . .

    “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21 ).

    That is what husbands are called to imitate. A masculine husband is one who is constantly mortifying his impulse to evade responsibility, and who has gladly assumed the task of learning how to say, “Take me instead.”

    He starts out with the moment when Eve sinned, and Adam did not yet, and tells what Adam should have said to God : take me instead. He then uses the example of Job to show that Job offers sacrifices for his children. Finally he arrives at the pattern: the husband should imitate the substitutionary atonement and somehow offer himself as suitable “sacrifice” for the sins of his wife.

    The error Wilson is making is that he thinks Adam would have been a suitable offer for the sins of Eve, and should have offered himself for the sins of his wife. He is right in asserting that Adam carried the spiritual authority and could have prevented sin from entering the world if he had not sinned himself. He is wrong to think Eve has no effective moral responsibility at all. Women WILL be judged for their sins, NOT their husbands instead. That’s why Christ also died for women, not for men only. That’s why women are called to repent and follow Christ themselves, even if they have unbelieving husbands.

    In the application: husbands should resist the temptation to sin themselves when their wive sins, but instead should call out the sin in their wives and require her repentance before God, as well as her obedience to him.

  32. info says:

    Vagueness is the refuge of the heretic.

  33. Tim Pollard says:

    I even tried searching his site for “dalrock” in case “the Dalrock route” was something he had defined elsewhere. It doesn’t seem to be.

    https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/dalrockian-and-disoriented.html seems to be as close as he gets. Which seems rather poor.

    For example he offers this as proof of his [Wilson’s] actual support of headship and husbands having authority:

    “If a wife is a servant or a dominatrix, the husband needs to confess his sin”

  34. Opus says:

    Your mission should you choose to accept it…

  35. @Paul covered the roles of Job and Adam pretty well, but i just want to add a few things.

    Regarding Job, Wilson is implying that the destruction brought on his house was Job’s responsibility, violating the entire premise of that book. His misfortune was not deserved, but was a test of his fortitude.

    God didn’t want him to accept responsibility, because even when Job prayed for death, God continued to test him. How much more self sacrificing can you be to pay for death, not even so that others may be spared, but simply for its own sake?

    And should Adam have offered himself in Eve’s place? The danger is that God would have taken him up on that offer. This was a time of scapegoating, and the scapegoat was not honored, or noble. It was unclean, and once it took everyone’s sins upon itself, it was reviled and cast out, or destroyed by fie. Wilson would have every man believe that he can take the sins of everyone else upon himself and still come out clean, but only Christ could do that. That’s a dangerous amount of pride, and this is what Wilson expects of every ‘masculine man.’ Does he not understand the virtue of humility?

  36. Mike says:

    Is it possible that Wilson knows better and is simply a prisoner of our times – The HR system and metoo hysteria that has destroyed other gifted pastors? Is a partial ally better than none at all? In other words, if Wilson really took a Dalrock approach to feminism and marriage in all the evangelical communities he is in (CBMW, etc), wouldn’t he be ostracized and fired?

    This is the great evangelical compromise in order for male leaders to still function in the community. They created the monster out of initial cowardice and a lack of actual intersexual experience (homefed billy betas in amog positions) and now it’s just about ready to feast on their corpse – along with another 500 female seminary graduates. They opted to teach the congregations a cliche – happy wife, happy life – in exchange of theology, and will now have to face the consequences of their compromise.

    It’s a very, very bad sign that Dalrock is literally one of maybe 3 voices in all of the U.S. explicitly calling out pastors on their deceptive teachings that function only to placate their female congregations in a mommy complex gone full-scale. We all suffer when men without experience and understanding of true female nature go on to be leaders of ignorance. Little do they know, the only thing holding their marriage together is their abusive amog positions in the church where they get to act like little celebrities to all the sahm’s at their marriage conferences.

  37. freebird says:

    Another example of the feminine Passive Aggressive Disorder infecting men and the accompanying “Herd.”
    Straight is the path and narrow the Gate,the fleeced flock are in the ditches,haha.

  38. Warthog says:

    By including “the Dalrock Route” at the end of a list containing: porn, MGTOW, sexbots, and marriage strike, he was saying Dalrock’s Route (whatever that is) is equivalent to these others.

    @Dalrock, could you concisely state what the Dalrock Route actually is? I have read your blog the past few years thinking you were the Christian alternative to MGTOW. I still think so. But how would you say it in a nutshell? As opposed to summarizing what feminism is, how do you summarize the godly Biblical response to feminism in a culture that is ruled by feminism?

    I’ve known Wilson personally for about 24 years. I’ve called him out several times on several issues, including Federal Husband. What he tends to do in the face of valid criticism is to make a joke about it, then internalize for a long period of time, then come out with an article coming to the same conclusion but never acknowledging the person who originally criticized him.

    So the fact that Dalrockian Complication has been jokingly mentioned on his blog suggests to me that he has now reached the first milestone on “the Wilson Route” to capitulation.

  39. Warthog says:

    @Dalrock, we had a disagreement a few weeks back over whether Wilson teaching that men are “responsible” is the same as teaching men are “at fault”. You equate the two. I pointed out there is a distinction. In his response to you, he belabors the distinction.

    “You can also see the delicate position that those teachers are in who emphasize the federal responsibility of the husband. This is the teaching that men must assume responsibility for everything and—as if this were not difficult enough—they must do this in the midst of a chorus of ungodly voices that are blaming them for everything.

    Then throw into the mix all those many occasions where the husband is to be blamed for his individual sin. So there is righteous blame to accept, unrighteous blame to reject, and federal responsibility to assume. There is a true spiritual challenge here. The problem is worthy of more attention than we have given to it.”

    So, there you have it Chris. Wilson’s objection to your criticisms is that you cannot have authority without responsibility. But responsibility is not the same thing as blame/fault. A man can be responsible for the state of his marriage, while not being at fault for it. Being responsible means he is the one who needs to fix it, whether by demanding accountability, taking away the credit cards, divorcing the bitch, or whatever else needs to be done.

  40. Warthog says:

    MGTOW also assumes the link between authority and responsibility. In our legal system men are saddled with responsibility, while their authority has been taken away. Our hands are legally tied behind our backs. MGTOW is the natural conclusion that I should not be held responsible for things over which I have no authority. Therefore I will reject marriage entirely.

    The problem with MGTOW is that if we all reject marriage until the legal system can be changed, Christians will go extinct, and the country will be peopled with bastards of criminals. It’s already at 40% illegitimate birth rate.

    So, the question is whether there is a path for Christian men to attempt to maintain a biblical marriage in a legal system that can castrate them at the whim of their wife. Can we emigrate to a country whose laws respect marriage?

    Russia is the one country that is diametrically opposite to the USA on moral issues, but in the area of marriage, they still have the same legal problem, inherited from Lenin. Russian divorce rate is the same as the USA, with two thirds initiated by the wife.

    So it looks like the alternatives are move to Saudi Arabia, stay where you are and try to hold a marriage together, MGTOW, or go celibate and die without seed.

  41. Warthog says:

    If I can summarize the differences between @Dalrock and @Wilson:

    Wilson emphasizes husband’s responsibility, but fails to ever mention sanctions for the woman’s disobedience. He wants the husband to take responsibility for his wife’s sin, as Christ did for the Church. But he seems to leave out the part about where Christ sends the letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Christ’s sacrificial love comes with a package of law and sanctions. If the Bride flouts the law, Christ brings down the sanctions on her.

    Dalrock emphasizes that women must be held responsibility for their personal sins, and that means facing sanctions. However, Dalrock denies the existence of the husbands federal responsibility for his family. Dalrock denies or doesn’t see the difference in the Covenant between individual sin and responsibility, and covenantal responsibility as the covenant head.

    So Wilson’s first response to Dalrock is to harp on the covenant responsibility of the husband, and he makes a pretty strong case for it. But that being said, the one thing that is woefully missing from Wilson is discussion of the husband’s duty and options to bring sanctions on a rebellious and disobedient wife.

  42. Warthog says:

    All that is to say, it is clear to me from Wilson’s response mentioning Dalrock that he has been reading Dalrock. His response is not to answer Dalrock’s criticisms of him, but to point out what he views as the fatal weakness in Dalrock’s paradigm.

  43. dragnet says:

    @ Warthog

    “However, Dalrock denies the existence of the husbands federal responsibility for his family.”

    Evidence for this?

  44. BJ says:

    @Warthog

    You asked: “could you concisely state what the Dalrock Route actually is? I have read your blog the past few years thinking you were the Christian alternative to MGTOW. I still think so. But how would you say it in a nutshell? As opposed to summarizing what feminism is, how do you summarize the godly Biblical response to feminism in a culture that is ruled by feminism?”

    It is highly unlikely you will get a straight answer on this. Dalrock is phenomenal at dissecting the flaws in other views, but he almost never puts forward positive positions. Most of the time, he only hints in certain directions by implication. I don’t know why he does it that way, but it has the effect of protecting him from critique. It is honestly his most glaring weakness.

    Even this challenge he offered is framed in a way that prevents him from putting forth a position for critique. He has only offered up his past critiques of Wilson to scrutiny. Perhaps that is why Wilson is so obscenely vague in this criticism. He could be trying to get Dalrock to state clearly what he believes about a husband’s responsibility for his wife’s sins. I am probably reading too much into Wilson’s post, but it would be great to hear Dalrock state clearly what he thinks about Paul pinning the responsibility for the Fall of mankind on Adam, when it was Eve who was in fact deceived. If Dalrock follows Paul and see headship as Paul does and pins the responsibility (though not the blame) for a family’s sins on the husband, the peanut gallery might not take too kindly.

  45. feministhater says:

    The problem with MGTOW is that if we all reject marriage until the legal system can be changed, Christians will go extinct, and the country will be peopled with bastards of criminals. It’s already at 40% illegitimate birth rate.

    Not our problem. Fix your shit, don’t complain to others. If Christians go extinct because you could not control your women, blame your inability to tell them ‘no’. MGTOW is not at fault, blame your women.

    There is no ‘federal responsibility’ for husbands. More blame pushing for ass hats.

    Men are no more responsible for their wife’s sin than God or his son are for yours or mine. Stupid shit. If you’re going to keep on harping on this obvious and egregious demand that husbands are responsible for their wives sin, than likewise blame God for ours.

    Marriage is doomed. Feminism killed it. The Church embraced feminism and thus embraced its death. I do not mourn its passing. Nor do I mourn the death of marriage 2.0. Let the mother fucker burn.

  46. feministhater says:

    If Dalrock follows Paul and see headship as Paul does and pins the responsibility (though not the blame) for a family’s sins on the husband, the peanut gallery might not take too kindly.

    When blame and responsibility end up with the same consequence for the man, there is no fucking difference. Word salad.

  47. Paul says:

    @BJ

    Of course it is significant that Eve sinned first, but that only after Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Wilson has that right. It also implies a special spiritual responsibility resting on Adam’s shoulder, which is specific to Adam, but might by comparison be applied to all husbands, just as aspects of Eve behavior are applied to all wives by St.Paul. Some of these applications St.Paul clearly spells out (husband head of the wife, husband glory of God, etc.), but some of these applications we need to “rediscover” because the Church seem to have forgotten about them. At least I’m rediscovering them, and Dalrock’s blog has been the one place that has put me in the right direction again (thank God!). At least Wilson is trying to figure things out that are not really mainstream, and he leans towards patriarchy, but his interpretation of federal headship effectively makes husbands completely powerless while 100% to blame. Wilson is clearly at fault here, as Dalrock already has exposed. Maybe Wilson will be tuning his arguments, who knows?

  48. feministhater says:

    Perhaps that is why Wilson is so obscenely vague in this criticism. He could be trying to get Dalrock to state clearly what he believes about a husband’s responsibility for his wife’s sins.

    Do you actually believe what you write? If Wilson wasn’t so vague and thus completely unreliable, he would simply ask the question you just posed instead of hiding behind the veil of vagueness. That is what a real person would do, ask the question openly and honestly. His vagueness is his dishonestly.

    Wilson’s vagueness and inability to explain what he means within the confines of simple English, makes him a dishonest and disingenuous person.

  49. Dalrock says:

    @Warthog

    So, there you have it Chris. Wilson’s objection to your criticisms is that you cannot have authority without responsibility. But responsibility is not the same thing as blame/fault.

    Niether of these accurately describes Wilson’s position. Wilson doesn’t believe husbands have authority and that then creates the need to take responsibility. He says the opposite, that authority will flow to husbands if they accept responsibility. From the post I linked in the OP:

    This is not a responsibility without authority because true authority flows to those who take responsibility. Authority runs away from those who seek to evade responsibility.

    I’ve already gone into the problem with this at length, which is why Wilson’s weasely response is so tedious. He can’t defend his own arguments, so he just makes them over and over again, never addressing direct criticism. Ephesians 5 says the husband is the head of the wife. It declares authority. Argue with it if you like, but I wont. From there, we tend to assume that this authority must have some responsibility that comes with it. So far, so good. And Ephesians 5 does list a responsibility that comes with it, to wash his wife with the water of the word. One could reasonably posit that more responsibility comes with that authority than the Bible explicititly tells us about. I’m inclined to agree with that (to a point).

    But Wilson isn’t asserting this. He is starting from this assertion and running it backwards, turning what the Word teaches us upside down. He says authority will flow to a husband if he accepts responsibility (contradicting both Eph 5 and even more directly 1 Pet 3). You asked above what the Dalrockian path is, and I would answer here that it is to stop inverting Scripture.

    But it is even worse, because Wilson doesn’t even believe that husbands have authority and responsibility, or that a husband will receive authority due to his responsibility (inverting Scripture). He repeatedly tells us that husbands aren’t to tell their wives what to do (authority), because that isn’t their job (responsibility). From his 21 Theses on Submission in Marriage post:

    The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives.

    He gives a different answer in Reforming marriage, where he states that a husband is responsible but doesn’t have authority:

    Not only is he responsible before God to do his job, he is responsible before God to see that she does hers. And of course, this is not done by bossing her around. It is done through nourishing and cherishing her.

    I could go on at length. In fact, I already have. I have written a whole series of posts about the subject and Wilson’s teachings in general. Part of the problem is that his defenders see his erratic inconsistency as a virtue, and see him contradicting himself as proof that he is right. Making this worse is that he doesn’t honestly respond to criticism of his arguments. He makes a show of seeming to respond, but is meticulous in his care not to actually address a real criticism.

  50. Nick Mgtow says:

    I don’t read any men’s magazine anymore because the feminism or tradconfeminism is so ingrained in AskMen or GQ… that I can’t stand it.

    Today, on traditional roles for men but not for women, men don’t understan chilvalry.

    https://uk.askmen.com/dating/dating_advice/what-modern-chivalry-looks-like.html?fbclid=IwAR0J8aIuqvQTJ0PTkl4HyIGtvDvVRAXqJZxzBVm0t78ihacHvm0mHqlFGiI

  51. Dalrock says:

    @Warthog

    But responsibility is not the same thing as blame/fault.

    I see that I didn’t address this second question in my comment above. From Wilson’s own writings, he doesn’t believe this either. He really does blame men. From Reforming Marriage:

    …men, whether through tyranny or abdication, are responsible for any problems in the home. If Christian men had loved their wives as Christ loved the Church, if they had given direction to their wives, if husbands had accepted their wives’ necessary help with their God-ordained vocation, there never would have been room for any kind of feminist thinking within the Church.

    I’ve already pointed this out. I’ve also pointed out the Scriptural problem of claiming the husband is responsible for everything. Again, this is the problem with Wilson responding to criticism by simply restating the bad teaching over and over. That is what Wilson is trying to avoid after all when he takes great care to avoid responding to what I actually wrote.

  52. BJ says:

    @feministhater

    “he would simply ask the question you just posed instead of hiding behind the veil of vagueness.”

    Completely agree. I wasn’t noting his vagueness as a compliment.

  53. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Ephesians 5 says the husband is the head of the wife. It declares authority. Argue with it if you like, but I wont. From there, we tend to assume that this authority must have some responsibility that comes with it. So far, so good. And Ephesians 5 does list a responsibility that comes with it, to wash his wife with the water of the word. One could reasonably posit that more responsibility comes with that authority than the Bible explicititly tells us about. I’m inclined to agree with that (to a point).

    You skipped over the part about the husband giving himself up for the wife like Christ gave himself up for the Church.

    My guess is Eph. 5:25 is the key to Wilson’s hermeneutic of husbandly responsibility.

  54. BJ says:

    @Paul

    “At least I’m rediscovering them, and Dalrock’s blog has been the one place that has put me in the right direction again (thank God!).”

    I have much to be grateful for as a result of Dalrock, as well.

  55. Warthog says:

    @Paul ” … Wilson[s] interpretation of federal headship effectively makes husbands completely powerless while 100% to blame. Wilson is clearly at fault here, as Dalrock already has exposed.”

    Almost. But not quite. Wilson has the husband 100% responsible, but not necessarily to blame. But yes, he effectively denies the husband’s power, authority and sanctions.

    Yet, Dalrock is also at fault.

    Dalrock implicitly denies the existence of covenant headship. The view he expresses, as does feministhater, is atomistic. Every human is an individual, 100% accountable for their own sins. They have no concept of a covenant which binds the destiny of a group of people together into a body, where one person is the covenant head.

