He was like a little boy that night.

Christian sex experts Pastor Dave and Ann Wilson inadvertently explain how to kill your wife’s attraction in The Art of Marriage:

Dave:  On May 24, 1990, it was our ten-year anniversary—I sort of surprised Ann with a ten-year anniversary date. We dressed up and went to a really nice restaurant. I sort of set it up with the waiter, while we were having dinner / when I would queue him—sort of give him a look—he was supposed to bring a rose over. So, I queued him early in the dinner—he brought over a rose and laid it on the table. We talked about year one.

Ann:  He was like a little boy that night—like waiting for the next thing to happen.

Dave:  Then I looked over later, and he brought another rose. So, anyway, every rose was a year; and we would talk about that year.

Ann:  He was so sweet—he even planned what he was going to say when each rose arrived.

Little boys are indeed sweet, but they aren’t sexy.  Later that night Dave tried to kiss his wife, and she explained that she no longer had feelings for him.

Dave: So, I leaned over to kiss Ann. As I leaned over to kiss her in the passenger seat, she sort of pulls away.

Ann: “Ugggghh!” I was just like, “Honey, I can’t even!” In my head, I was thinking, “I cannot even go there.”

Dave: So I pulled back, and look at her, and said, “Is something wrong?” She looks at me—and I’ll never forget this—she goes, “Well, yes, there is something wrong.” I am like, “What’s wrong?” And she says, “Well, to be honest with you, I’ve lost my feelings for you.”

Pastor Wilson was an All-American quarterback at Ball State and a leader of men, but by supplicating to his wife he took on the form of a little boy and killed his wife’s attraction for him.


Hat Tip Sunshinethiry (followup post pending)



Posted in Closeness, Dave and Ann Wilson, Frigidity, Game, Marriage, Romantic Love, Uncategorized | 157 Comments

Supplicating to rebellion

Solomon challenged my definition of the word complementarian in the last post:

Dalrock, you said “This is the very definition of complementarianism.”

I think maybe you meant this is the definition of today’s upside-down, backwards, unholy complementarianism currently touted.

Normal complementarianism is God’s actual order. Man is authoity, woman complements/helps

This isn’t true.  Complementarianism is a term coined a little over twenty five years ago by Christians who wanted to preserve what they saw as feminist progress while avoiding what they saw as feminist excess. John Piper and Wayne Grudem explained this back in 1991 in the preface to their seminal book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism.  Piper and Grudem explain that their purpose is to push back against the evangelical feminists arguing that there should be no difference between the roles of men and women.  However, they are largely sympathetic to the feminist position, seeing it not as rebellion but as the understandable pushback from thousands of years of Christian error (emphasis mine):

…these authors differ from secular feminists because they do not reject the Bible’s authority or truthfulness, but rather give new interpretations of the Bible to support their claims. We may call them “evangelical feminists” because by personal commitment to Jesus Christ and by profession of belief in the total truthfulness of Scripture they still identify themselves very clearly with evangelicalism. Their arguments have been detailed, earnest, and persuasive to many Christians.

What has been the result? Great uncertainty among evangelicals. Men and women simply are not sure what their roles should be. Traditional positions have not been totally satisfactory, because they have not fully answered the recent evangelical feminist arguments. Moreover, most Christians will admit that selfishness, irresponsibility, passivity, and abuse have often contaminated “traditional” patterns of how men and women relate to each other.

Note their adoption of the feminist frame via the claim that traditional marriage is contaminated by passivity and abuse.  Here they are referencing their creation of the new feminist sin for wives (the sin of servility to husbands), as well as the feminist claim that traditional marriage is characterized by abuse of wives.  They explain that their primary purpose is convince Christian feminists that complementarians have banished the errors of the patriarchal past.  Complementarianism is a new vision that incorporates the best parts of feminism while retaining separate gender roles (emphasis mine):

But our primary purpose is broader than that: We want to help Christians recover a noble vision of manhood and womanhood as God created them to be -hence the main title, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Our vision is not entirely the same as “a traditional view.” We affirm that the evangelical feminist movement has pointed out many selfish and hurtful practices that have previously gone unquestioned. But we hope that this new vision-a vision of Biblical “complementarity”-will both correct the previous mistakes and avoid the opposite mistakes that come from the feminist blurring of God-given sexual distinctions. 

