Pastor Doug Wilson on Rape, Submission, Feminists, and Boobs

Pastor Doug Wilson, CREC, New Saint Andrews, Christ Church, Moscow Idaho, Breasts, Feminists Rape, Submission


 

Doug Wilson, boobs, submission, rape,

Doug Wilson (Facebook Page)

 

“Respected” Pastor Doug Wilson, pastor of Christ Church in Moscow Idaho, head of CREC churches, prominent leader in Classical Education circles (both homeschooling and private Christian schools), Canon Press publishing, two-time suspected plagiarizing author has written some very crude comments in books he has authored and also blog articles. I was scrolling through the blog, The Truth about Moscow, and came across several distasteful and disturbing quotes from Pastor Doug Wilson. It’s important that we do not dismiss the words he has used under the title of “shepherd” of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, and as a respected theologian.

Mr. Wilson is not new to controversy. As some may recall, the following quote set off a social media firestorm in 2012 when Jared Wilson (not related to Doug Wilson) quoted Doug Wilson at the The Gospel Coalition website (article has since been removed). Jared Wilson endorsed Wilson’s writing. The bold excerpt below created the most ruckus:

A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.

This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

The “egaliterian pleasuring party” words always struck me as odd. I guess Wilson did not read Song of Solomon? It sure seemed like they were pleasuring each other.

Wilson is preoccupied with sex. He thinks the right kind of sex is where men penetrate, conquer, colonize, and plant; and women receive/surrender/accept. Pleasuring each other is not okay because then there is no submission, as he says, “This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.” What about submitting to one another as the Bible says? If marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, we see Christ laying down his life for the church. That does not sound like conquering to me. Wilson’s views are distorted, only promoting his ungodly ideologies that diminish womanhood to a lowly status, beneath husband’s rule.

Another quote follows about gender roles. Please note that I have made the font bold to highlight specific phrases:

“Women inescapably need godly masculine protection against ungodly masculine harassment; women who refuse protection from their fathers and husbands must seek it from the police. But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape.” (Douglas Wilson, Her Hand in Marriage, p. 13)

If you notice, in both situations, the case of the husband penetrating/colonizing, etc, and the situation described above, women must accept the sexual advances of men. In both scenarios, women are objects to be used for men’s sexual gratification. In both cases, a woman’s voice is not considered. In Patriarchy, which Doug Wilson espouses, women can have a voice so long as they echo Wilson’s teachings or their husbands’ teachings. But they may not have an independent thought that contradicts their authority: their husbands, their pastor/elders.

Notice below how freely Mr. Wilson discusses women in crude terms:

“On Monday, many thousands of them (my note: women in t-shirts) did so, in what passes for political discourse these days. It would be fair to say that there were many incidents of déclassé décolletage — unattractive feminist scientists flaunting what they thought was sexuality, attractive bimbo queens taking the opportunity, natch, aging beauties reliving the glory days, and all of them over the top, so to speak.” (Doug Wilson blog article, Boobquake and the Meaning of History)

In the following three quotes, we see an unhealthy focus on women’s breasts. But notice when he discusses breasts, he does so in degrading ways: small-breasted biddies, jiggling your boobs, wet nurse. God created women. When He was finished creating women, He said His creation was good. I cannot recall any place in Scripture where a woman’s breasts are referred to in derogatory ways. Even when we read about breasts in reference to prostitutes in Scripture, the word remains “breasts,” not some other demeaning terms. Notice how Wilson writes about women’s breasts:

 

My point is that jiggling your boobs for a YouTube clip is a response to an ignorant Muslim that works equally well as a response to the apostle Peter, which is to say, not at all. (Doug Wilson blog article, Boobquake and the Meaning of History)

Next time you are in a grocery store check out line check out (no, I don’t mean check out) the partially dressed female on the cover of the nearest women’s magazine, the kind my kids call a day-old doughnut. Right, the one with the fake bake tan, the abs of a sixteen-year-old boy, the boobs of a wet nurse, and the knock-your-eye out bottle blondisity. The one who was assembled by an ironic and detached photo shop gay guy the same way your kids play with Mr. Potato Head. Oh, and she also has cancer, non-operable and, more to the point, non-photographable. We can therefore afford to overlook that part. (Doug Wilson blog article, Bottle Blondisity)

So feminism — smash the patriarchy feminism — wants us to be ruled by harridans, termagants, harpies and crones. That sets the tone, and the pestering is then made complete by small-breasted biddies who want to make sure nobody is using too much hot water in the shower, and that we are all getting plenty of fiber. And if anyone reads these words and believes that I am attacking all women by them, that would provide great example of why we should not entrust our cultural future to people who can’t read.” (Doug Wilson blog article, Smash the Complementarity)