    The problem with the anti-covenant view, is that Christ’s blood could not atone for the Church outside of a covenant relationship. If we are all judged as individuals, and our responsibility cannot flow to or from another, then Christ’s virtuous life, death and resurrection would have no effect on us. That was His story. We get judged for our own story.

    The idea of covenant taught in the Bible is that many people can be brought into a covenant body, which makes them one. They are ruled and represented by a covenant head. The sins of the covenant head cause consequences to the people in the covenant body. Adam’s sin affected us all. David’s census brought a plague that killed many of his people. Akin’s sin brought death to his entire family.

    The covenant head also represents the body to God. Job made sacrifices to atone for his children’s potential sins. Parents baptize their babies who don’t know up from down. Like Job, Christ made an atoning sacrifice to God on behalf of the covenant body he represented as Head and High Priest.

    We see three covenant institutions taught in Scripture: Family, Church, and State. In Dalrock’s struggle against the injustice and chaos of men being denied the authority of covenant headship, he goes too far by denying the responsibility of covenant headship.

    In Wilson’s defense of covenant headship, he goes too far in several ways:
    * He has stated or implied many times that women only sin because their covenant head failed. That is blame/fault, rather than responsibility. While he correctly denied that responsibility equals fault in the blog post mentioning Dalrock, he contradicts his past statements by asserting this.

    * Wilson denies that the husband has any sanctions to punish the wife for disobedience. This ignores the Book of Revelation, which shows us Christ as husband divorcing and executing his adulterous wife (Judea). It shows us Christ as husband writing letters to seven churches stating that if they don’t toe the line, their lamp-stand will be snuffed out and taken away. So at minimum the husband has the sanction of divorce. (But the State has changed divorce from the husband’s sanction against a rebellious wife, into the wife’s payday.)

    What the Bible actually teaches is that husbands are the covenant head of their family, and they are owed unconditional obedience by their wife and minor children, excepting direct and obvious commands to sin. Yet, they are also responsible for dealing with the temporal consequences of sin in their own family, and they represent their family to God.

    As covenant head, the husband has the duty and responsibility to correct wrongdoing in his family, which includes his wife. If she is not doing her job, and he says nothing, then he is responsible. This is seen in Numbers 30. The wife can make a foolish vow. The husband has one chance to nullify her vow on the day he hears of it. But if he says nothing, it is as if he made the vow himself.

    This also applies to wrongdoing done by his children. If a ten year old boy hits a baseball through the neighbors picture window, the father should take responsibility for it, while also teaching the son how to take responsibility for it himself. If the neighbor comes over and says, “hey your kid broke my window” the father’s answer should not be, “It’s not my responsibility, complain to the kid.” The neighbor can take the father to court for damages.

    Parental responsibility for acts of minor children is the law in all 50 US states:
    https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/parental-responsibility-in-all-50-states.pdf

    Biblically, the husband’s authority and responsibility for the wife are the same as over the children, with the possible exception of corporal punishment.

  56. Paul says:

    @ES

    My guess is Eph. 5:25 is the key to Wilson’s hermeneutic of husbandly responsibility.

    It is, he even mentions it, compare with his statement I responded to earlier:

    Now husband cannot duplicate the substitutionary, vicarious, federal death of Christ on the cross for the sins of His people. Let me say that again. Husbands cannot be a federal head at the same level that Adam was, or that the last Adam is, in the same way. But what we cannot achieve completely, we are nevertheless commanded to imitate.

  57. Cane Caldo says:

    @BJ

    It is highly unlikely you will get a straight answer on this. Dalrock is phenomenal at dissecting the flaws in other views, but he almost never puts forward positive positions. Most of the time, he only hints in certain directions by implication. I don’t know why he does it that way, but it has the effect of protecting him from critique. It is honestly his most glaring weakness.

    The weakness you perceive is not Dalrock’s, but your own which you project onto Dalrock. This is a blog, not a church, and Dalrock has no authority or responsibility over you. If you read his blog and learn from him how to avoid some sin that is good and you are in his debt. That debt does entitle you to his authority.

    Dalrock is a father, but he is not your daddy.

  58. BJ says:

    @Dalrock

    “Ephesians 5 says the husband is the head of the wife. It declares authority. Argue with it if you like, but I wont. From there, we tend to assume that this authority must have some responsibility that comes with it. So far, so good. And Ephesians 5 does list a responsibility that comes with it, to wash his wife with the water of the word. One could reasonably posit that more responsibility comes with that authority than the Bible explicititly tells us about. I’m inclined to agree with that (to a point).”

    Dalrock, this is an example of where it would help you to be more active in spelling out the specifics. Critiquing Wilson is fine, great, in fact. But you would do well to spell out how you argue it should be done.

    No authority, including husbands, is absolute. There are limits. Churches can’t lawfully imprison or execute, governments can’t lawfully usurp the leadership of the family (though they do so illegitimately in most Western countries), and the father can’t lawfully offer the sacraments to his family. Each leader has a delineated responsibility/authority. So, what does that look like in practice.

    What Paul is saying here, as I read it, is that the main weapon/tool the husband has to enforce his authority is the Word of God. Governments bear the sword. Elders fence the Table. Husbands has the sword of the Spirit. Teaching and praying the Word over his wife daily makes a huge impact, because the Spirit uses it to shape sinful hearts. Divorce studies bear this out. Couples who read the Bible together twice or more weekly and pray together daily have an astronomically low divorce rate.

  59. feministhater says:

    Dalrock implicitly denies the existence of covenant headship. The view he expresses, as does feministhater, is atomistic. Every human is an individual, 100% accountable for their own sins. They have no concept of a covenant which binds the destiny of a group of people together into a body, where one person is the covenant head.

    Every human is an individual. They are 100% accountable for their own sins. A covenant is not a blanket responsibility for the actions of others. It has very defined obligations. And those who do not keep their obligations are no longer apart of the covenant. If a wife sins and does the opposite of her husband’s command by her own hand, she is to blame, she is responsible and she is to repent. The husband is not responsible for her. Jesus is not responsible for our sins, he sacrificed so that we might gain grace through our repentance. It’s not a blanket responsibility, it comes with defined obligations on our part.

  60. GW says:

    @David J.

    Wilson gets the First Adam/Last Adam analogy entirely wrong. The relevant passages include Genesis 2-3, Romans 5, and 1 Corinthians 15. Read them in their entirety to get an idea of what Paul is referring to when he contrasts Adam with Christ.

    Romans 5:12 states: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” The theological term is corporate solidarity. A corporate solidarity is where one man represents a corporate body as his actions determine the fate for others. Adam is serving as the representative of everyone born following him when he is placed in the garden and told to obey God. If he obeys, we live in paradise with God. But he fails to obey, and because of his failure, death enters the world and affects us to this day.

    Likewise, Christ also became a corporate solidarity, but it was to bear our sins and offer eternal life. Romans 5:15: “But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”

    Note here that Christ and Adam aren’t being contrasted as husbands. The contrast is between in how righteous and obedient Christ and Adam were to God’s commands. The First Adam/Last Adam relates to sin and righteousness pertaining to damnation and salvation. It isn’t an object lesson on how men are to relate to their wives.

    So whatever merits Wilson’s “federal headship” have, they aren’t to be found in the biblical passages contrasting Adam with Christ.

    What Adam should have done for Eve isn’t discussed in the Bible. This silence speaks volumes, yet Wilson ignores what scripture says to rely on his own wisdom. It isn’t clear from scripture if Adam was present when the serpent was tempting Eve. Adam is condemned for his own sin. He doesn’t bear additional responsibility because his wife sinned. And likewise, Eve is treated as fully responsible for her sin.

    The idea that Adam had the responsibility to take upon his wife’s sin is not only fallacious, but possibly blasphemous. For it is God, not man, who is to bear our sins. And it was Christ who crushed the head of the serpent when he came to die on the cross. For it was God’s covering, the skin (sacrifice) of an animal, which was needed as the fig-leave clothing that the man and woman made for themselves to hide their shame was insufficient.

    Ephesians 5 spells out the duties of husbands and wives, as do other passages (1 Peter 3). Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Husbands are to treat their wives respectfully as the weaker partner. Wives are to submit to their husbands as they submit to Christ. They are to lead lives of gentleness, purity, and reverence.

    If NT passages directly relating to the duties/obligations of Christian husbands and wives aren’t enough for Wilson that he needs to create new concepts and twist biblical passages to defend them, he is showing he believes God to not be sufficient.

  61. feministhater says:

    Almost. But not quite. Wilson has the husband 100% responsible, but not necessarily to blame.

    This means nothing. Husband’s cannot be 100% responsible for the actions of others. It’s an impossibility.

  62. Cane Caldo says:

    @Warthog

    In Dalrock’s struggle against the injustice and chaos of men being denied the authority of covenant headship, he goes too far by denying the responsibility of covenant headship.

    I trust you have some quotes to back this up.

    Here is a post of mine from September 2012. In a later comment (January 2013) https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/advocates-under-authority-awaiting-the-jubilee/#comment-1443Dalrock demonstrates that he understands the concept well. It’s others who don’t understand it; including Wilson. Jesus really is the federal head, but He is not the head of the rebellious. They are thrown into Hell. And there is this from Mark 6:

    6 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief.

    Here and now, in this life, it matters a great deal whether we put our faith in our rightful heads or not.

  63. BJ says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Dalrock is free to do as he wishes. I have learned much from this blog, but I am also free to have an opinion, as he is free to have an opinion of the many folk he criticizes. In my honest assessment, it looks like a weakness to dish it out, but not be willing to put forward a position to be critiqued. As long as keeps the comments section open and he doesn’t ban me, I will happily acknowledge that he is not my daddy, and that he has a glaring weakness in this area.

  64. Cane Caldo says:

    Second try…

    @Warthog

    In Dalrock’s struggle against the injustice and chaos of men being denied the authority of covenant headship, he goes too far by denying the responsibility of covenant headship.

    I trust you have some quotes to back this up.

    Here is a post of mine from September 2012. In a later comment (January 2013) Dalrock demonstrates that he understands the concept well. It’s others who don’t understand it; including Wilson. Jesus really is the federal head, but He is not the head of the rebellious. They are thrown into Hell. And there is this from Mark 6:

    6 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief.

    Here and now, in this life, it matters a great deal whether we put our faith in our rightful heads or not.

  65. feministhater says:

    If Christian men had loved their wives as Christ loved the Church, if they had given direction to their wives, if husbands had accepted their wives’ necessary help with their God-ordained vocation, there never would have been room for any kind of feminist thinking within the Church.

    And there you have it folks. Undeniable. Wilson thinks, there is not debate here folks, that women are incapable of sinning on their own. The men made them do it, is his motto.

    So, come, Wilsonian defenders, show us that if men just did everything perfectly, women would never, ever sin….

  66. Warthog says:

    What are the husband’s biblical sanctions?

    I realize this will offend everybody, but let’s be brutally honest. The Mosaic law gives husband two sanctions. And it gives the wife one as well. The 21st century Church is “cuck central” because we swallowed an interpretive lie 1900 years ago, which took away the two primary sanctions a husband has in marriage.

    Exodus 21:
    “If [the husband] takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.”

    Right there we see two sanctions, one for the man and one for the woman.

    Sanction #1 – Take a second wife.
    The husband has the prerogative to lawfully take a second wife. That is a serious sanction right there, even though it doesn’t involve divorce. And, as is made clear, the first wife cannot divorce him unless he fails to provide her support of food, shelter and sex at the level she is accustomed to.

    If the husband fails to provide food, raiment and sex to his wife, she has the right to divorce, and to keep any dowry if she has one. If she doesn’t have one, as is the case in this law, she doesn’t have to repay him for the bride price.

    This has some really interesting implications. If a wife puts her husband on the “slow drip” (once a month sex), and he takes a second wife, then he can argue that he only has to have sex with the first wife once a month to “not diminish” her sexual relations. The ability to take a second wife was the equalizer for the husband.

    Sanction #2 – Divorce
    Deuteronomy 24, which Christ quotes, gives the husband a very broad power to divorce his wife if “he finds any uncleanness in her”.

    What is evident is that men and women are given very different grounds for divorce.

    The grounds for a husband to divorce his wife are uncleanness on her part (fornication/adultery).

    The grounds for a wife to divorce her husband are failure to provide food, clothing and sexual relations to her.

    There is a good reason for the difference. The main point of marriage is to produce godly seed. Feral women tend to seek out alpha males to get them pregnant, and try to find a beta male to provide for the kid. When a baby is born, there is never any question who the mother is. The question is who the father is. The Biblical laws of marriage, adultery and divorce place a higher responsibility on the women to be sexually pure, because not knowing the paternity of the children leads to breakdown of society. God wants men to be fathers to their children, which requires confidence that their children are actually theirs.

    Once the church started allowing women to divorce their husbands for sexual uncleanness, women started classifying everything as uncleanness. Saying no is “abuse”. Once the first wave feminists loosened the divorce laws and gave custody of kids to the mother by default, it opened Pandora’s box, and shifted the power balance far over to the woman’s side

    The first legal reforms that needs to be made are:
    * eliminate no-fault divorce
    * narrowly limit the grounds for a woman to divorce her husband to failure to provide food, clothing and sex.
    * husband gets custody of children by default, unless he consents to the wife taking custody
    * eliminate alimony
    * Right of dower (division of assets) should be replaced with actual dowry. If she doesn’t have a dowry on her wedding day, she doesn’t get to take one out of him when she divorces.

    Fix those things and divorce will start to work properly again, as an ultimate sanction to encourage women to keep their vows, and learn to be happy in the place they are.

  67. Cane Caldo says:

    @BJ

    Dalrock is free to do as he wishes. I have learned much from this blog, but I am also free to have an opinion, as he is free to have an opinion of the many folk he criticizes. In my honest assessment, it looks like a weakness to dish it out, but not be willing to put forward a position to be critiqued. As long as keeps the comments section open and he doesn’t ban me, I will happily acknowledge that he is not my daddy, and that he has a glaring weakness in this area.

    I didn’t challenge your right to have your own opinion, but rather your wisdom to keep your dumb ones.

  68. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Ephesians 5 spells out the duties of husbands and wives, as do other passages (1 Peter 3). Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Husbands are to treat their wives respectfully as the weaker partner. Wives are to submit to their husbands as they submit to Christ. They are to lead lives of gentleness, purity, and reverence.

    But is that how Christ loved the church? What I’m asking is, is there more to it than treating wives respectfully as the weaker partner?

  69. BJ says:

    @Cane Caldo

    “I didn’t challenge your right to have your own opinion, but rather your wisdom to keep your dumb ones.”

    Lol! Pithy.

    For the record, your message was clear.

  70. Dalrock says:

    @BJ

    You asked: “could you concisely state what the Dalrock Route actually is? I have read your blog the past few years thinking you were the Christian alternative to MGTOW. I still think so. But how would you say it in a nutshell? As opposed to summarizing what feminism is, how do you summarize the godly Biblical response to feminism in a culture that is ruled by feminism?”

    It is highly unlikely you will get a straight answer on this. Dalrock is phenomenal at dissecting the flaws in other views, but he almost never puts forward positive positions. Most of the time, he only hints in certain directions by implication. I don’t know why he does it that way, but it has the effect of protecting him from critique. It is honestly his most glaring weakness.

    Note the huge double standard. Not only does Wilson not have to defend what he does write, but I have to defend what you say I didn’t write.

    What is it you want here, specifically? It is a lie that I have only written critiques of others writing. I have written about my own take on things, although you may not have seen it.

  71. Caspar Reyes says:

    His strawman is a “hypothetical” scenario that could happen any way he wanted, but he has to muddy the waters with this:

    On top of that, just to keep the counseling sessions zesty, he has confessed to her five or six occasions where he has used pornography. She is deeply hurt by this and is not sure she can ever forgive him.

    He has to because the scenario is a hash of every counseling session ever. No matter what she’s done, his stuff will become the major issue.

    Problem 1: third party counseling
    Problem 2: the pr0nz, a bone he tossed out as a good faith gesture to appease them, which got hijacked and weaponized against him. Now her adulteries are a) lost in the noise; b) his fault.

    From firsthand painful experience, a man goes to counseling in good faith to be a team player expecting some give-and-take; a woman goes to win, and the “counselor” is there to make sure she wins. If you are dragged into counseling, do not give them anything. Do not confess anything. Do not admit anything. Call them liars and devils, because they are; tell them it’s none of their business and they can go to hell, and if your wife needs a counselor, she knows where to find you:

    if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.

  72. GW says:

    Yes Ernst there is more. Read the passages. Quit relying on the wisdom of others. I summarized a few points, but the summary is no means exhaustive.

  73. Ernst Schreiber says:

    @ Warthog:

    Exodus 21 is superceded by Matthew 19.

  74. Ernst Schreiber says:

    This is a socratic thing, GW. If others aren’t willing to share their wisdom, then it must not be worth very much. So what does it mean to love your wife like Christ loved the church? What does that look like in the real world?

  75. GW says:

    There is biblical and godly council, of which we should listen to. There is also a worldly “wisdom” that we should ignore.

    “Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”

  76. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    @Warthog

    In Dalrock’s struggle against the injustice and chaos of men being denied the authority of covenant headship, he goes too far by denying the responsibility of covenant headship.

    I trust you have some quotes to back this up.