We hope that thousands of Christian women who read this book will come away feeling affirmed and encouraged to participate much more actively in many ministries, and to contribute their wisdom and insight to the family and the church. We hope they will feel fully equal to men in status before God, and in importance to the family and the church. We pray that, at the same time, this vision of equality and complementarity will enable Christian women to give wholehearted affirmation to Biblically balanced male leadership in the home and in the church.

This is not a call to end feminist rebellion, because they are largely sympathetic to feminism.  When complementarians encounter the most overt feminist rebellion they go to laughable extremes to deny feminism and blame men and men alone.  This is a plea to Christian women in rebellion to come back without fear of having their feminist sensibilities challenged.  You can almost hear the music playing in the background as Piper and Grudem wrote the preface:

Baby come back!  You can blame it all on me!

I was wrong, and I just can’t live without you!

A bit further down they reiterate that they have coined a new term in order to avoid what they see as the stigma of traditionalism:

A brief note about terms: If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. We are uncomfortable with the term “traditionalist” because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence.

This is the origin of the term from the founders of the CBMW, one of the two flagships of the complementarian movement*.  The other flagship of the movement is The Gospel Coalition (TGC), founded by D.A. Carson and Tim Keller.  Here is women’s studies professor Mary Kassian explaining the origin of the term at TGC:

Though the concept of male-female complementarity can be seen from Genesis through Revelation, the label “complementarian” has only been in use for about 25 years.  It was coined by a group of scholars who got together to try and come up with a word to describe someone who ascribes to the historic, biblical idea that male and female are equal, but different. The need for such a label arose in response to the proposition that equality means role-interchangeability (egalitarianism)—-a concept first forwarded and popularized in evangelical circles in the 1970s and 1980s by “Biblical Feminists.” I’ve read several articles lately from people who misunderstand and/or misrepresent the complementarian view. I was at the meeting 25 years ago where the word “complementarian” was chosen. So I think I have a pretty good grasp on the word’s definition.

Kassian emphasizes that the term is designed to conserve the progress of the 1960s:

2. June Cleaver is so 1950s and so not the definition of complementarity.

In our name-the-concept meeting, someone mentioned the word “traditionalism,” since our position is what Christians have traditionally believed. But that was quickly nixed. The word “traditionalism” smacks of “tradition.” Complementarians believe that the Bible’s principles supersede tradition. They can be applied in every time and culture. June Cleaver is a traditional, American, TV stereotype. She is not the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like 60 or 70 years ago. So throw out the cookie-cutter stereotype. It does not apply.

*These two groups aren’t entirely separate, as there is much overlap among the major movers of these organizations.   John Piper is featured in the TGC overview video, and Mary Kassian is a member of the CBMW Council.


Posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Feminists, Mary Kassian, Rebellion, The Gospel Coalition, The Real Feminists, Tim and Kathy Keller, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye | 144 Comments

Not listening.

A few readers have challenged my observation that when complementarians say husbands are guilty of “not listening” to their wives what they mean is husbands aren’t doing what the wife says.  I’ve recently offered multiple examples where complementarians do this (here and here), and so far no one has offered any counter examples.  I’ll offer some more examples in a followup post, but we should also consider the different meanings of the expression itself and the context in which complementarians are using it.  We should also consider the practical implications in real life marriages of what is at best a terribly vague charge.

Saying someone “isn’t listening” very commonly does mean the person isn’t doing what you told them to do.  The distinction comes with the position of the person using it in relation to the person they are talking about.  If a boss complains that his employees aren’t listening to him, he isn’t saying they won’t hear him out;  he is complaining that they aren’t doing as instructed.  The same is true for a parent who complains that their children aren’t listening to them.  Outside of feminised Christianity there really is no controversy here.  The term does mean not doing as they were told if the person doing the telling is considered to be in a position of authority.

Moreover, while they like to be coy about this fact, modern Christians do see the wife as being in a natural position of authority over the husband.  This is why we frequently have Christian wives exhorted to tell their husbands no, set boundaries, and enforce consequences.  If a husband were to “set boundaries” and enforce consequences on his wife, the term for this is abuse.  Even pointing out that this would be abuse if the sexes were switched is itself a form of abuse.  This is the complementarian position.