Minimize the seriousness of it so that you can walk away from a couple of big boobs without feeling like you have just fought a cosmic battle with principalities and powers in the heavenly places, for crying out loud. Or, if you like, in another strategy of seeing things rightly, you could nickname these breasts of other woman as the “principalities and powers.” Whatever you do, take this part of life in stride like a grown-up. Stop reacting like a horny and conflicted twelve-year-old boy. (Doug Wilson blog article, Dealing with Nuisance Lust)

In Scripture, we see the word breasts used with regard to marital love in beautiful wording:

She is a loving deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts satisfy you always. May you always be captivated by her love. Proverbs 5:19

My lover is like a sachet of myrrh lying between my breasts. Song of Solomon 1:13

Your breasts are like two fawns, twin fawns of a gazelle. Song of Solomon 7:3

I was a virgin, like a wall; now my breasts are like towers. When my lover looks at me, he is delighted with what he sees. Song of Solomon 8:10

I nursed all seven of my babies. It is one of my most favorite parts of motherhood. I will never forget the first time my newborns nursed. By instinct, a baby knows when a nipple touches the side of his mouth; he automatically turns his face and opens his mouth to latch on. To know that your body is giving your baby life and sustenance is simply amazing. When my baby was crying and needed comfort, the breast satisfied him, my warm milk filled his tummy. Baby’s instinct to suckle at the breast is God’s design. Hormones are released while nursing that help moms to relax and nurture their babies more. This, too, is God’s amazing design.

Look at how breasts are referred to in Scripture as comfort, and as a picture of God who cares for His people.

Drink deeply of her glory even as an infant drinks at its mother’s comforting breasts.” Isaiah 66:11

This is what the Lord says: “I will give Jerusalem a river of peace and prosperity. The wealth of the nations will flow to her. Her children will be nursed at her breasts, carried in her arms, and held on her lap. Isaiah 66:12

Pastor Wilson has taken something that God made to be beautiful and comforting, and makes it disgusting. Notice how the shock jock pastor has tried to circumvent any criticism by the following comment:

“And if anyone reads these words and believes that I am attacking all women by them, that would provide great example of why we should not entrust our cultural future to people who can’t read.”

No! Pastor Wilson does not get a free pass by issuing this ridiculous disclaimer. He is a pastor and his words certainly do matter. He is also using his public platform to say these offensive words. Even if Pastor Wilson is discussing the most sinful woman on earth, it is still not appropriate for him to tear apart a woman’s God-given physical features in demeaning ways. Wilson thinks that when he is discussing the f-word, feminism, he has the liberty to talk smack. No he does not.

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. Colossians 4:6

 

 

Update:  Added one more Doug quote. h/t April!

 

 

 

 

128 comments on “Pastor Doug Wilson on Rape, Submission, Feminists, and Boobs

  1. Understanding that one of the purposes of the Bible was keeping women under the thumb of men for purposes of breeding at a time when life was relatively short and infant mortality was high, makes this theological perspective more understandable.

    At the same time, there can misogynists in the pulpit just as there can be misandrists in the pews. When this happens, the result is a battle of the sexes on steroids!

    Like

  2. The thing that really disturbed me was the time that Wilson wrote that men could view breasts as “principalities and powers”, making reference to Ephesians 6:12. It was a gross and dangerous twisting of scripture. The quote is in his article “Dealing with Nuisance Lust.”

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I’m quietly confident that I would piss myself laughing if my husband told me he wants to “colonise and plant” on, near or with me.

    Hahahaha

    I love the picture of “Pastor Doug” in front of his many books. Oh what a learned man he must be.

    First red flag of a Pharisee/False Teacher:

    The “just chilling in front of my theology books” picture.

    vomits

    They love to be called “Rabbi, Rabbi”.

    Love to sit in Moses’ seat.

    Love to make me cringe.

    Etc.

    Oh Lord.

    Thank you for Song of Solomon.

    Thank you for breasts, and their natural, baby feeding use. (And thank you for my little baby slug face who is 6 months old soon!)

    Sooo cute.

    And thanks for DW.

    Very funny guy.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. “Understanding that one of the purposes of the Bible was keeping women under the thumb of men for purposes of breeding at a time when life was relatively short and infant mortality was high, makes this theological perspective more understandable.”
    However, Withheld, it does not make it any more ACCEPTABLE, which is the message that DW has been blathering on about for years. The man is a prime example of an alpha male (baboon?)/patriarch whose misogynistic beliefs need to be exposed and ridiculed; the point of this article.