    This is the nature of the game. It is a constant demand that I qualify myself. They don’t expect Wilson to defend what he wrote. They refuse to quote my writing when they argue against me. This is a never ending strategy of delay. It isn’t a discussion of ideas. I keep trying to focus on ideas, and they keep trying to change the subject. This is by the way how women argue.

    Nevertheless, I’ll clarify yet again. I don’t deny that husbands have responsibilities. What I object to is inverting the teaching of Scripture. Scripture tells us that the husband is the head. We can jointly agree that this authority comes with some sort of responsibility. This is a speculation, but I think a reasonable one. But Wilson and the complementarians have started with this speculation and sneakily run it backwards. Instead of saying “If a husband has authority, he must have responsibility”, Wilson says “If a husband takes responsibility, he will then have authority”. I point out that Wilson is contradicting Scripture, and I’m accused of denying that husbands have responsibility. I have done no such thing.

  77. Warthog says:

    @ErnstSchreiber, Matthew 19 is talking about a husband’s grounds to divorce his wife, and it quotes and agrees with Deuteronomy 24. Matthew 19 says nothing about a woman’s grounds to divorce her husband.

    Matthew 19 ” And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for *uncleanness*, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

    Deut 24: “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some *uncleanness* in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,… [if she remarries and divorces again her first husband cannot take her back.]”

    Jesus is saying a man cannot divorce his wife except for *uncleanness*, which is exactly what God said to Moses the first time.

    Exodus 21 is talking about a WOMAN’s grounds for divorcing her husband. The New Testament never changes or addresses a WOMAN’s grounds for divorce. For that matter, the New Testament position on polygamy is also the same as the Old Testament position – it is lawful, but those with more than one wife may not serve in leadership of church or state.

  78. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Nice deflection. So you don’t know what loving your wife like Christ loved the church looks like either, huh?

  79. Heidi says:

    If Wilson is talking about “the Dalrockian route,” he should provide some sort of definition of what that route is, preferably backed up by Dalrock’s quotes. I have been reading Dalrock for years now, and I don’t know what Wilson’s talking about–get happily married, like Dalrock? Have a couple of kids? Blog under a pseudonym? How can one respond to an argument when that argument is never clearly stated?

  80. GW says:

    God’s word needs no defense. It is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

    Those accusing Dalrock of not giving his own spin on scripture fail to see that much of the reason we’re in this problem is that the likes of Wilson, Piper, Keller, and numerous others have been telling us what is in scripture instead of letting scripture speak for itself. These men write books about their pet causes — “federal vision*” or “Christian hedonism” or “city evangelism.” While there is truth in what they write, there is also much error.

    Your modern pastor, influenced and fearful of feminism, will take a passage like Ephesians 5 or 1 Peter 3 and first apologize for it. He will use it to undermine a husband’s authority. He will use neologisms like “servant-leader” and “complementarian” and twist scripture to fit into the feminist paradigm. And he will do so unwittingly, firmly believing himself to be dutifully preaching the Word. Because of this, he will mislead the church.

    *After years of defending “federal vision,” Wilson now disassociates with it. This is the level of discernment one comes to expect from him.

  81. 7817 says:

    “Even this challenge he offered is framed in a way that prevents him from putting forth a position for critique. He has only offered up his past critiques of Wilson to scrutiny. Perhaps that is why Wilson is so obscenely vague in this criticism. He could be trying to get Dalrock to state clearly what he believes about a husband’s responsibility for his wife’s sins.”

    So according to BJ it is Dalrock’s fault that Wilson is so obscenely vague.

    This is a pretty good example of the train of thought that Wilson causes in his readers. “Perhaps” and “he could be” are justifications for Wilsons lack of clarity. And instead of asking Wilson for clarity they accuse Wilson’s challengers of being unclear.

  82. GW says:

    How bizarre. “Interpret this passage of scripture for me so I can misinterpret what you say!”

    You’ve already shown yourself to be less than charitable. If your heart is truly concerned with how to treat your wife, study scripture diligently and pray for God to give you a heart of grace and love toward your wife.

  83. Dalrock says:

    @BJ

    Dalrock is free to do as he wishes. I have learned much from this blog, but I am also free to have an opinion, as he is free to have an opinion of the many folk he criticizes. In my honest assessment, it looks like a weakness to dish it out, but not be willing to put forward a position to be critiqued.

    This is pure nonsense. I have written at length, and I have repeatedly challenged you and others to do exactly what you say I refuse. I’m begging you, critique what I write if you disagree with it. But you refuse. And Wilson refuses. Then when I point this out, you accuse me of not being willing to enter the exchange. This is pure projection.

  84. 7817 says:

    I bet those who attack Wilson are just jealous of his success, right BJ?

  85. Ernst Schreiber says:

    “a WOMAN’s grounds for divorce.”

    [hmm. I didn’t think women had the right to divorce under Mosaic law. That’s interesting. What did I get wrong? (Walks over to bookshelf and takes down Bible. Opens bible and flips to Exodus 21 starts reading.) “Laws concerning slaves?” huh. “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt faithlessly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.” Okay. . . So we’re not talking about wives. We’re talking about a man’s responsibility to his sex slave. Literally.”]

    You got me. I didn’t pay attention to your bracketing. I regret the error. I suppose in charity we can argue we’re talking about concubinage here, which is kind of like marriage (except it isn’t). But the point of the law is that if the Man is going to stop providing for his slave/concubine, he has to set her free, not sell her.

    And porneia gets translated enough different ways that you and I aren’t going to come to any agreement on it. So I’ll just add that the proof divorce isn’t a practical or readily available option is in the response of the disciples to Jesus’s teaching: “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” If you could ditch the bitch for “immorality” or “unchastity” or “adultery” (assuming that’s what’s meant by “uncleanness”) why would it be better not to marry? It’s worth noting that Jesus doesn’t correct their conclusion: “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

  86. Ernst Schreiber says:

    And your presumption, GW that I’m being less than charitable is itself uncharitable.

    But again, nice deflection. Off of a deflection no less!

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    It isn’t a discussion of ideas. I keep trying to focus on ideas, and they keep trying to change the subject. This is by the way how women argue.

    It appears to be the standard among Pastor Wilson’s followers. It is also common in Wilson’s writings. Perhaps if he had access to a book of logic, he could learn that argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Perhaps we should buy one, highlght certain concepts, and send it to him?

    Rhetorical question: what kind of “supporters of patriarchy” consistently argue like women?

    Rhetorical quote:
    ‘Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.’
    –Attributed to Socrates

  88. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Look, if you don’t want to address Ephesians 5:25, fine. Ignore me.

    But it seems to me nobody here wants to grapple with what giving yourself up for your wife as Christ gave himself up for the church really means.

  89. Ernst Schreiber says:

    That would be just like Eleanor Roosevelt to attribute her crap to Socrates.

  90. Damn Crackers says:

    It’s over. There are only Satanic (NPC) women left to date, let alone marry:

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2018/12/there-are-only-npc-women-to-date.html

    TL:DR – “The supply of quality, marriage material women is simply not here. There are not enough marriage-material women to go around. And the shortage is so bad that I estimate nearly 90% of men who want to get married [versus the about 5% of non-feminist brainwashed women] will have accept one of two things:

    1. You’re not going to get married, or
    2. You can get married, but it will not be to a woman who puts you and the family first in her life.”

  91. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Ernst Schreiber”
    But again, nice deflection. Off of a deflection no less!

    Irony.

    Why not answer your own question, in a patriarchal, yet winsome, fashion?

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Damn Crackers

    Why do you assum Cappy Clary Capitalism as an authority on women? Is it his track record? Or something else?

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Ernst Schreiber”
    But it seems to me nobody here wants to grapple with what giving yourself up for your wife as Christ gave himself up for the church really means.

    You could easily start that discussion yourself. Try quoting Wilson on that topic, taking care to include the specifics. Or quote from relevant documents your denomination uses on the topic. Or quote from previous threads on this site over the last 8 years. Or even use your own words.

    Of course, in making such suggestions, I’m assuming good faith on your part…that might be a mistake on my part.

  94. Caspar Reyes says:

    Searching in vain for the comments at blog & mablog.

  95. Damn Crackers says:

    @Anonymous Reader – How is your authority on women?

  96. Dalrock says:

    Ernst Schreiber

    That would be just like Eleanor Roosevelt to attribute her crap to Socrates.

    Anon Reader was right that the quote is often attributed to Socrates. That he worded it the way he did indicates that he understands that there is some controversy here. With a bit of digging it looks like both attributions are in question. See this discussion here. But I see no reason to criticize Anon Reader for accurately stating that it is attributed to Socrates.

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Ernst Schreiber”
    My guess is Eph. 5:25 is the key to Wilson’s hermeneutic of husbandly responsibility.

    Why guess? Just quote Wilson’s actual text on that quote. It should be easy to do given the number of books he’s written…

  98. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    @BJ

    It is highly unlikely you will get a straight answer on this. Dalrock is phenomenal at dissecting the flaws in other views, but he almost never puts forward positive positions. Most of the time, he only hints in certain directions by implication. I don’t know why he does it that way, but it has the effect of protecting him from critique. It is honestly his most glaring weakness.

    The weakness you perceive is not Dalrock’s, but your own which you project onto Dalrock. This is a blog, not a church, and Dalrock has no authority or responsibility over you. If you read his blog and learn from him how to avoid some sin that is good and you are in his debt. That debt does entitle you to his authority.

    Dalrock is a father, but he is not your daddy.

    Thank you. It is also a strange charge because while it is untrue that I haven’t ever given my own explanations, what he is essentially accusing me of is not writing something I’m not prepared to defend. If only Wilson would commit this “sin”.

    Wilson writes things he cannot or will not defend. This is, in itself, indefensible. So his defenders turn the accusation around in the most ridiculous fashion imaginable!

  99. 7817 says:

    @GW

    This is really good:

    “God’s word needs no defense. It is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

    Those accusing Dalrock of not giving his own spin on scripture fail to see that much of the reason we’re in this problem is that the likes of Wilson, Piper, Keller, and numerous others have been telling us what is in scripture instead of letting scripture speak for itself. These men write books about their pet causes — “federal vision*” or “Christian hedonism” or “city evangelism.” While there is truth in what they write, there is also much error.”

    Even study Bibles can be a distraction away from just focusing on what God’s Word says. There is a constant need in some church goers to use a modern man’s words to interpret the Bible, instead of reading it for a number of years on its own.

  100. 7817 says:

    @Dalrock

    There are a lot of parallels between you and Vox Day, and Wilson’s defenders and Jordan Peterson’s, in the way that the defenders of these guys react and attack you both. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

  101. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’m not particularly interested in Wilson because I don’t believe in penal substitution. Which, I’m inferring he does because of the emphasis on the husband bearing the responsibility for the wife’s sin (which is the only way the argument that Adam should have assumed the responsibility for Eve’s sin makes sense –if Adam had taken Eve’s punishment, Christ wouldn’t have had to take the punishment for all of us).

    As to why I’m hesitant to share what I think Eph 5:25 means in the here and now is because I don’t like what I think it might mean.

  102. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I see no reason to criticize Anon Reader for accurately stating that it is attributed to Socrates.

    It wasn’t intended as a criticism of Anon Reader and I apologize for leaving that impression.

  103. EPP says:

    I’ve always found Dalrock to be quite clear on his position: adhere to the whole of the Word of God. We might want someone to summarize it, because it is easier to be told what to do than think about it for oneself, but by it’s very nature the Bible cannot be summarized without missing the point somewhere. That this necessarily results in an individual being forced to study the Word is a feature not a bug. In other words, Dalrock doesn’t need to provide any positive assertions: it already exists, and is free to read. Furthermore, a criticism of that position is a criticism of God, with all that that implies. So, the criticism Dalrock offers is meant to highlight the deficiencies in Wilson et al’s summaries: it would be hypocritical and unwise to turn around and then provide his own fallible summary.

    Though, that is just my two cents.

  104. 7817 says:

    Any interpretation of Ephesians 5:25 has to take into account the following two verses. That verse doesn’t stand by itself, but is a portion of a whole statement which has to be considered as a unit.

    It would also be unwise to use solely that verse to determine proper behaviour of a christian husband, without considering the rest of the Bible, especially looking at how Jesus treated the church. Revelation contains some pretty serious rebukes.

    My belief is that it would also be valid to look at God’s treatment of the nation of Israel as an example. He loved, he chose,he implored, he sent prophets, he removed his blessing, he forgave, and he withdrew his protection from those in rebellion.

    We are not more righteous than God are we? If it was a proper way for God to bring His people back, then to the extent that we can imitate His behaviour, remaining in submission to God ourselves and not usurping his authority, we should do so within our small spheres of influence.

  105. BJ says:

    @7817

    ““Perhaps” and “he could be” are justifications for Wilsons lack of clarity.”

    His lack of clarity is clearly a problem. I never complimented his obfuscation. It is a major weakness of his writing. Speculating (and that is all it was, for the record) about why Wilson might be obscenely vague is not the same thing as justifying it.

  106. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for the clarification Ernst Schreiber. I clearly misread your comment.

  107. Dalrock says:

    @7817

    There are a lot of parallels between you and Vox Day, and Wilson’s defenders and Jordan Peterson’s, in the way that the defenders of these guys react and attack you both. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

    The same has occurred to me when reading Vox’s post on the subject. I also noticed something along the same lines when I have referenced Peterson (neither attacking nor supporting, just referencing him) in previous posts.

  108. BJ says:

    @Dalrock

    “Note the huge double standard. Not only does Wilson not have to defend what he does write, but I have to defend what you say I didn’t write.”

    This is simple dishonesty on your part. Wilson of course is supposed to defend what he writes, and he is free to do so or not. But either way, he doesn’t need me to defend him. Especially considering I would side with you on the critiques you have offered. I have simply never suggested he doesn’t have never suggested that he need not defend his positions.

    I have also never suggested you defend something you haven’t written. All I did was offer some unsolicited advice. Take it or leave it. You are the one who runs the popular blog, not me. But please remember that it comes from the position of someone who enjoys reading your work. Not from the position of opposition.

    “I have written at length, and I have repeatedly challenged you and others to do exactly what you say I refuse. I’m begging you, critique what I write if you disagree with it. But you refuse.”

    All that you have posted are your critiques of Wilson’s writings. You are not putting forth your positive arguments about responsibility and authority. My humble suggestion is that you do more of that. Again, heed it or don’t. You are the one with the blog.

  109. Dalrock says:

    As a correction, in one post I merely referenced Peterson, and the other I criticized a specific speech he gave.

  110. Daniel says:

    Marriage includes a covenant, as it includes vows, witnesses, blessings and sanctions. The husband is the head of the wife in that he loves her with a sanctifying love, and she is subject to him in all things. But the husband is not the “federal head” of his wife.

    “Federal headship” is a theological term that refers to the position of Adam, and later Christ. The guilt of the sin or reward for the obedience of the “federal head” is applied to the members of the “federal body.”

    through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just. – Romans 5:19

    Wilson mistakenly calls the husband a federal head, since his guilt is not imputed to his wife, neither is the husbands obedience credited to his wife.

    But Wilson makes the wife the federal head of her husband!

    Through the disobedience of the wife, the husband is constituted a sinner!

  111. BJ says:

    @7817

    “I bet those who attack Wilson are just jealous of his success, right BJ?”

    Did I say anything about people being jealous of Wilson? Why include me? Why bring this up at all?

  112. Dalrock says:

    @BJ

    All that you have posted are your critiques of Wilson’s writings. You are not putting forth your positive arguments about responsibility and authority. My humble suggestion is that you do more of that. Again, heed it or don’t. You are the one with the blog.

    I disagree that I’ve not put forth any positive arguments, but will stipulate that I haven’t done so to your satisfaction. If I were a pastor, the criticism would be that I’ve failed to preach the whole word. But that isn’t what I’m doing here. I’m not a pastor, and don’t claim that mantle. I think what you are picking up from me is that I am careful not to spout off on topics that I’m not prepared to defend. I don’t feel compelled to share every opinion, or even instantly form an opinion on every question. This allows me to learn from others, which I have done with the blog far more than I have taught. This is something I try very hard to do, and I see it as a blogging virtue, while you see it as a vice. I’m also careful not to needlessly provoke a Prot/Cat/Orth food fight. Plenty of those will occur naturally, and while I discourage them I don’t prevent each side from vigorously arguing their respective case.

    I’ll also add that a perfectly valid response to criticism is to acknowledge an error.

    Lastly, I’ll sincerely ask you to fill me and others in where you think you can teach. You are essentially saying it isn’t enough to point out if a math textbook inaccurately teaches that 5 + 5 = 15. You want me to write a better math textbook, right? You don’t want errors pointed out so corrections can be made, you want a whole new book–from me. But none of us here is writing the “whole book”. If you have wisdom to share, please do. I would be delighted to learn what you have to teach, and to plug the blog of a pastor such as yourself (if I recall correctly).

    I’m the one with the blog because I clicked on the link at the bottom right (Blog at wordpress.com) and wrote what I was prepared to defend. You will be as well if you do the same.

  113. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I agree with you 7817 that Eph 5:26 & 27 need to be taken into account. But so does Eph 5:21 – 24 and 28 – 33. In the RSV & KJV, the context is one of mutual subjection* “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.” For the wife, that takes the form of subjecting to the husband’s headship. What form does the husband’s subjection to his wife take? Paul gives us two images: husbands love your wives as Christ loved his church, love your wife as you love your own body. The second is fairly straightforward: don’t abuse/neglect/misuse your wife like you wouldn’t abuse/neglect/misuse your own body; do take care of your wife like you take care of your body (diet & exercise. I’m not sure how that’s mutually subjective except maybe in the sense that I care about my wife more than I care about my blood pressure and cholestorol, so I should pay more attention to her than I do my intake of empty calories.