I have shared a long list of examples where wives are taught to give their husbands the wakeup call when the husband isn’t doing what the wife wants him to do.  Joel and Kathy call this lowering the boom.  Kathy Keller “submitted” to her husband Tim by throwing a “godly tantrum” and breaking their wedding china.  Dr. Mohler explains that it is God’s plan for wives to deny sex if their husbands aren’t doing what they should be doing.  In Fireproof the wife brings about God’s will to fix her husband by filing for divorce and starting an affair.  In the advertisement for ReEngaged the wakeup-call came in the form of the wife having an affair.  In the case of Bill and Vonette Bright, Vonette gave Bill a wake-up call by threatening to leave him and take the kids.  FotF’s Glenn Stanton explains that civilization exists because wives make their husbands do the right thing.  FotF’s president and Dr. David Clarke explain that God’s plan is for wives to teach and lead their less astute and less virtuous husbands.  I could go on further because the examples are everywhere, but will stop at this point.

Having established both:

  1.  The term does mean “doing as I say” when used by someone in authority.
  2.  Complementarians present wives as being in authority over their husbands.

There really can’t be a question as to how complementarians are using the term except for the cloak of deception complementarians use to deny #2.  “Listen to your wife” is the perfect expression here, because complementarians can play Motte and Bailey with the two established meanings until everyone tires of the game.

But there is another advantage for complementarians in stealthily selling female headship with this term.  When wives disagree with what their husband is doing, their natural inclination is to demand to continue to discuss the question forever.  Children do this too, and the effect (even if not done consciously) can be to wear out the decision maker with objections until they relent.  In the case of the Kellers, Tim and Kathy tell us that they had discussed the issue of his workload for months before Kathy threw her “godly tantrum”.  Tim listened to her concerns about his workload for months, he just didn’t agree to work less.  It wasn’t until he agreed with her that he was finally listening.  Likewise in the complementarian threesome the couple had discussed the issue for weeks before the husband finally made a decision.  For making a decision his wife disagreed with he was deemed unloving and guilty of the sin of not listening.

Even if “not listening” didn’t have the commonly accepted meaning of not doing as told by a superior, this would still be a deviously clever way to enact feminist headship while pretending to honor biblical marriage roles.  Wives would be free to continue objecting to every decision they disagreed with forever, and husbands would be in sin if they didn’t continue to listen.  The husband would retain full responsibility for all decisions, but the wife is the one who is really in charge.  This is the very definition of complementarianism.







Posted in Armchair Husbands, Attacking headship, Bill Bennett, Complementarian, Denial, Domestic Violence, Dr. David Clarke, Fireproof, Focus on the Family, Glenn Stanton, Headship, Joel and Kathy Davisson, Lowering The Boom, Not Listening, Rebellion, Submission, Theological Crossdressing, Threatpoint, Tim and Kathy Keller, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Wake-up call | 107 Comments


Naghmeh used a modern Christian buzzword when explaining why she went to the family courts:

In very difficult situations sometimes you have to establish boundaries while you work toward healing. I have taken temporary legal action to make sure our children will stay in Idaho until this situation has been resolved. I love my husband, but as some might understand, there are times when love must stop enabling something that has become a growing cancer.

You may recall the CBMW’s Women’s Studies professor using the same term:

Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

Pastor Driscoll made a similar plea to the women in his congregation when preaching on the Book of Esther.  Pastor Driscoll explained that Christian wives need to emulate Vashti as a strong independent woman, not the doormat Esther:

And ladies, sometimes the godliest thing is to say no. I believe what Vashti did was noble, it was brave, it was good, it was right. And some of you ladies, you’ve mastered the art of saying no. Like, you’re—you could, like, teach a grad school class on how to jam up a man. Right? I mean, you landed the dismount. Boom, nailed it again. You’re really good at it. Okay?

Now, some of you ladies have never even tried. You’re always like, “Yes, okay. Whatever you say. Whatever you want.” No, pick your chin up. Look him in the eye. “No! No.” I’ve seen this repeatedly, where there’s a foolish man with a wise woman and her not speaking is not helping. Ladies, use a loving voice, use a respectful voice, use a godly voice, but don’t lose your voice. And sometimes, a woman has to prayerfully, carefully just say no. Vashti says what? No.

This also ties in with the godly tantrum wives are instructed to throw if their husband “isn’t listening to them” (doing as the wife instructs).

What you won’t see is husbands being exhorted to set boundaries for their wives, enact consequences for their wives, learn to say no to their wives, etc.  This is the inversion of the roles of headship and submission that nearly everyone hasn’t noticed, because cross-dressing theology is what our feminist culture is thirsty for.  Submission now means saying no, enacting consequences, and establishing boundaries.  Submission means washing your husband in the water of the word, just as headship now means winning your wife over without a word.