    But how does the way in which Christ love his Church tie in? What is it Christ did for the Church and is that what I have to do for my wife?

    I also agree with you on the importance of looking to God’s covenantal relationship with his chosen people as paradigmatic. He loved, implored, rebuked, chastised and forgave. But more importantly, he also never broke faith or renounced his covenant. And ultimately he took on our humanity so could die for his people.

    *Unpopular as that may be.

  114. Paul says:

    @Dalrock

    I have written about my own take on things, although you may not have seen it.

    I think it would be a a blessing if you could make that more accessible; when I discovered your site, it was quite a task to go through a whole series of posts, comments, reposts, etc. to find it. I’ve noticed that others new to your site had the same experience.

  115. BJ says:

    @Dalrock

    Thank you for the detailed reply. I am sincerely grateful.

    “I disagree that I’ve not put forth any positive arguments, but will stipulate that I haven’t done so to your satisfaction. If I were a pastor, the criticism would be that I’ve failed to preach the whole word. but that isn’t what I’m doing here. I’m not a pastor, and don’t claim that mantle. I think what you are picking up from me is that I am careful not to spout off on topics that I’m not prepared to defend. I don’t feel compelled to share every opinion, or even instantly form an opinion on every question. This allows me to learn from others, which I have done with the blog far more than I have taught. This is something I try very hard to do, and I see it as a blogging virtue, while you see it as a vice. I’m also careful not to needlessly provoke a Prot/Cat/Orth food fight. Plenty of those will occur naturally, and while I discourage them I don’t prevent each side from vigorously arguing their respective case.”

    I don’t see this approach as a vice at all. I get that intra-Christian fights are often unhelpful and when the focus is on a topic we should all ostensibly agree on, it serves to hurt the cause. I also appreciate the caution about spouting off without proper preparation. That is one of the main reasons I like to read you.

    “I’ll also add that a perfectly valid response to criticism is to acknowledge an error.”

    Yes and amen. One of the reasons I haven’t tried to engage in a debate about your critiques of Wilson is that I more or less totally agree with you. I think you are sometimes hyperbolic, but even that is fairly restrained compared to others.

    “Lastly, I’ll sincerely ask you to fill me and others in where you think you can teach. You are essentially saying it isn’t enough to point out if a math textbook inaccurately teaches that 5 + 5 = 15. You want me to write a better math textbook, right? You don’t want errors pointed out so corrections can be made, you want a whole new book–from me. But none of us here is writing the “whole book”. If you have wisdom to share, please do. I would be delighted to learn what you have to teach, and to plug the blog of a pastor such as yourself (if I recall correctly).”

    I am a pastor and I do put forth positive arguments, though like you I tend to be cautious. I would happily share my teachings, but I don’t want to do it on your blog. That would be fairly presumptuous on my part. People come to read you not me. I put them forth at church weekly and I even added my two cents about Ephesians 5 in this thread. To your point about wanting a whole new book, my suggestion to you was based on a desire (myself included) to hear your perspective on this. I can read Wilson, Bayly (whom you introduced me to the other day), you, or whoever and reach my own conclusion. There is demand Dalrock. I simply suggested you supply.

    I hope that is clear. Apologies for the length.

  116. Dalrock says:

    @Paul

    I think it would be a a blessing if you could make that more accessible; when I discovered your site, it was quite a task to go through a whole series of posts, comments, reposts, etc. to find it. I’ve noticed that others new to your site had the same experience.

    The irony is the original charge was I didn’t write enough. But the real challenge is that I’ve written too much. I don’t know an easy way to solve this at a macro level (beyond using category tags). It is the nature of the medium. If I ever write a book this would be one of the main benefits, as I don’t think I’d have much that was truly new. It would be about consolidation much more than elaboration.

    But if you have a specific topic you want to ask about, ask now and I’ll do my best to find relevant posts. Often other readers can recall some that I myself forgot as well.

  117. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Dalrock: “I clearly misread your comment.”

    Not your fault because I wasn’t at all clear. What was in my head was “Eleanor Roosevelt said that” and I could have just written that. But what was also in my head was “and I hate that particular quote because so-called Great Minds thinking about Ideas turned the 20th century into a charnel house (Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot etc.) If the great minds would think more on the people who have to live with the consequences of their great ideas (e.g. what happens to the kids of No-Fault frivorce?) We’d be better off. Hence, “Eleanor Roosevelt [is full of] crap.”

    But I didn’t communicate that, did I?

  118. Damn Crackers says:

    @Anonymous Reader – My apologies if I came off snarky with my reply. If you were asking in earnest, I guess that the combinations of reading Aaron Cleary from his blogs lets me know he has much interaction with desperate men from anecdotal and personal stories.

    Plus, I would be more cynical than him. If 80% of young men are looking for a wife, I would put the % of young women who aren’t feminized in some regard, via learning to cook, clean, raise children, put off a career to find a proper husband, etc. to be much less than the 5% he suggests.

  119. 7817 says:

    @Ernst Schreiber

    On the category of mutual submission, first I would ask you a question: In what ways does Christ submit to us?

  120. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Off the top of my head I would say, taking on a human nature (alike us in everything but sin) is a form of submission in the sense of subjecting himself to the same aches, pains infirmities etc. we all have to endure.

    And then there’s the whole dying on the cross so we can be reconciled to God thing. . . . I think there’s more going on there than the Son subjecting Himself to the Father’s will. Does loving us enough to die for us count as a form of subjection?

  121. 7817 says:

    Doug Wilson literally co wrote a textbook on logic, and another book on fallacies.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/s/ref=is_s?k=Douglas+Wilson+logic

    He is not a stupid man. If he is trying to avoid Dalrock’s arguments, it is because he cannot face them.

  122. Paul says:

    @Dalrock

    But if you have a specific topic you want to ask about, ask now and I’ll do my best to find relevant posts.

    Many readers have shared the hardships they have gone through in their own (former) marriages, being submerged in a feminist culture that has robbed many of a proper view on masculinity and their roles as men and husbands. Your posts that cover the biblical position of men, especially towards their wives, are I think most useful. Maybe it would be a good idea to collect all the extensive posts into a longer summary post that could read as a positional statement and that would help men to get their marriage back on track (if possible) by better understanding how they should treat their wives properly.

  123. Warthog says:

    @EarnstSchreiber “You got me. I didn’t pay attention to your bracketing. I regret the error. I suppose in charity we can argue we’re talking about concubinage here, which is kind of like marriage (except it isn’t).”

    You don’t appear to understand case law. The case laws are written from the most extreme case (edge cases), from which you can reason back to the common cases.

    For example, the law concerning two men fighting and one accidently hits a pregnant woman causing a miscarriage. Penalty is death if the baby dies.

    Why is it written that way? That case includes the two most powerful defenses a man could argue – self defense, and it was an accident. So, if striking a pregnant woman by accident or in self defense is a capital crime if she loses the baby, of course it would also be for any lesser reason.

    In the case of the slave wife, which you call a concubine, it is not a lesser form of marriage. If she is given as a wife, then she is a wife. But unlike a normal marriage of the time, her father or master did not give her a dowry when she was given in marriage. So her husband paid a bride price, but she did not bring a dowry. A man might argue she cannot leave, because he paid good money for her.

    The case is made that even though she was bought for money, if her husband takes a second wife, and diminishes her food, shelter or clothing, she has grounds to divorce him and leave with no refund. Just like the case law of accidentally hitting a pregnant woman, this is the edge case, from which we are intended to reason back to the normal cases.

    If a slave wife, purchased with good money, has the right to divorce if her husband denies her food, raiment and sex, then how much more so does an endowed wife. Clearly, a wife may divorce if her husband denies her the three essentials.

    Beyond that, no the Bible does not give women the power to divorce, any more than it gives children the right to renounce their parents.

  124. 7817 says:

    @Ernst Schreiber

    No. And anyone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I can recall only one place in the Bible that directly states that Jesus submitted to humans, and that is when his parents retrieved him from the temple.

  125. Paul says:

    There are quite some extensive comments in this post, it will take some time to process them, but here it goes…

    @Warthog

    The main point of marriage is to produce godly seed.

    Not since NT times.

    Now to the unmarried a and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    The main point of marriage is to be able to have sex. If children are the result, all the better, but

    Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.

    As the apostle Paul wrote, he became a spiritual father to many, thereby producing true godly seed.

  126. Ernst Schreiber says:

    In what ways does Christ submit to us?

    And now, having had some time to think about it, I would further add that Jesus submitted himself to the unjust judgement of both the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate, as well as the scorn and mockery of Herod’s court, before being tortured and executed by the Romans while the crowed looked on and laughed.

    I think that has some definite implications for understanding how to love your wife like He loved the church.

  127. Ernst Schreiber says:

    @7817

    No.

    Then you’re going to have to explain to me how you define submission & subjection. Because we seem to not agree on our terms.

  128. Warthog says:

    @Dalrock Please forgive me if I misunderstood and therefore misstated your position on the covenant head having responsibility for the family.

    I drew that conclusion from this post:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/a-marriage-isnt-a-military-unit/

    In that post, you argued the husband is not culpable unless he hears the vow, says nothing, and then tries to intervene later.

    To me that looks like, if a man doesn’t nullify his wife’s vow (promise of future performance) on the day he hears of it, it is as if he had consented to the vow. Therefore to interfere later is as if he is breaking a vow he agreed to.

    What are the potential consequences to a family where the mother took a rash vow, and the father said nothing? Short of God throwing lightning bolts from the sky, it’s hard to see a great danger. I think God deliberately put that passage in the Bible to backstop the husband’s authority from the wife going over his head by claiming to have a separate deal directly with God. In the New Covenant 1 Corinthians 11 deals with the exact same issue. In the Last Days era of the New Covenant (AD 31-70), prophecy was widespread in the church, including women. The requirement that women cover their heads while prophesying was to remind them they are under their husband’s authority, even when speaking directly to or hearing from God himself.

    So, you do agree that the covenant head has responsibility that flows from his authority?

  129. Paul says:

    @Warthog

    The Mosaic law gives husband two sanctions. And it gives the wife one as well. Sanction #1 – Take a second wife. Sanction #2 – Divorce

    The Mosaic Law might allow it, but not so in the NT.

    But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

    Each man … his own wife AND each woman .. her own husband. Not wives, not husbands. Therefore monogamy, NOT polygamy.

    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    NO ONE!

    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    NOT SEPARATE, NOT DIVORCE

    Seems clear enough to me.

  130. BJ says:

    @7817

    Jesus is said to be “submissive” or “obedient” to his parents Mary and Joseph in Luke 2:51. I am not sure it interacts with this discussion or not, but it is the only place where the Greek word for submission is used of Jesus.

    https://biblehub.com/greek/5293.htm

  131. GW says:

    When Christ took on human flesh he was submitting to the will of the Father (John 6:38). Submission means to give into another’s (proper) will and authority. Christ never submitted to sinful man, because sinful man has no rightful authority over Christ. When Jesus allowed himself to be crucified, he made it explicitly clear he was not submitting to man’s authority, but was doing this of his and the Father’s own volition.

    “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)

    “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” (John 10:18)

    “Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” (John 19:11a)

    Ephesians 5:21 is referring to church members and should be read beginning in v. 18:

    “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

    Nowhere are husbands called to submit to their wives, and those who twist scripture to say otherwise are in danger of judgment.

  132. Warthog says:

    “And now, having had some time to think about it, I would further add that Jesus submitted himself to the unjust judgement of both the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate, as well as the scorn and mockery of Herod’s court, before being tortured and executed by the Romans while the crowed looked on and laughed. I think that has some definite implications for understanding how to love your wife like He loved the church.”

    It may, but it certainly does not give women a license to mock, torture, murder, and laugh at their husbands. In fact, those people who did that to him were for the most part NOT part of the Bride. They and their city were burned to the ground at Christ’s command 39.5 years later.

    You can’t take the suffering sacrifice part of the Christ-Bride relationship without also including Revelation. In Revelation Christ:
    * divorces his first wife (Judea – the Mosaic Covenant Church)
    * betroths his new bride (the letters to the seven churches)
    * threatens the seven churches with having their lamp snuffed out if they don’t obey
    * orders the ex-wife / harlot burned alive along with her adulterous lover Rome. Incidentally, Rome was burnt down three times in the same decade that Jerusalem was destroyed.

    So, Christ was willing to suffer terribly to save the repentant Bride. But the snarky, adulterous bitch that was his first wife, He torched. To draw the conclusion that being Christlike means tolerating adulterous rebellious mocking behavior from one’s wife is pure nonsense.

  133. GW says:

    Good catch on Luke 2:51. Notice that Jesus is obeying proper authority (his earthly father and mother). His death on the cross was in submission to the Father, not the Romans or Jewish council.

  134. BJ says:

    @GW

    I just recently explained to my congregation that the main reason the authorities wanted to kill Jesus was over the issue of Him challenging their authority. Too often, we paint Jesus as nice guy personified, and that the authorities had him killed, because they were just evil personified. No, he was openly challenging their authority by appealing to Yahweh as his authority. Makes more sense now why they killed him. Yes, they were evil. No, they were not completely illogical. They were trying to preserve their positions instead of submit to him.

  135. Warthog says:

    @Paul. I’m not pushing for re-legalization of polygamy. But, my observation that the ability to take a second wife was a potential “sanction” was in the context of “dread”.

    That being said, a man could in that day marry a second wife and still meet the standard you set of “NOT SEPARATE, NOT DIVORCE”. It was lawful. Not ideal, but lawful. New Covenant didn’t change that. If Christ’s words were changing what God said to Moses the Pharisees would have had him arrested then. That was the point of their question. He didn’t change the law, he interpreted to show its true intent. God hates divorce. And He probably doesn’t much care for polygamy. But polygamy isn’t on the same level of destructiveness as adultery and divorce.

    In today’s generation, divorce and remarriage would be a sufficient possible sanction to keep wives in line, if the state hadn’t rewritten the divorce laws to turn them into a shakedown of the husband.

  136. GW says:

    Great point BJ. Nearly everything Jesus did–from healing on the Sabbath to forgiving sins to calling himself the Son of God (John 10)–was a direct challenge to the authority of the Jewish leadership. That’s why they wanted him killed.

  137. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Nowhere are husbands called to submit to their wives,

    Then explain Eph. 5:21 to me please. Otherwise, Paul is incoherent.

  138. vfm7916 says:

    As 7817 noted, Peterson and Wilson defenders are very similar. One reason there is that their words and definitions are not clear, but are spoken such that the listener can hear their own definition of truth or meaning without actually reasoning it out. This was noted by Vox by posting a reviewer’s statement of Jordanetics.

    Wilson has a tougher time of it due to his copious written content, but the essence of Complimentarianism is to redefine or minimize troublesome scripture or definitions. Wilson has far more experience in doing that, but he shares the same inability to sustain his arguments under clear definitions and contradictory historical statements.

    It’s almost a speaking-in-tongues effect where the listener attributes a meaning that was never actually stated by the speaker, and viscerally defends to avoid psychological or spiritual pain of reality.

  139. GW says:

    To submit means to place oneself under another’s proper authority. So you are begging the question (as well as slandering the Apostle).

    Ephesians 5:21 is in reference to the verses that proceed it, which deal with harmonious and godly behavior among believers in the church. Ephesians 5:22 is one but one specific example of submission (elsewhere servants are commanded to submit to their owners), from which Paul expands into explaining how a Christian marriage is comparable to the relationship between Christ and the church.

  140. BJ says:

    @Ernest Schreiber

    My take on that verse is that Paul is telling his church members to submit to proper authorities. He is speaking generally from verse 1 until 21. All of the commands are generally applied, not specifically or situationally. When he notes, “out of reverence for Christ,” I am fairly confident that he means that all authority stems from Christ (a la Matthew 28:18) and that we are to submit to one another as those in proper positions of authority. (Mutual submission is logically incoherent.) From that verse on, he moves from the general command to be a people characterized by submission to proper authority to specific applications of that command in various places (wives, husbands, children, servants).

    My two cents.

  141. Opus says:

    I frequently come across on the net quotations attributed to Aristotle and although I cannot claim to have read everything The Philosopher wrote those quotations always sound far more twenty-first century A.D. than Fifth Century B.C. – and are also far too dogmatic for the Greek The above quote now attributed to Socrates is of the same type. FWIW I do not believe that Socrates ever existed for he appears to be a character – much like Sherlock Holmes – that enabled various writers – Plato and Xenophon we know of – to put words into Socrates’ mouth and for their own literary and rhetorical purposes.

  142. Warthog says:

    @Paul
    “Warthog: The main point of marriage is to produce godly seed.
    Paul: Not since NT times.”

    According to St. Paul, in 1 Timothy 2, even in the New Covenant, ” Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”

    Revelation 12:17 says after failing to destroy the Seed of the woman, “And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring [seed], who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

    The seed-line promise for marriage continues in the New Covenant. The fact that other branches can be grafted into the tree, does not nullify the fact that the normal reproduction of the Church is from generation to generation in the family through marriage and raising godly offspring.

    The argument made in Malachi 2 is not limited by Old or New Covenant:

    But did He not make them one,
    Having a remnant of the Spirit?
    And why one?
    He seeks godly offspring.
    Therefore take heed to your spirit,
    And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
    “For the Lord God of Israel says
    That He hates divorce,
    For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
    Says the Lord of hosts.
    “Therefore take heed to your spirit,
    That you do not deal treacherously.”

    So, according to God, the reason he created marriage was because He seeks godly offspring. And I contend that all of the laws concerning marriage, adultery, divorce, fornication in the Old Testament are centered around God’s stated primary purpose of raising godly seed.

  143. BJ says:

    @Opus

    As one who has studied much Greek, the idea that Socrates didn’t exist stirs up trouble. It is not without merit, to be sure, but for those that care, them’s fightin’ words.

  144. Ernst Schreiber says:

    GW, Eph. 5:21 also a transition to how a Christian household is to conduct itself in mutual submission. Wives obey husbands: husbands love wive as Christ loved the Church which is his body and everybody loves their own body & takes care of it; children obey parents. Their are reciprocal obligations being asserted here.

    Paul expands into explaining how a Christian marriage is comparable to the relationship between Christ and the church.

    And that’s the crux of my original question: How is Christian marriage comparable to the relationship between Christ and the church? What does that relationship look like in concrete terms?

  145. RichardP says:

    Love your wife in the same way Christ loves his bride, the church. How does this play out in the lives of mortals?

    Well – for starters, Christ did not / does not consider anyone a part of the church who rejects his (Christ’s) authority over their lives. So those who reject Christ’s authority do not receive the benefit of Christ’s love for the Church, however that benefit is defined.

    So there is that. Applied to wives who reject their husband’s authority over their lives.

  146. GW says:

    Your first sentence is false. You continue to twist scripture like Satan does. Reciprocal obligations does not equal mutual submission. Fathers have obligations to their children, but they certainly don’t submit to them.

  147. Ernst Schreiber says:

    “When Jesus allowed himself to be crucified, he made it explicitly clear he was not submitting to man’s authority, but was doing this of his and the Father’s own volition.”

    John 19:11 implies that Pilate did have power over him though (albeit power used unjustly). So I think your definition of submission might be too narrow.

    So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    (Phil. 2:1-11.)

    I think we need to consider the possibility that submission/subjection involves an element of humility or self-emptying.

  148. Randy M says:

    @Ernst
    “Their are reciprocal obligations being asserted here.”
    An obligation to someone is not equivalent to a duty to submit to them in colloquial English. Else, parents, in being obligated not to unduly frustrate children, are also obligated to submit to them, and likewise masters to slaves, making the word basically meaningless.

  149. Paul says:

    @Warthog

    Jesus is saying a man cannot divorce his wife except for *uncleanness*, which is exactly what God said to Moses the first time.

    No, Jesus is saying what God has joined, let NO ONE separate. It is clear what He meant, because the Pharisees were surprised by His answer. If He would have allowed divorce, He would have just repeated the Mosaic Law. The response in v.9 is a response to a question on Mosaic Law. Only Matthew has a construct that some have translated as an exception, the other gospels categorically deny the possibility of an exception, the same is true for the apostle Paul (Christians are explicitly instructed not to divorce even their unbelieving spouses). Remarriage after divorce is called adultery, indicating you’re still bound to your first spouse, confirmed by the “what God has joined together”.

    As for a technical consideration: there’s indication that the Greek does not have a word ‘except’ in Mt 19:9, but it is a later addition. Dr. Leslie McFall has done wonderful work on that: https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/divorce_aug_2014.pdf

  150. Anonymous Reader says:

    Damn Crackers
    @Anonymous Reader – My apologies if I came off snarky with my reply.

    No worries.

    If you were asking in earnest, I guess that the combinations of reading Aaron Cleary from his blogs lets me know he has much interaction with desperate men from anecdotal and personal stories.

    Cleary has much interaction with a certain subset of men. His opinion is based on his own personal experiences plus those other men. I can be plenty pessimistic all by myself, don’t need to add someone else’s blackpills into the mix.

    Plus, I would be more cynical than him. If 80% of young men are looking for a wife, I would put the % of young women who aren’t feminized in some regard, via learning to cook, clean, raise children, put off a career to find a proper husband, etc. to be much less than the 5% he suggests.

    I think you mean “percentage of women who aren’t feminist-ized”. Women who actually are feminine, i.e. feminized, are desirable.

    As for the rest, there are a lot of variables to consider. The chart Earl posted a while back showing “number of men she bedded prior to marriage” is very serious. It means that men need a really strong frame – very countercultural – and an ability to vet seriously. The situation is bad, but let’s not run around with our hair on fire. We are men, we solve problems.

  151. 7817 says:

    @Ernst Schreiber 

    Others have argued my point much more eloquently than I could have.

  152. Pingback: Jim Martinson Bans Porn So Women Don’t Have To | Gunner Q

  153. OKRickety says:

    7817,

    “Doug Wilson literally co wrote a textbook on logic, and another book on fallacies.
        […]

    “He is not a stupid man. If he is trying to avoid Dalrock’s arguments, it is because he cannot face them.”

    Ironically, you provide a great example of a logical fallacy (probably a strawman, or an appeal to ignorance). There are many reasons he might choose to avoid Dalrock’s arguments, but, although you don’t know with certainty the true reason, you nonetheless claim to know it.

  154. 7817 says:

    @OKRickety

    “Ironically, you provide a great example of a logical fallacy (probably a strawman, or an appeal to ignorance). There are many reasons he might choose to avoid Dalrock’s arguments, but, although you don’t know with certainty the true reason, you nonetheless claim to know it.”

    Did you answer Dalrock’s challenge to Wilson’s defenders?

    Clean your room bucko.

  155. 7817 says:

    To reiterate: Wilson helped write a textbook on logic which is still in use. If Dalrock’s criticism of Wilson’s errors is weak, it should be a simple thing for Wilson to logically refute the criticism, clarify his position, and end this whole debate. This would have the additional effect of gaining Wilson additional followers and support.

    So why doesn’t he do it?

  156. Dalrock says:

    @Warthog

    So, you do agree that the covenant head has responsibility that flows from his authority?

    Yes. I do.

    I’ll note again that Wilson argues the opposite, that husbands have authority that flows from their responsibility.

  157. Sharkly says:

    I think Wilson’s Choice of, and repeated use of, the word “responsibility”, which has multiple meanings and connotations, is intentionally making his explanation a confusing obfuscation, and not a clear explanation.

    I might say that a man should take charge of his marriage, or take charge of his situation, which at some points Wilson seems to mean, but I think he also likes the connotation of fault that also is present in the word “responsibility”. It is like he hopes his Patriarchal readers will presume it as taking charge, and his Feminist readers will presume it as taking blame. That way he hopes to please both, while being free to spin it the either way if somebody corners him in person.

    He himself said:
    There are times when I feel like that peace-making fellow at Gettysburg who decided to usher in national harmony by parading between the two armies wearing a blue coat and gray trousers. The only thing that happened was that he got shot at by both sides, and retired from the field a bit wiser.
    The fool is trying to ride the fence, and complaining that it hurts his crotch. Get off the fence and take a masculine unapologetic stand for God’s patriarchy Mr. Wilson. Don’t be ashamed that God isn’t a Feminist.

  158. Sharkly says:

    Dalrock says: I think what you are picking up from me is that I am careful not to spout off on topics that I’m not prepared to defend. I don’t feel compelled to share every opinion, or even instantly form an opinion on every question.

    LOL That’s what I’m here for! Need a quick opinion? I got one! I’m happy to spout off, if I suspect something is likely to be true. I often have no interest in debating or supporting my assertions. If you don’t get them, or don’t agree, That isn’t my problem. I’m just glad for the opportunity to share what I think is right. I also sometimes like to weigh in on an issue or take a side, giving my endorsement, without going into all the writing it would take to describe how, through my entire life, I came to be of that persuasion. Some times I just like to announce that I’m on the Lord’s side, and tell y’all which side that is. As for wisdom, I like to use God’s word, that part ain’t wrong, even if I am. LOL

  159. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Richard P wrote:

    Love your wife in the same way Christ loves his bride, the church. How does this play out in the lives of mortals?

    Well – for starters, Christ did not / does not consider anyone a part of the church who rejects his (Christ’s) authority over their lives. So those who reject Christ’s authority do not receive the benefit of Christ’s love for the Church, however that benefit is defined.

    So there is that. Applied to wives who reject their husband’s authority over their lives.

    The benefit of Christ’s love is eternal life. If one choose’s to not accept Christ’s authority over his life, and consequently removes himself from Christ’s church, then that one won’t enter the kingdom of heaven on the last day. But we have to make this distinction: the one who reject’s Christ, chooses not to enter, he isn’t rejected by Christ.

    So applying that to the rebellious wife, does it appear true to say the rebellious wife can reject her husband’s authority and walk out on him, but the husband cannot divorce her for her unrepentant rebelliousness?

    Randy M wrote:

    An obligation to someone is not equivalent to a duty to submit to them in colloquial English. Else, parents, in being obligated not to unduly frustrate children, are also obligated to submit to them, and likewise masters to slaves, making the word basically meaningless.

    What if submission here means accepting that there are limits to a father’s (husband’s) authority over his children (wife)? For example, a child is having difficulty completing what the father deems a relatively simple task (washing the dishes or tying the shoe-laces he learned how to tie 6 months ago) and , in a full on define temper tantrum, refuses to complete that task). Does the father have the right to impose his will on that child (say spank him two or three times and tell him to finish the job or get spanked some more) or does he need to submit his will (subject his authority) to his obligation not to unduly frustrate the child.?

    Might that be what mutual submission (an overly charged term that I now regret employing) “being subject [submitting in other translations] to one another out of reverence for Christ.” looks like in practice? The wife submits to the husband because she knows the head won’t harm the body? The child obeys because he knows the father won’t exercise his authority in an overburdensome way (trying to envision what would “unduly frustrate” a child)?

  160. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I would have included BJ, but I didn’t scroll back far enough:

    My take on that verse is that Paul is telling his church members to submit to proper authorities. He is speaking generally from verse 1 until 21. All of the commands are generally applied, not specifically or situationally. When he notes, “out of reverence for Christ,” I am fairly confident that he means that all authority stems from Christ (a la Matthew 28:18) and that we are to submit to one another as those in proper positions of authority. (Mutual submission is logically incoherent.) From that verse on, he moves from the general command to be a people characterized by submission to proper authority to specific applications of that command in various places (wives, husbands, children, servants).

    I largely agree. And as I indicated in my replies to Richard P and Randy M, recognizing that all authority stems from Christ means for the husband that there are practical limits to how he exercises his authority over his wife and children; and some of those limits have pretty severe consequences both for the family and the husband in particular in this secular, increasingly post-christian society.

    Which brings us back to the idea of how Christ’s love for the church was demonstrated, how “he . . . sanctif[ied] her . . . that he might present the church to himself in splendor, . . . that she might be holy and without blemish.”

  161. RichardP says:

    Ernst – you debated a point I did not make. I was not talking about divorce.

    The Church which Christ is head of, and whose behaviors husbands are to emulate, does not contain folks who reject God’s claim on their lives. That is a pretty simple point and should be easy to comprehend. The model for husbands to follow – husband is to wife as Christ is to Church – is of a head bestowing good things on those (and only those) who accept his authority over their lives. That is the model for husbands. The model is not a head bestowing good things on folks who reject the head as any sort of authority over this lives.

    You state that Christ does not reject. Faiing to accept (won’t unless repentence comes first), and spewing out of his mouth, are both forms of rejection. But I’m not interested in getting off into the weeds on that concept, since it really has nothing to do with the point I was making.

    If a husband is to emulate Christ, his responsibility is to someone who has accepted his authority over them, not to someone who has rejected it. That is the model of Christ and the Church. There is the concept in the Bible of one putting away his wife. Not divorce. Just cutting her off from the ministration of good things. Why is that even something that Biblical husbands did? I’m guessing the reason is pretty close to what I’m discussing here. Don’t want my authority. Then no soup for you.

  162. Ernst Schreiber says:

    And fortuitously, Warthog wrote:

    Christ was willing to suffer terribly to save the repentant Bride. But the snarky, adulterous bitch that was his first wife, He torched. To draw the conclusion that being Christlike means tolerating adulterous rebellious mocking behavior from one’s wife is pure nonsense.

    I think —fear even— that it might, for some, (in this day and age too many) mean exactly that: suffering adulterous rebellious mocking behavior. Or, working yourself to death for a woman who doesn’t appreciate you for it, and who might even abandon you, take your kids from you and leave you to die alone. Like Christ. (Except for his mother, his beloved disciple and a couple other women —so largely alone).

    I don’t like that idea and I certainly wouldn’t prescribe it (Marry that slut so when she divorces you and takes your kids, you can suffer like Christ!) Nonetheless, Christ’s love is sacrificial. He died to sanctify His bride the Church and make her “holy and without blemish.” Marital love is meant to be sacrificial too. I think everybody understands that with the small things (the wife is home alone with a teething infant and a sick toddler, so no beers after softball practice tonight) and the medium things (the kid needs braces, so no anniversary trip to Cancun this year). But sometimes, for some men, it means not just the big things, (she won’t have sex) but the really big things (I’ve been working 90 hours a week and travel 200+ days a year to pay for this lifestyle and you reward me by screwing the lawn care guy? or She left me for a podiatrist because after her sister married an orthodontist, her master plumber husband just wasn’t good enough anymore).

    And that guy is stuck, because marriage is sacramental, a sign of God’s love for and union with His people, however imperfectly realized in the here and now. And God’s love is covenantal. God doesn’t go back on his word, no matter how many times Israel plays the harlot. (Which is why your exegesis —eisegesis in my opinion— of Revelation is wrong. But we’re so far apart there’s no point in belaboring it. God doesn’t divorce.)

  163. 7817 says:

    @Ernst Schreiber

    “And that guy is stuck, because marriage is sacramental…”

    Talk about trying to cause despair.

    Ernst you are completely wrong. You are saying what is very popular and accepted in church these days, but that love of self sacrifice has gone down a perverted path and become abominable.

    Jesus offered himself once for all time as a sacrifice for our sins. The Bible says that God is not mocked, that a man will reap what he sows, and that the man who sows to please his sinful nature will from that nature reap destruction.

    You are making a mockery of God when you say that it doesn’t matter what people do, no matter how they revile him he will accept them.

    God doesn’t act in that way and husbands are not called to either.

  164. info says:

    She that is willfully rebellious against legitimate Authority without regret and repentance is one who is not under Authority of Christ.

    For if she sins she would be able to be convicted like David when the prophet pointed out his wrong, as a result of the Holy Spirit within.

  165. Daniel says:

    the really big things (I’ve been working 90 hours a week and travel 200+ days a year to pay for this lifestyle and you reward me by screwing the lawn care guy?

    Don’t be a literal cuckold. This “tolerance” is what is destroying the family in the conservative church.

    – The state has a sword to punish evildoers. But in the name of love we throw out the death penalty etc.
    – The church has excommunication to punish the unfaithful. But in the name of love we never excommunicate anyone and the liberals take over.
    – A man has various sanctions to sanctify his children and wife, but ultimately the authority to expel them from his house and disown them. It is the same for a disobedient 18 year old, or a fornicating wife. If, in the name of love, a man will not chasten his own family, then it will fall apart. That is to neglect your responsibility.

  166. I don’t recall where I read it (not manosphere– more likely a military-leadership blog or a writing blog), but your opening remarks recall a definition of bureaucracy I read recently, to wit, as a system disconnecting authority from responsibility, so those who DO cannot do without approval from those who cannot do but must bless the doing. And so very little can get DONE.

    And the family does not need a bureaucracy. If Daddy’s responsibility means anything, his authority must be realized and acknowledged. America’s current culture defaults to a single-motherhood model (whether the husband and father is present or not) that blames fathers for every fault (whether within his reach to influence or not), while cutting off their power and initiative at every turn. In effect, the Drone becomes a bureaucratic subordinate to the dominant Queen Bee. And that’s no form of Biblical I’ve ever seen in the Word.

  167. Warthog says:

    @Ernst Schreiber “God doesn’t divorce.”

    According to the Lord, he does and has, twice divorced Israel and Judea. The third time being the divorce of the apostate Jews in Revelation. However, I will grant you the point that the third time the text says He will EXECUTE her for adultery instead of divorcing her.

    “Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.” — Jeremiah 3:8

    “Thus says the Lord:
    “Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce,
    Whom I have put away?
    Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you?
    For your iniquities you have sold yourselves,
    And for your transgressions your mother has been put away.” — Isaiah 50:1

    Furthermore, the prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah show us God punishing his adulterous and disobedient wives, Judah and Israel. The fact that God chose to use this analogy of Himself being justified in both polygamy and divorcing his unfaithful wives, suggests that He views the subject a bit differently than you do.

    Ernst, I read that paper on divorce that you linked to. Its author claims that Erasmus changed the Bible by adding the exception for uncleanness in Matthew 19:9. He then hangs his entire doctrine of never divorce under any circumstances on that.

    The problem is that the exception is also included in Matthew 5:32, and the exception itself is originally in the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 24. Did Erasmus change all three, in both Greek and Hebrew?