Posted in Attacking headship, Book of Oprah, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Crossdressing Theology, Headship, Mark Driscoll, Mary Kassian, New Morality, Not Listening, Pastor Abedini, Rebellion, Submission, Wake-up call | 152 Comments

Honey, I’m home!

While Pastor Saeed Abedini was flying home to see his wife and children yesterday after being imprisoned for his faith for nearly four years, his wife Naghmeh was preparing a special surprise for him. According to a local news station, this surprise resembles the one Jenny Erikson had for her husband:

…a case filed Tuesday in court that shows Naghmeh Panahi vs. Saeed Abedini with Judge Jill Jurries for domestic relations. Legal experts say that could mean a couple of different things, from separation to support to divorce.

A surprise ruined.

Earlier Naghmeh had complained to the Baptist Press that someone had ruined another surprise she had in store for him when he was first released. She explained that someone had told Pastor Abedini about her accusations that he was abusing her from prison:

“It’s unfortunate that your family is going through so much pain and people try to profit off of it and put it out there,” she said. “Because Saeed was made aware of it, it will make it that much harder for us to pursue healing and reconciliation. So I was very heartbroken.”

After that she decided not to take their children to meet him in Germany.  Naghmeh told the Idaho Statesman that the new plan was for her to fly out with the kids on Monday of this week (Jan 25) to begin “going through counseling” with Saeed at a retreat in North Carolina:

He will be at a retreat center with his parents for a few days and then the kids and I will join him on Monday and will be taking weeks or months healing as a family and going through counseling

It would seem that Pastor Abedini changed those plans and decided instead to fly home Tuesday to finally be reunited with his wife and children.

Pastor Abedini, have you stopped beating your wife?

Not all of the surprise is ruined, however, as Naghmeh told the Baptist Press that now that she has whispered accusations against her husband she will not elaborate further and instead will expect Saeed to tell the world about how he abused her:

“I think when it’s time,” she told BP, “I think it’s a story that needs to be told by Saeed, not me. I think it had better not be anything that I focus on anymore.”

This fits her pattern from the very beginning.  After she sent the email saying she was living a lie and would stop her advocacy for Saeed’s release, she has been careful to passively aggressively make statements in support of the charges repeated by the press while never actually going on record making the allegations*.

Pray for repentance and reconciliation.

This is seriously ugly business, but we should remember that marriage is sacred and that there are children at risk of growing up in a broken home.  I pray for repentance and reconciliation in their family and a return to the biblical roles of husband and wife.  I ask those reading to do the same.

If Pastor Abedini doesn’t deserve better from Christian leaders and the press, no Christian husband does.

Over the years many men have commented on this blog that they were abandoned by their churches once their wives decided to blow up their families.  While this will be small comfort, they should at least realize that this wasn’t due to any defect in themselves.  In this case we had a persecuted pastor being accused of abusing his wife from his Iranian prison cell, and the best response he received was silence as his wife publicly erased him from the picture.

*Update (H/T Coloradomtnman): Naghmeh has finally made a specific claim against Saeed outside of the whispering campaign she has lead for months.  See this local news article for a full reproduction of her post on Facebook (emphasis mine):

I do deeply regret that I hid from the public the abuse that I have lived with for most of our marriage and I ask your forgiveness. I sincerely had hoped that this horrible situation Saeed has had to go through would bring about the spiritual change needed in both of us to bring healing to our marriage.

Tragically, the opposite has occurred. Three months ago Saeed told me things he demanded I must do to promote him in the eyes of the public that I simply could not do any longer. He threatened that if I did not the results would be the end of our marriage and the resulting pain this would bring to our children.

Naghmeh also explains that she went to the family courts to “establish boundaries” with Saeed.

Update 2:  Commenter Craig looked up the filing:

She filed for separation, a pair of TROs, and counseling for divorcing parents.  See for yourself:


Case: CV-DR-2016-01483 Magistrate Filed: 01/26/2016 Subtype: Domestic Relations Judge: Jill S. Jurries Status: Pending

Defendants: Abedini, Saeed
Plaintiffs: Panahi, Naghmeh
Register of actions: Date
01/26/2016 New Case Filed – Domestic Relations
01/26/2016 Petition for Legal Separation
01/26/2016 Summons Filed
01/26/2016 Joint Tro Property
01/26/2016 Joint Tro Children
01/26/2016 Order To Attend Focus On Children (2/24/16)

Posted in Domestic Violence, Pastor Abedini, Rebellion, Threatpoint, Ugly Feminists, Wake-up call | 272 Comments