    Ernst, you and that author are the kind of people who hang an entire doctrine on a single verse while ignoring all the other verses in Scripture that speak to the subject. You are no different from the feminists who insist on re-interpreting the texts that instruct women to be silent in church, and prohibit them from teaching or ruling over men.

  168. A very interesting argument, and one worth ruminating on. Thank you.

  169. AnonS says:

    ‘It [seems] like Dalrock is promoting porn, unlike a [true] husband like me.’

    Vox Day is right, look for ‘seems’ and ‘true/genuine’ in place of being precise with claims and precise with language. The mark of a gamma, it keeps him being a secret king.

    Dalrock, please get a book published through Vox Day already.

  170. Paul says:

    @Warthog The problem is that the exception is also included in Matthew 5:32

    No it is not.

    But I say to you, any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    In case of sexual immorality, you are not causing your divorced wife to commit adultery, she already did that herself.

    Notice the second part? whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
    If divorce was perfectly fine (which it more or less was in Mosaic Law), so would be remarriage. But it’s not, it’s called adultery, i.e. sex with not-your-spouse. And the adultery is against the man she divorced! How can that be if divorce truly ends marriage? Because God has joined them together in marriage, and NO ONE is to separate that.

  171. Paul says:

    @Warthog the exception itself is originally in the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 24

    If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.

    This law is one long condition against what is often understood as “wife swapping”. Technically it does not even prescribe or regulate divorce, it only acknowledges the practice. There’s also no exception to be found, I don’t know where you got that from.

    And it describes the woman as being defiled after marrying another man.
    A similar idea can be found in Lev 21

    [Priests] must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God.

    The woman [the high priest] marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so that he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’ ”

  172. Paul says:

    To add: a priest is allowed to marry a non-virgin woman, ONLY if she is widow, i.e. separated by death from her husband. A divorcee, as in Dt 24, is called defiled even if her second man has died, but her first man is still alive! She is NOT to be considered the same as a widow! Therefore the defilement has nothing to do with that she is not a virgin anymore. This clearly shows that even under Mosaic Law divorce does not really end a marriage, but death does.

  173. Damn Crackers says:

    @Paul – “NO ONE!
    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
    NOT SEPARATE, NOT DIVORCE
    Seems clear enough to me.”

    – Paul, you forgot the following words of St. Paul:

    1 Cor: 15 But if the unbeliever leaves [SEPARATES], let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

    Also, I don’t take Dr. McFall seriously. I remember all the commentators here laughed at Dr. Instone-Brewer’s interpretation of the divorce clauses in the Bible because he is 2000 years removed. “Instone-Brewer can’t be right, because someone must have seen this argument before him if he were correct!” Thus, I use the same argument against Dr. McFall. All the early Church Father’s discuss Jesus in Matthew saying “except”, not just Erasmus.

  174. I don’t know whose hermeneutic it’s original to, but one distinction my own father liked to cite between “milk” and “meat”, doctrinally, was that the “milk” is pre-digested by someone else first, while “meat” is taken from the source.

    Ergo, all the best commentators in the world are “milk” beside the “meat” of the Word as it is written.

  175. Damn Crackers says:

    @Paul – “This law is one long condition against what is often understood as “wife swapping”. Technically it does not even prescribe or regulate divorce, it only acknowledges the practice. There’s also no exception to be found, I don’t know where you got that from.”

    Honestly, I believe this is what Jesus was trying to get across to his followers. The Jews and Pharisees under Rabbi Hillel allowed divorce for any reason, including burning your matzah toast! Rabbi Shammai, like Jesus, said you could only divorce for the reasons Moses laid down. This was the argument that Jesus was trying to address.

    No matter what you as a personal Christian believes, divorce, if it is to occur, must only be done in the most extreme cases. I think we can all agree that we’ve move a long way away from this notion.

  176. Damn Crackers says:

    What I meant to say was Jesus was even more strict on divorce than Shammai or Moses.

  177. Damn Crackers says:

    Or, replace “divorce” with “annulment” and POOF! Everybody gets to leave their mythical wife and start over.

  178. Cane Caldo says:

    @J.J. Griffing

    I don’t recall where I read it (not manosphere– more likely a military-leadership blog or a writing blog), but your opening remarks recall a definition of bureaucracy I read recently, to wit, as a system disconnecting authority from responsibility, so those who DO cannot do without approval from those who cannot do but must bless the doing. And so very little can get DONE.

    Was it this:

    Bureaucracy is the delegation of the tasks, rather than the delegation of authority itself. That’s why whenever I encounter bureaucracy it is something in my way and never what gets things done for me. That is why the bureaucracy was made. It’s design is to diffuse authority; to dehumanize power and mask responsibility.

  179. Warthog says:

    Jesus was more strict on divorce than the Pharisees, to be certain. But, He twice cited the exception of “uncleanness” which is variously translated as sexual immorality. This appears to be the same justification cited in Deuteronomy 24. Jesus was dividing between the trivial (burning the toast) and substantial (sexual uncleanness). The second is a valid justification to divorce your wife.

    The point is that the Law of God does not allow a man to divorce his wife other than for sexual immorality on her part. Dr. McFall says, no, not even for that reason, becuz Erasmus changed the Bible to disagree with my absolutist position. Where have I heard that before?

    At any rate, we’ve gone way off on a tangent. In the West today, there is a small percentage of men who clearly violate God’s law by divorcing the wife of their youth without just cause. But the elephant in the room is the 66% of divorces initiated by women, which should not even be legally possible.

    @Dalrock, what is your position on just grounds for a woman to separate or divorce her husband? None at all? Adultery only? Failure to provide food, raiment and sexual relations?

  180. Warthog says:

    “@Dalrock, what is your position on just grounds for a woman to separate or divorce her husband? None at all? Adultery only? Failure to provide food, raiment and sexual relations?”

    And this ties back into the OP of Wilson, who says a woman can separate from her tyrannical husband, even though he has not given her Biblical grounds for divorce…

  181. Paul says:

    @DC Paul, you forgot the following words of St. Paul

    No I didn’t, but I’ll make it explicit again. You shouldn’t divorce, but you can divorce. If an unbeliever decides to divorce you, what can you do? However, I do not believe that it magically opens up the path to remarriage.

    All the early Church Father’s discuss Jesus in Matthew saying “except”, not just Erasmus.
    I would need to verify that. However, the early Church Fathers were virtually unanimous on not allowing remarriage after divorce.

    laughed at Dr. Instone-Brewer’s interpretation of the divorce clauses in the Bible because he is 2000 years removed.
    Well, that’s one of the reasons. One of the major issues I have with IB is that he sees marriage just as a legal contract, not as a covenant. Plus he accuses the early church to quickly have lost some essential Jewish interpretation to Scripture, that’s why they didn’t allow remarriage, and lo and behold, after 2000 years IB has found the long missing interpretation, and we can go along. He also is demanding a lot of your interpretative gymnastics, to agree with him that when Jesus says in Mt 19 “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.”, it REALLY means that these men refused to give their wives a certificate of divorce because their hearts were hard. I’m not joking.

  182. ray says:

    Mike at 5:51 —

    Seconded.

    “It’s a very, very bad sign that Dalrock is literally one of maybe 3 voices in all of the U.S. explicitly calling out pastors on their deceptive teachings that function only to placate their female congregations in a mommy complex gone full-scale.”

    Oh there’s a bit more than that about these works. Not everyone does it quite so formally. But they’re out there, scattered about, and I do mean scattered. Pissing off the demons.

    Jeshua said it over and over, only a remnant pass through, the way is narrow and etc. Christianity is elitist. So is Jeshua.

    The vast majority of modern ‘Christians’ are gonna get left when the troubles begin. The real troubles. Then right at that moment, for the lot, the terror will rise up into their throats. They’ll know they’re in the shit, and will not be getting out.

    As onerous as life is under the present gynarchy, its pains don’t compare to what’s coming.

  183. That Brotha Pedat says:

    Is Wilson a Calvinist?

  184. Paul says:

    @DC I don’t believe the popular interpretation that Jesus was picking between Hillel’s or Shammai’s interpretation. You know why? If he would have picked sides, at least some of them would have rejoiced. Instead, all were amazed! Even the disciples were baffled to the point they said “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
    I don’t think the disciples would have agreed in the first place that burning toast is a good excuse to ditch your wife. It is more plausible they would have sided with Shammai. Hence it is likely to well understood it to mean: never divorce.

    That’s also what Jesus said literally. And it is repeated by Paul in 1 Cor 7 that it is the command of the Lord.

  185. Paul says:

    @DC if it is to occur, must only be done in the most extreme cases.

    Well, at least that diminishes the current social evil of no-fault divorce that has ripped society apart. In my opinion you should never divorce.

    As for annulments. The RCC clergy sees itself as mediator in marriage, and annulment is a clerical way to address that a marriage was not clerical valid. It’s of course an invention and theological construct, and annulments are never introduced in Scripture.

  186. Paul says:

    There is another reason why I think Christians should never divorce, apart from the clear instructions not to do it.

    Christians are called to forgive, and are called to repent from their sins. Christian husband and wife should be the ultimate example of expression of such an attitude. If you cannot forgive your spouse, or you refuse to repent of your sins towards your spouse, how can you ever hope to grow as a Christian in obedience to Christ?

  187. Paul says:

    And the elephant in the room on the degeneration in the churches is that many have accepted divorce, as well as remarriage after divorce. It’s the single biggest thing that has destroyed Christian families, and has infected the Church.

    Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

    The Church is not honoring marriage anymore.

  188. OKRickety says:

    7817,

    “Did you answer Dalrock’s challenge to Wilson’s defenders? Clean your room bucko.”

    Ah. first the deflection (avoiding admitting your own fallacy), followed by the strawman (I am a defender of Wilson).

    Clean your own room.

  189. 7817 says:

    @OKRickety

    “Ah. first the deflection (avoiding admitting your own fallacy)”

    You could not even tell me what fallacy I committed.

    “followed by the strawman (I am a defender of Wilson).”

    You are defending him by attacking his critics while pretending to not defend him. You are following the Wilson pattern of obfuscation here.

  190. Paul says:

    @Warthog According to the Lord, he does and has, twice divorced Israel and Judea. The third time being the divorce of the apostate Jews in Revelation.

    First of all, we need to be careful here. The OT texts you’re referring to are analogies/metaphors, and as all analogies/metaphors, you can stretch them beyond the point where they’re applicable. In this case, God is seen as “married” to Israel, later as “married” to Judah and Israel. The analogy is clear that this is about the covenantal relationship between God and the nation Israel, and later the divided nation of Judah and of Israel. The divorce analogy is clearly related to the Assyrian- and Babylonian captivity.

    Now hear what God says in Jer 3

    Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, you backsliding Israel, says the LORD; and I will not cause my anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, says the LORD, and I will not keep anger forever. [..] Turn, O backsliding children, says the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one from a city, and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion: And I will give you shepherds according to my heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

    for I am married unto you

    This is what God says, even after He has given Israel a bill of divorce and put her away (Israel sent into captivity). To me this shows that the marriage (covenant relationship of Sinai) is still in place!

    Now we should be careful in stretching the analogy, which also is true for NT texts. On the one hand the Church is the bride, and marriage is still to happen, on the other hand Christ and the Church are like husband and wife, i.e. already married. We should not mix these analogies.

    As for the notion that God would have discarded Israel; nothing in the bible indicates that. The closest we can say is that the unbelieving part of Israel has been (temporarily) been rejected, but the believing part of Israel formed the beginning of the Church.

  191. Dalrock says:

    @Warthog

    “@Dalrock, what is your position on just grounds for a woman to separate or divorce her husband? None at all? Adultery only? Failure to provide food, raiment and sexual relations?”

    Paul doesn’t tell us what exceptions exist (if any) to his command. So I’m hesitant to declare exceptions where he has not. This is the kind of question we really need good elders for (or church doctrine). But I would say dangerous cases of abuse and (less clear to me) flagrant persistent adultery probably qualify. The goal here is not to use separation as a punishment for bad behavior on the part of the husband (which is the near universal view today contra 1 Pet 3) but to prevent harm and/or provide relief in truly outlandish cases.

    And this ties back into the OP of Wilson, who says a woman can separate from her tyrannical husband, even though he has not given her Biblical grounds for divorce…

    You continue claiming this like you really believe he said that. That isn’t what he wrote. He wrote that when Paul said in 1 Cor 7 that a wife isn’t to separate from her husband that Paul was giving wives permission to separate from their husbands, and therefore church elders have no right to question or discipline a wife who leaves her husband. He didn’t say this only applies to bad husbands. He merely chose a hypothetical with a bad husband (and talked about escaped slaves) to confuse the weak minded.

  192. RichardP says:

    If divorce was perfectly fine (which it more or less was in Mosaic Law), so would be remarriage.

    There are several places in the Bible where it says that adultry (unrepented) will keep you out of heaven. There are NO places in the Bible where it says that divorce (unrepented or not) will keep you out of heaven.

    Thus – it is clear that the Bible makes a large distinction, with eternal repercussions, between divorce and remarriage. One will keep you out of heaven; the other will not.

    Let’s agree that a stable, intact, loving family is the model and the goal. Having said that, the Bible makes it clear that it is not the divorce that creates the problem. Rather, it is the adultry. Therefore, the warnings have as their goal to keep one away from adultry. Hence, don’t leave; but if you must, don’t remarry. Because remarry creates the adultry, which is the problem. Divorce alone does not create the adultry. It may create damaged children, but it does not, by itself, create adultry.

  193. RichardP says:

    @Dalrock – I was typing my comment while yours posted.

    Please stop saying only the first half of what you keep quoting. The words that Paul says are from God, not from Paul, are clear: God says this – “a wife must not leave; but if she does …”

    We have another instance of this logic where the Bible says – don’t sin, but if you do, you have an advocate before the Father.

    There are no restrictions in those words – don’t leave, but if you do … (or, don’t sin, but if you do …). Words that Paul says are from God. In this respect, if Wilson is saying that Paul was giving wives permission to leave their husbands for no reason, he was more correct than incorrect – based on what the Bible actually says. Which is a point different from saying that Wilson thinks it is a good idea for all wives to do that.

    As I point out in my previous comment, all of the words spoken on this issue are to protect against adultry – which is what the Bible says can keep out of heaven – not to protect against separation and/or divorce. The Bible nowhere says that separation and/or divorce will keep us out of heaven. But it does say that about fornication and adultry.

  194. Paul says:

    As for the Isaiah 50 text the following.

    Thus says the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have you sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

    You can interpret this as a question: show me the bill of your (!) mother (!) ‘s divorcement, if you can, because you can’t. If you see the Law at Mt Sinai as the sealing of the marriage covenant, where is the actual bill God gave Israel to show that they were divorced, and were allowed to marry another man?

    Note that under Mosaic Law, a woman could never divorce her husband, the husband had to write her a bill of divorce, else she could not marry another man.

    Note that this closely mirrors Romans

    For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives; but if the husband dies, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband dies, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she is married to another man.

    Death ends marriage, else you’re an adulterer. This would even hold in those cases where the husband would not agree to write a certificate of divorce.

  195. drifter says:

    …Two or Three witnesses:
    Num 35:30
    Deu 17:6; 19:15
    Mat 18:16
    2 Cor 13:1
    …In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

    …Submitting one to another:
    Eph 5:20-21
    Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

    This is a general call for unity, harmony, humility in the body. Another one like it can be found in one of the letters to Timothy (can’t recall off the top of my head)…which would make two witnesses.

    …Wives submit to your husbands:
    Ephesians 5:22, 24
    Colossians 3:18
    Titus 2:5
    1Peter 3:1,5
    At the very least, here are 6 occurrences (witnesses) of explicit instructions given to wives to submit themselves to there husbands.

    …Husbands submit to your wives:
    NOT…A SINGLE…ONE.

  196. Damn Crackers says:

    @Paul – I get where you’re coming from. I guess it is part of why I never married; I followed Jesus’s advice/commandment. I may be a sinner, but at least I’m not an adulterer (or try not to be).

    Unfortunately, can everyone get back with their original spouse and everything be made kosher? I’m not sure even if possible it would be the right thing. The modern world has made all of this so muddled.

  197. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Paul

    The bill of divorce for Israel is Jeremiah 3:8. Judah was not issued a bill of divorce but was put away for a time.

  198. That Brotha Pedat says:

    @Damn Crackers

    Reconciling with a former wayward, vengeful, or even broken spouse can be hard, especially if you were separated for an extended period of time. Not only do you have the time to take inventory of yourself, but you also get into a continuity of taking inventory of THEM as well…and that can make you say…” you know what…about the reconciliation thing. No thanks – I’m good.”

    Separation can be dangerous as hell. Too much time to your own thoughts and you might uncover stuff you surely did not intend.

  199. That Brotha Pedat says:

    @drifter – good summary

    I thought we covered that “mutual submission” crap on this Blog years ago. LOL

    Years and years ago when I used to frequent Housewife Theologian, I almost got roped into that nonsense…

    …then I used my brain.

  200. G.E. Achord says:

    Part of the problem here is that Wilson’s defenders do not see him as opposed to Dalrock and can’t see why Dalrock seems determined to label Wilson a feminist. We shouldn’t treat our friends this way. Wilson may not line up exactly with the beliefs of Dalrock, but he is a fellow soldier who doesn’t need to keep getting shot at by his own side.

    Many commenters are anathematizing Wilson, which is quite foolish considering he is one of the few church leaders putting up a fight.

  201. 7817 says:

    Wilson defenders and Peterson defenders have so much in common.

    “Part of the problem here is that Wilson’s defenders do not see him as opposed to Dalrock and can’t see why Dalrock seems determined to label Wilson a feminist.”

    This is largely because Wilson defenders (who often claim to not be Wilson defenders) do not actually understand what either Wilson, or Dalrock, is saying. They may understand one side or the other, but not usually both at the same time, because then the criticism would make sense.

    “We shouldn’t treat our friends this way. Wilson may not line up exactly with the beliefs of Dalrock, but he is a fellow soldier who doesn’t need to keep getting shot at by his own side.”

    Wilson is not a friend. His philosophy ends up at the same place as other complementarians.

    “Many commenters are anathematizing Wilson, which is quite foolish considering he is one of the few church leaders putting up a fight.”

    No, he is pretending to put up a fight while calling out those who criticize his errors as wife-beaters.

  202. Keith says:

    I don’t see it. The cardinal rule of relationships applies to the relationship with your god does it not ? Eph 5-25 says to love your wife as god loves the church this means to love with out need as god does not need the church. Luke 19-40 and Matthew 3-9 explains how little god needs you. How god loves the church is different from the way god loves the church. This hyjacking of a mans sacrificial-natural love that he offers his family and tribe is a evil. A mans authority comes from being desirable and having the ability to walk away. From true female desire comes true fear-respect. Responsibility is every thing god has put under your control from the MASTER bedroom to the chipped paint on the mail box you can not pray away your burden of masculinity.

  203. Dalrock says:

    @G.E. Achord

    Part of the problem here is that Wilson’s defenders do not see him as opposed to Dalrock and can’t see why Dalrock seems determined to label Wilson a feminist. We shouldn’t treat our friends this way. Wilson may not line up exactly with the beliefs of Dalrock, but he is a fellow soldier who doesn’t need to keep getting shot at by his own side.

    What you are saying is we should let Wilson teach false teachings and remain silent because he is on our side. But I don’t want to be on the side of false teaching. Why do you?

  204. Anonymous Reader says:

    Wilson may not line up exactly with the beliefs of Dalrock, but he is a fellow soldier who doesn’t need to keep getting shot at by shooting at his own side.

    FIFY.

  205. Paul says:

    @Warthog If Christ’s words were changing what God said to Moses the Pharisees would have had him arrested then. That was the point of their question. He didn’t change the law, he interpreted to show its true intent. God hates divorce.

    First of all, there is NO law on divorce in Mosaic Law. Search for it, you will not find it. Second, the existence of divorce is acknowledged, but there are put bounds on it (e.g. Dt 24, Lv 21). Third, Jesus did indeed not change the law, but interpreted his true intent, and yes indeed, God hates divorce. Not only does God hate divorce, He forbids it in the NT. The ONLY possible “loophole” is centered around the interpretation of Mt 19:9, plus there is a text critical issue with the so-called “exception clause”. The other gospels don’t mention any “loophole” when describing the same historic situation.

    And for your first point; the Pharisees were exactly trying to do that: to get Jesus arrested without the crowds turning on them. And they eventually succeeded.

  206. Paul says:

    @Keith

    Welcome to this board. Unfortunately I don’t get your point.

  207. Paul says:

    @RichardP There are several places in the Bible where it says that adultry (unrepented) will keep you out of heaven. There are NO places in the Bible where it says that divorce (unrepented or not) will keep you out of heaven.

    And there are multiple verses that call remarriage after divorce, adultery. In my opinion you therefore run the risk to be considered an unrepentant adulterer. I don’t want to bet on that.

  208. Paul says:

    Maybe to clarify: I do consider it beneficial in case of direct physical danger, to value life over being subject to such danger. I do therefore think there are situations where it is advisable to (temporarily) not live under the same roof as your spouse. Such a situation requires attention of the church, and should not occur (but unfortunately does occur) in the lives of Christians, who would need to repent of that, or fall under church discipline.

  209. Paul says:

    As others noted: mutual submissions already came up multiple times in the past

    e.g. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/04/02/wilson-deflects/

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

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

  210. G.E. Achord says:

    My point is that “false teaching” is a slanderous term when applied to him. Dalrock is not the ultimate standard. Wilson faithfully expounds scripture, despite being slightly off the Dalrock-straight-and-narrow, but this should not be a reason to de-platform him.

  211. Keith says:

    @ Paul that is unfortunate but I don’t have to explain my point. Epistemologist that study the Bible can’t see the forest because all the trees are in the way

  212. feministhater says:

    Wilson faithfully expounds scripture, despite being slightly off the Dalrock-straight-and-narrow, but this should not be a reason to de-platform him.

    Woweee! We’re censoring him now, are we?

    He doesn’t ‘faithfully’ do anything. Dalrock has pointed out numerous points where Wilson teaches blatant false teaching. Either accept the challenge Dalrock gave you or go away.

  213. feministhater says:

    We shouldn’t treat our friends this way. Wilson may not line up exactly with the beliefs of Dalrock, but he is a fellow soldier who doesn’t need to keep getting shot at by his own side.

    Wilson is not my friend, he is not a fellow soldier. I don’t think you understand at all. He’s position is not that of a ally but an enemy. He would throw men like me under the bus or into the inferno quicker than you could say ‘traitor’.

  214. drifter says:

    My point is that “false teaching” is a slanderous term when applied to him…Wilson faithfully expounds scripture…
    No, it isn’t, and not always. GEA, let the truth set you free.

    …but this should not be a reason to de-platform him.
    I’ve never read where Dalrock has called for this.

  215. drifter says:

    My point is that “false teaching” is a slanderous term when applied to him…Wilson faithfully expounds scripture…
    No, it isn’t, and not always. GEA, let the truth set you free.

    …but this should not be a reason to de-platform him.
    I’ve never read where Dalrock has called for this.

  216. G.E. Achord says:

    Sorry for the length of this comment, but I don’t know of a place to email you directly.

    In the manosphere, I have repeatedly come across the idea that women are little more than grown children. Point granted. We all know that children need training and discipline. Therefore, it would follow that the authority a man has over his wife is comparable to that which an adult has over a child, yes?

    As a mother, when my children disobey, I discipline appropriately. However, I also know that their disobedience is a failure on my part for not having taught them otherwise (or reinforced prior teaching). Because I am in a position of authority over them, I have responsibility for their actions.

    When a daughter grows up, having not heeded her parents’ teachings, and ends up pregnant, it is her fault. But are the parents not also to blame, in even a small way?

    When a woman is in rebellion against her husband, it is HER FAULT and she should be held responsible for her actions. However, should the man not also be held responsible as the covenant head? Why was she allowed to reach this point of rebellion? Why was she not taught/disciplined away from said rebellion?

    When I discipline my children, I am loving them. A husband biblically loving his wife would include training and discipline as well, right?

    If this is it at all true, then I think the overall thrust of Wilson’s arguments makes sense. He seems to be emphasizing the idea that a man is responsible for a rebellious wife. Do you find that to be true on any level? (Caveat: I don’t think Wilson would compare women to children, and I don’t see myself as representing his views here.)

    I do not believe it is the husband‘s responsibility to keep his wife happy. It’s her job to control herself and her emotions (just like a child must not throw a fit). However, if the wife is “chronically unhappy” (living in sin), should it not be cause for a husband to take disciplinary action? And if he doesn’t, would he not be shirking his responsibility toward her?

    Again, the rebellious wife is wrong, at fault, to blame, and should be held accountable. But an elder (and therefore the Christian ideal) should be able to rule his household, correct? In other words he should be able to stifle the rebellion.

  217. 7817 says:

    @GEA:

    “My point is that “false teaching” is a slanderous term when applied to him.”

    slander (slănˈdər)
    n. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.
    n. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

    In other words, for it to be slander, it has to be false.

    When can we expect your answer to Dalrock’s challenge in the OP above?

  218. BillyS says:

    You are foolish GE when you think a man today has the authority to do what you require, and that is the core flaw in your argument. Not supporting the authority of the father/husband is what is tearing marriages and families apart today. It is also ruining the next generation as your example correctly notes.

    Men should only be held accountable for what they can control. Just waving your hands doesn’t give them that authority. Wilson does the same by undermining the very authority required for the result you want, while not removing even a bit of the responsibility.

    You are both heretics.

  219. drifter says:

    Here’s some valuable advice for you, GEA: make a daily visit to this woman’s blog, and I suggest that you start here.

  220. Anonymous Reader says:

    In the manosphere, I have repeatedly come across the idea that women are little more than grown children. Point granted. We all know that children need training and discipline. Therefore, it would follow that the authority a man has over his wife is comparable to that which an adult has over a child, yes?

    You’re new here, clearly. The question you ask has a simple answer that is facile and a much more complicated answer that goes far beyond your experience or Doug Wilson’s experience.

    There’s about 8 years of essays by Dalrock with many comments by various men and some women on just that topic. Some of the aspects of that topic include women’s agency, the legal structure built by feminism and tradcons since the 1970’s (“Duluth protocol”, “VAWA”), the different nature of men vs. women, the ongoing feminization of the churches, the tendency of middle class men to be conflict averse towards women, the earthy nature of women including such things as “pay attention to what they do, not what they say”, and other things.

    Then add to all of this the issues of theology, specifically what is written in books of the Bible from Proverbs to Ephesians on marriage. As much as you may want to protest that “Doug’s Right! He Said It! I Believe It! That Settles It!” the men who disagree with Pastor Wilson do so from a variety of perspectives, but not just for the sake of argumentation.

    We have reasons. Real world reasons, as well as theological reasons, for disagreeing with Doug Wilson. Please note that men do not talk as women do, and what may seem horribly rude to a woman is merely energetic argumentation to many men.

    tl;dr
    Bring facts. Not “Doug said so!”. Then we can talk. Don’t assume you know more than men about “being a man”.

  221. G.E. Achord says:

    Comments like your last sentence there is what initially made me post on this thread. It’s the idea that if someone does not line up perfectly with the ideas espoused here, then they are a heretic, false teacher, etc.

  222. G.E. Achord says:

    I hope never to assume that I know more about men than men. I also don’t agree with everything Doug Wilson says. I think Dalrock gets a lot right where Doug Wilson gets some things wrong. I’m just trying not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

  223. G.E. Achord says:

    I do think calling Wilson a false teacher is slanderous. Again, he may not get everything right, but it doesn’t then follow that he is a false teacher.

  224. G.E. Achord says:

    I’m familiar with the blog linked to.

  225. Anonymous Reader says:

    Comments like your last sentence there is what initially made me post on this thread. It’s the idea that if someone does not line up perfectly with the ideas espoused here, then they are a heretic, false teacher, etc.

    Two things.
    !. Learn how to quote or at least reference to whom you are replying. Otherwise it’s unclear what you are trying to say. Use italics or blockquote or something else, but don’t just pop words up. There is a link to “Basic tags for wordpress comments” near the bottom of this page:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/comment-policy/

    2. As I just stated: Please note that men do not talk as women do, and what may seem horribly rude to a woman is merely energetic argumentation to many men. I will add to this by pointing out that comments can become a rather “hot kitchen” at times, and for some the heat is too much.

  226. G.E. Achord says:

    @anonymous reader, Sorry about the comment thing, I assumed “reply to x” meant it would be direct. My apologies.

  227. Anonymous Reader says:

    G.E. Achord

    I hope never to assume that I know more about men than men.

    You already have done so in this previous statement:

    Again, the rebellious wife is wrong, at fault, to blame, and should be held accountable. But an elder (and therefore the Christian ideal) should be able to rule his household, correct? In other words he should be able to stifle the rebellion.

    “Should be able” is just “ought” in more words. Much of what gets argued about in the manosphere has to do with what “ought” to be vs. what “is”.

    You have no idea what is involved in that “should be able”, because you are a woman. It’s not trivial, and disagreeing with an aging Boomer like Doug Wilson doesn’t make a man a wife beater, either.

  228. G.E. Achord says:

    @anonymous reader, I agree that it is “ought” vs “is” and isn’t the job of a pastor to preach “ought”? Although I would also grant that he must be familiar with the “is” to do so effectively and not just assume he is familiar.

  229. Anonymous Reader says:

    I agree that it is “ought” vs “is”

    Not so fast. You clearly don’t even know what “is” looks like.

    and isn’t the job of a pastor to preach “ought”?

    Depends. Which of the many “oughts”? Go look at the most recent posting by Dalrock, view the Vice interview with evangelical pastor Matt Chandler. What “ought” is he preaching?Is it the same “ought’ that Wilson sorta kinda maybe possibly could be preaching?

    Although I would also grant that he must be familiar with the “is” to do so effectively and not just assume he is familiar.

    It is common for aging Baby Boomers to assume that life for 20-something people in 2018 is pretty much the same as it was 40 to 50 years ago. This is comically wrong. It’s like a general fighting the last war – cavalry charging with swords against tanks, etc. It is trivial to demonstrate this.

    For example, select a unmarried 25 year old churchgoing girl from your social circle. What are the odds she’s a virgin? How many different men has she probably had intercourse with so far? How many more will she get busy with before marrying? Will this have any effect on her ability to pair bond? Does the probability of divorce change as she screws around, or is she one of those Quality Women that never really behave badly and always are Good Girls?

    The manosphere has factual answers to those questions. Most older pastors can’t even grasp the significance of the questions. Doug Wilson is in that category, IMO and as a result gives comically bad advice to men. Or he knows what the world is like now, and deliberately sets young men up for horrible failure…

  230. feministhater says:

    I’m just trying not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Cool. I’ll do that for you then. Whoooosh…… plop….. splat!

    There, carry on.

  231. Paul says:

    @GEA should it not be cause for a husband to take disciplinary action?

    Like what? Either the government will throw him in jail, the church will disown him, or his wife will divorce him.

  232. BillyS says:

    GEA,

    If preachers preached at women’s sin significantly, then you might have a point. But only focusing on “men’s sin” in these areas undermines things because it gives a false view of the problems involved. Women expect perfect men and think they are just fine since no one confronts their sin.

  233. feministhater says:

    Like what? Either the government will throw him in jail, the church will disown him, or his wife will divorce him.

    And, don’t forget… Wilson will call him a ‘wife beater’ and abuser and a million other names whilst he gets behind the wife and the state in stripping said man down to the bone.

  234. G.E. Achord says:

    @BillyS

    Very much agreed.

  235. G.E. Achord says:

    @Paul

    “Disciplinary action” is admittedly a vague term because each wife is different and will respond to different measures. For method, it seems that the game blogs are often helpful.

  236. Paul says:

    @GEA For method, it seems that the game blogs are often helpful.

    Hardly, but they cover the concept of frame, which is helpful.

    As long as a wife does voluntarily respond to that, you have some hope on improvement, but the moment she doesn’t, you’re 100% screwed. You cannot even confront her sin in church, let alone get her disciplined by the church, as no church will be on your side. And worse, she might call the cops AND/OR divorce you.

    Most actions you would label as disciplinary, are seen as abuse by the state, and punished accordingly.

  237. Paul says:

    @GEA

    Case in point: almost every nation has introduced laws against marital rape in the last 20-30 years. This goes DIRECTLY against the instructions in 1 Cor 7 on sexuality, yet not a single church has protested these laws as far as I know.

    The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

    See the definition of marital rape

    Marital rape or spousal rape is the act of sexual intercourse with one’s spouse without the spouse’s consent. The lack of consent is the essential element and need not involve violence. Marital rape is considered a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse. Although, historically, sexual intercourse within marriage was regarded as a right of spouses, engaging in the act without the spouse’s consent is now widely recognized by law and society as a wrong and as a crime. It is recognized as rape by many societies around the world, repudiated by international conventions, and increasingly criminalized.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

    What do you think? Has your husband authority over your body, or do you?
    And how is he going to exercise disciplinary action if he is refused authority over your body?

    There’s the problem with Wilson in a nutshell.

  238. princeasbel says:

    Looks like Tim Bayly has decided to declare that Dalrock has some personal beef with Wilson that he won’t let go.

    Some man in bondage to the root of bitterness which corrupts many thinks he's Trumped my dear brother Doug Wilson. Uh no. The reason no one responded to the guy's challenge is that trying to correct the root of bitterness is like trying to water the Sahara https://t.co/IYEW5u8gae— Tim Bayly (@tbayly) December 5, 2018

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    I think Tim is the only one with bitterness. He couldn’t prove this Tweet was true to save his life. Tim has never been a strong critic of Wilson, even though he criticizes complementarianism regularly. Now he’s going up to bat for him, but doing so dishonestly. This isn’t a root of bitterness. Wilson’s defends are HERE. They are whining and complaining that Dalrock called them and Wilson out, but they continue to refuse to defend what he teaches.

  239. Anonymous Reader says:

    “A man is known by the company he keeps” — anonymous

  240. 7817 says:

    That tweet is a fascinating piece of rhetoric though, especially because I have not witnessed any bitterness from Dalrock directes towards Wilson.

    Since this post has no bitterness from Dalrock, the likely conclusion is that Bayly is projecting. The next question is why? Why would Tim Bayly be bitter?

    Men like Bayly and Wilson are caught in the middle. They decry the Matt Chandler’s and Russell Moore’s of the world for going to far in their compromise, but anyone calling out the compromise of the Wilson and Bayly wing is called bitter, or a wife beater.

    It must be incredibly galling for them to read Dalrock and be exposed as being on the same path as Moore or Chandler. Sunlight makes it hard to deny the truth, so instead of admitting their error and repenting they lash out.

  241. Sharkly says:

    @Keith
    From true female desire comes true fear-respect.

    I believe you got that backwards.
    fear is the predecessor of respect. Submission is imperative for female erotic attraction. She loses her fear of you, then you lose her submission, then she loses her attraction to you. It goes together so tight, that it happens fast, and I could easily see a person getting it backwards, since it all seems to happen at once.

    Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.

    The Fear/Respect/Reverence is commanded of the wife, and I believe the more of it is given, the more she will be attracted to her husband.
    Most people never get why many women seem to seek out, and stay in truly physically abusive relationships. It is because they are attracted to, and love those men who periodically make them fearful. The nice guys get passed over, because they don’t make her vagina tingle.

  242. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for the heads up princeasbel. I’ve added an update to the OP.

  243. Sharkly says:

    G. E. Achord says: However, if the wife is “chronically unhappy” (living in sin), should it not be cause for a husband to take disciplinary action? And if he doesn’t, would he not be shirking his responsibility toward her?

    Paul says: Like what? Either the government will throw him in jail, the church will disown him, or his wife will divorce him.

    Help me out here Mrs. Achord,(and others) and I’ll make it easier by saying the wife is already divorcing me, and I’ve already left the churchians, so I don’t need to worry about those two things happening, what effective discipline can I use on my wife that will not get me thrown in jail or disadvantage me in the upcoming divorce and custody hearings?

  244. PokeSalad says:

    he’s Trumped

    This was not a typo.

  245. feministhater says:

    You’re just bitter Dalrock! Nah na na nah nah! Tehee!

  246. Lost Patrol says:

    This was not a typo.

    Ain’t that the truth. Trump. Isn’t he the man that gets under people’s skin to such effect that their true colors are revealed? Maybe I’m thinking of some other guy.

  247. G.E. Achord says:

    @Paul

    Maybe Wilson is assuming that Christian men – or at least those in his following – are not marrying feminists.

    Disciplinary action might mean not letting a wife go to the weekly ladies meeting or similarly suspending whatever the source of the creeping feminism may be.

    And yes, my husband has authority over my body. Of course.

  248. G.E. Achord says:

    @Paul

    I understand that men are in a predicament. Women are given the benefit of the doubt in every societal sphere (except the manosphere, ha), and the laws and churches are on their side. But when men marry, do they not have some responsibility to see that their wife does not adopt a feminist framework? Granted, she shouldn’t believe it, but doesn’t the Bible teach that women are subject to being deceived? Shouldn’t that make husbands careful to assume the responsibility of washing their wives in the truth of God’s word? Don’t they have at least some responsibility?

  249. Jim says:

    And there you have it folks. Undeniable. Wilson thinks, there is not debate here folks, that women are incapable of sinning on their own. The men made them do it, is his motto.

    Yup. It’s just these awful terrible men who are to blame for every evil women commit. To his mind Lot should have been turned to salt instead of his wife. So God is wrong in his eyes. Gotta love Gaia worshipers.

    Dalrock wrote:
    But Wilson is careful not to divulge what argument of mine is in error, and for good measure he is careful not to even link to or name whatever post contains the argument he imagines he has just defeated.

    If so then that doesn’t surprise me. Revealing eh?

    Since this post has no bitterness from Dalrock, the likely conclusion is that Bayly is projecting.

    Of course this “pastor” is projecting. It’s just the usual teenage girl-type response of “You’re just bitter! You just can’t get laid! You live in mommy’s basement!” blah blah. People like him are evil. They lead the flock astray and direct them toward doctrines of devils. Can anyone really deny that knowing what they preach? Oh, and remember the feminist “theologians” trying to rewrite the Bible to fit their sick feminist ideology? These guys aren’t doing anything different. Hell, I’d say they’re helping it along just fine even if it isn’t as blatant.

    The modern “Christian” Church is through. It loses followers every year and it should. It’s a disgusting mockery of Christianity and a horrible representation of Christ’s Bride. She has become a filthy whore. Apostate. What’s the difference between it and a college campus these days other than the label? The gynocentrism is so off the charts these days that women are now placed above God.

  250. Jim says:

    Till now… when men simply say ‘fuck it! I’m done.’ and then everyone loses their minds.

    That’s because they’re dependent on our money and support and they know it. When men walk out en mass the whole thing will come crashing down. Hard.

  251. Paul says:

    @GEA Shouldn’t that make husbands careful to assume the responsibility of washing their wives in the truth of God’s word?

    You are delusional.

    I commend you for the fact that you personally have decided to live according to biblical standards for marriage. But you fail to see the elephant in the room: most women don’t want to do that. Also not when they’re Christians. And the State and the Church are on their side.

    Don’t you think the men in here, who are often well aware how husbands and wives should live, didn’t tell their wives what God expects from them according to the bible?

    Yet many have been wounded by their wives, to the point where they are getting divorced. You are aware that at least 70% of (no-fault) divorces are initiated by women, even by Christian women? And that divorce rates are about 50%?

    You side with Wilson, and fail to see what both he and you are doing; putting the blame on husbands for the misbehavior of their wives, while failing to hold the women responsible.
    And even when this is pointed out, you still fail to see it.

    Husbands are at the wrong end of the stick: both their wives, the Church, and the State are punishing their behavior when they’re trying to live biblical marriages, yet the Church at large is condemning men.

    This is however exactly what feminism looks like: full-out war against (“patriarchal”) men.
    And they’ve won over women, the Church, and the State, who now are her vengeful allies.

  252. G.E. Achord says:

    @Paul

    This is actually an area in which I would disagree with Wilson. I’ve never claimed to be “on his side” I’m only objecting to his being called a heretic.

    I believe Dalrock and other blogs like his are right about the situation between men and women.

    I guess I’m just having difficulty understanding how all these women, who weren’t previously feminists, become feminists and why their husbands are blindsided by it. Maybe because they never had a reason to be a feminist until they got married? Perhaps marriage is a sort of litmus test?

  253. Keith says:

    @ sharkly I hate that your getting divorced. I hope you was speaking hypothetically and are not actually gong thru a divorce. I don’t know which comes first. Desire or fear or respect. It’s like the difference between want and need. And the difference between love and want. It’s all so closely tied together. Any way good luck if you are going a divorce.

  254. Jim says:

    Help me out here Mrs. Achord,(and others) and I’ll make it easier by saying the wife is already divorcing me, and I’ve already left the churchians, so I don’t need to worry about those two things happening, what effective discipline can I use on my wife that will not get me thrown in jail or disadvantage me in the upcoming divorce and custody hearings?

    You can’t. That’s why MGTOW appeared. You can’t win a rigged game where only men have to obey endless rules while cunts can do whatever they want with no limits. Only when men stop being women worshiping pussies and gynocentric cuck boys will this evil end.

  255. Paul says:

    @GEA

    I’m just having difficulty understanding how all these women, who weren’t previously feminists, become feminists

    Have you ever met women who aren’t feminist? It is pretty rare to find a wife who is not influenced by feminism. That’s why men are now giving up on marriage en masse in the first place. MGTOW is there for a reason. Thanks feminism!

    And if women are not consciously feminist, they will be subconsciously be influenced by feminist thinking, by popular culture, the state, their friends and the church.

    and why their husbands are blindsided by it.

    Again, you are making a big assumption, as if husbands are blindsided.
    You are still assuming that if they would know and inform their wives, their wives would adjust their behavior.

    Reality is, men have told their wives how to behave. And wives are refusing to submit themselves to their husbands. Again and again.

    Men are on their own. Worse yet, they are actively combated by women, the state and the church.

    Maybe because they never had a reason to be a feminist until they got married?

    Are you now also suggesting it is men’s fault their wives become feminists?

  256. feministhater says:

    Maybe because they never had a reason to be a feminist until they got married? Perhaps marriage is a sort of litmus test?

    This is why men are choosing to walk away. You have now shown by your words, direct endorsement of feminism. If only men were perfect, women would not choose feminism…. haha! Wilsonian fuckery if ever there was one. Fuck off bitch.

  257. PokeSalad says:

    The reason no one responded to the guy’s challenge is that trying to correct the root of bitterness is like trying to water the Sahara
    Yes, I remember from the NT how Jesus didn’t trouble Himself to correct or argue with the Pharisees, because it was just.too.much.trouble. Neither did His disciples.

    Ask Bayly to defend his Scriptural interpretations, and the “Warhorn” becomes a kazoo.

  258. Anon says:

    What you are saying is we should let Wilson teach false teachings and remain silent because he is on our side. But I don’t want to be on the side of false teaching. Why do you?

    For women like GE Achord, there is no awareness of right and wrong. Their only moral compass is that the tribe she has sided with should be seen as in the right, and thus any opposition to that must be wrong. Period. There is zero moral compass beyond that (which, incidently, is why democracy cannot survive female suffrage for too long).

    These traits helped women survive before the modern era, as changing her allegiance is a difficult process, usually only done when it the total defeat of the old tribe is inevitable.

  259. G.E. Achord says:

    @Paul

    I re-read my second-to-last question and I see how it was misinterpreted. I don’t at all mean that it is the man’s fault that the woman became a feminist. I meant that in Christian circles, prior to marriage, a woman doesn’t really have a need for feminism. However, once she is married, and finds herself wanting out, then feminism comes in handy. Basically, opportunistic feminists. I’m just trying to reconcile in my head all the marriages between men and their wives who end up as feminists. It just doesn’t make sense that men would voluntarily marry feminists. It makes more sense if the women change post-marriage.

    Again, I in no way intended to blame a husband for his wife’s feminism and I’m sorry it came across that way.

  260. Jim says:

    This is why men are choosing to walk away. You have now shown by your words, direct endorsement of feminism. If only men were perfect, women would not choose feminism…. haha! Wilsonian fuckery if ever there was one. Fuck off bitch.

    Cunts are gonna cunt.

  261. feministhater says:

    Indeed! They can’t help themselves.

  262. Paul says:

    @GEA Again, I in no way intended to blame a husband for his wife’s feminism and I’m sorry it came across that way.

    Thanks for your clarification.

    It just doesn’t make sense that men would voluntarily marry feminists.

    Well, we can agree on that. And with the number of feminists, that makes marriage practically impossible. Which is exactly the observation that more men are starting to realize: marriage is a loose-loose situation for men because of many woman acting as “gold-digging whores”, to quote Bill Burr.

    I’m just trying to reconcile in my head all the marriages between men and their wives who end up as feminists.

    Because women are sinners and refuse to submit to Christ and follow his commands.

  263. Sharkly says:

    G. E, Achord,
    Women are influenced to become Feminist by TV, movies, music, friends, family, church. state, clubs, workforce training, it’s everywhere. They get saturated with it from such an early age, and never get to see functioning patriarchy, to the point that they don’t even know that most of their viewpoints have been affected by it and are extreme when compared to any previous generation.

    I personally got blindsided, because I am a very honest person, and I greatly fear God compared to most of the churchians of this generation. When my wife claimed to believe in submission and male headship, I naturally believed her, because I would never lie to a future mate about something so essential to marital harmony. I assumed she would leave her evil upbringing behind because she had “gotten saved” and I assumed she would follow her spiritual head in the new direction she claimed she wanted to go. Men are blindsided because women lie, and some women have good intentions, but are too spoiled, by being brought up in a woman worshipping culture, to do the work it takes to maintain a healthy relationship. I assumed she now feared God like I feared God because she claimed to be “saved”. No! She fears doing something she doesn’t want to do, far more than she fears God or eternal damnation. She is a fool. She told one pastor during counselling that; she fears that if she ever begins to submit to me she will somehow instantly morph into a “doormat” and never be able to stand up against her husband again. The shitbag pastor said; well; we’re not going to ask you to do that. Fuck him! That is exactly what I’m demanding. And our marriage will never be right until she quits her unfaithfulness, and starts submitting to her own husband.

    Also my wife has Intimacy Anorexia and it can suddenly manifest itself after marriage, as it did. There was almost zero sign of it before my wedding day, but she had become a complete and total crazed bitch before our honeymoon was even over. In her conscious mind she believes she wants intimacy, but subconsciously(from childhood) she is afraid of it, so she sabotages and withholds everything that might lead to intimacy, all the while blaming me, because she thinks she wants intimacy, but she believes her reticence must be because I’m just not worthy, or that I’m pushing her away, when I react to her awful distancing behaviors. It becomes an addiction to withholding oneself from all intimacy, spiritually, emotionally, and sexually, and like an addict she is in denial, that she has become a slave to sin. She refuses to admit any fault or get any treatment for it. And almost nobody in the church has the balls to say anything to her about it. They just want to focus on the fact that after 16 years of being taunted with her unfaithfulness and constant intentional psychological torment, I have become angered and curse now, and gave up trying to please her, by submitting to her tantrums, like they want me to continue doing, after I have came to realize it will not work, and that submitting my headship to hers is not truly Christian, but an inversion of God’s direction.

    My situation is not quite like many others, but the similarity is that the churchians are reflexively my enemy when it comes to trying to get my wife to submit. They are so full up with Feminism, that they always fight me because I unashamedly demand their help with establishing patriarchy in my home. They instinctively spend almost every second of every counselling session, trying to blame everyone of my wife’s sins on me, and claim I’m unforgiving, for wanting help to stop her from continuing on in her same sin that is ongoing. Apparently if she is not actually doing it that very second, in their office, I’m being unforgiving by bringing it up. She cries some crocodile and claims she is hurt by my condemnation, but she has zero remorse, never quits doing it, and I believe she is laughing inside that those effeminate chumps are gobbling up her bullshit, showing less discernment than a child.

    I once, years ago, told my young son’s, the Bible teaches us that the husband was to submit to and honor Jesus, the wife was to submit to and honor her husband, and the children were to submit to and honor their parents. After a brief pause my youngest son about five at the time, replied; “Has mama heard this? She’s not doing very well!”
    Even my kindergartener had sharper discretion than our churchian hirelings, blinded by Feminism.

  264. Paul says:

    @Sharkly : thanks for your personal story. It’s horrifying, and many men have somewhat similar stories.

    I for instance asked my pastor what he and the church would do, in case my wife decided to go for a no-fault divorce. His answer? “We’re not going to chastise her for that”. He offered to talk with the both of us though. Of course I refused. I think almost all church leadership would act the same.

    In general I would be very wary to go to any marriage counselor at all, because the moment you show you expect submission of your wife in marriage, you will find they practically all will be against you. You can only loose.

  265. G.E. Achord says:

    @Sharkly

    I think I see now what the manblogs are saying: the default for women now is feminism. If in Christian circles, they may claim otherwise, they may not even know they are feminists, or the feminism may be dormant, but it’s there.

    It’s become insurmountably difficult to tell if a wife will become a feminist since there is nothing (socially or institutionally) holding her back.

    Does that sound accurate?

    This is not a challenge; it’s an honest question.

  266. Paul says:

    @GEA the default for women now is feminism. If in Christian circles, they may claim otherwise, they may not even know they are feminists, or the feminism may be dormant, but it’s there.

    It’s worse than that. The default for men now is feminism.

  267. Sharkly says:

    It’s become insurmountably difficult to tell if a wife will become a feminist since there is nothing (socially or institutionally) holding her back.

    Does that sound accurate?

    Yes, that is it in a nutshell.

    It is not necessarily insurmountable, But unfortunately even with the best pick, there always is some risk of your marriage becoming the worst and costliest mistake of your whole life. Many men have compared it to playing Russian roulette. In hindsight I did get horny, did some thinking with my dick, and perhaps could have been more discriminating. But I really apparently landed on the loaded chamber in the analogy. 5 out of six times some other woman I put through the same vetting and held to the same standards and treated the same way, would have resulted in a pleasant and functional relationship, even though it too would bear the damage of societal Feminism and my Blue Pill conditioning that I had back when I married.
    Sometimes I’m surprised that there are short, fat, bald, and ugly guys at work who are stupid, boring, have poor personal hygiene, don’t make a lot of money, have little ambition, minimal education, are not very religious, and yet they still have wives who are loyal, loving, and apparently even respectful to them. I believe in our current Feminism saturated environment, the functionality and stability of the home is far more dependent on the wife than the husband. The churchians are stuck on blaming men, because….men are in theory the leaders. But in actuality a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and in our culture, morally and character wise, over 90% of the time that weak link is the woman.
    Women file for around 70% of divorces, and the vast majority are frivolous, or the woman helped push the man into doing or becoming bad. While of the 30% of divorces initiated by men , a large percentage are probably defensive, or would have met the pre-no-fault-divorce standards required to justify a divorce filing. While that may sound biased, I believe our national culture is actually creating and allowing worse women, than men. If you transported a group of men filing for divorce today, back in time to the 1930’s, and reset their glory years for them, and married them off to random women, most of those marriages would last without the men having to adapt too much. If you did the same for a group of women filing for divorce today, most of those marriages would also last, but it would come at the price of the women having to totally revamp their thinking and behavior to adapt to that society in order to maintain their marriages, as was expected. The group of men taken back in time might be considered liberal, permissive, and gentle, and be somewhat coveted by liberal women of that time, while the group of women taken back in time might be considered uppity, shrill, and almost intolerable, and acquire the moniker of some old fashioned byword for bitches. That’s just speculation though.

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.