    Oh, and just in case you haven’t perused Julie Anne’s blog, I’ll let you know that her main purpose is to point out the damage that has been done – indeed, the damage that is STILL being done- to women by patriarchal systems. Your ‘oh, but there’s misandry, too’ line is an obvious attempt to derail the conversation away from the fact that historic and systematic misogyny has been perpetrated by power-hungry men since time began.

    If anyone is wondering why Withheld has decided to visit, you might want to read his recent comments (appearing in the sidebar) on another topic. I’m trying to make sense of his bullsh*t; I can’t be the only one.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. check out…the partially dressed female on the cover of the nearest women’s magazine, the kind my kids call a day-old doughnut

    So he’s taught his children to be as rude and degrading as he is.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Doug Wilson likes to present himself as an educated man. However, whatever his actual academic credentials might be, the man is a thick-headed, trivial, ignorant f&^kwit. He may as well wear a bib and a propeller beanie and shake an oversized rattle and slobber on himself, given the brainless puke that perpetually dribbles out of his poisoned craw.

    I’m sure Doug sincerely believes that every word he types is profound and dazzling and cerebral, but honestly, everything he writes simply shouts of unbridled, brain-damaged, stupidity-level idiocy. Not impressive in the least. Sad and pathetic, in point of fact.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Y’know, it’s very interesting to me that two of the most profoundly deranged and heretical preachers Julie Anne has spotlighted on SSB (David McGee and Doug Wilson) are also both of them incredibly bad musicians. They’re really embarrassing. I’ve seen video clips of both of them playing guitar and it was absolutely excruciating.

    Not to mention Doug Wilson’s caterwauling and ghastly vocal noises; I mean god almighty, it’s as if the extremity of Doug’s heresy has proportionately warped his sense of pitch. I wanted to reach through my computer screen and knock him unconscious just to get him to shut up. It’s truly awful.

    Like

  8. I guess Sitler and Wight aren’t the only pervs at Christ Church.

    Honestly, when men are so derogatory of women’s body parts I assume they are compensating for a tiny weenie or something. Not that I’m attacking all men. If you think so then you can’t read per Doug Wilson. See how that works?

    Liked by 2 people

  9. i was not familiar with the term “blondisity” Guess because Wilson made it up. I’ve been a blonde all my life. My hair used to be darker but as I age it has gotten lighter and lighter. But still has a slight yellow cast to it. My hairdresser said that people pay big money to get hair the color of mine. Would W consider me to be a “bottle blondisity” just because it appears to be that? And another thing—-on our honeymoon (50 some years ago) my husband told me, “I didn’t know your breasts were so beautiful”. So there DW. Go look at football or something instead of women’s breasts.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Look, I understand why people might disagree with extremist feminism. I get that.

    But if you speak of one woman derogatorily, you speak derogatorily of all of them.

    He excludes in his speech those women who have no husbands or fathers to “protect” them–not necessarily by their own choice. Many women have fathers who abandoned them or have passed away. God has not chosen that everyone should marry. Some of Wilson’s sisters in Christ are protected by God alone. Are these women “women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape”? Of course not.

    God’s language in Scripture elevates women to a plane far above what the curse assigned us. To degrade women–even his sisters in Christ–is not something I think God smiles upon.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Insecure people have a way of trying to compensate by putting others down. Whether this phenomenon is one of the symptoms of what goes by the name of short man syndrome I do not know. However, if I might echo BTDT’s suggestion, I wonder if DW doesn’t suffer from short manhood syndrome.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Unsurprisingly, according to Wikipedia, Wilson has no formal training in theology. His highest academic achievement is an MA in philosophy at University of Idaho. If Wilson is representative, it would appear that the U of I graduate program in philosophy is a good place to learn how to pervert an argument, but not such a good place to learn how to actually think. (Actually, I don’t suppose Wilson is representative of U of Idaho.)

    Speaking of University of Idaho, which is located in Wilson’s home base of Moscow, I wonder what Wilson’s fellow alum, Sarah Palin, would have to say about Wilson’s particularly offensive brand of misogyny. I wonder if Wilson has ever written anything about Sarah Palin. To be logically consistent, Wilson would have to allow that her conservatism is discredited by her physical attributes. She was a beauty queen, after all. My guess, however, is that Wilson’s misogyny is selectively applied to only those with whom he disagrees, and by whom he feels threatened. Ms. Palin doubtless gets a pass.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. On further reflection, I expect that I should clarify. What I view as Wilson’s misogyny may be selectively applied, as in communicated, but that does not mean that he views only some women with contempt. A man who attempts to discredit even one woman on the basis of her physical attributes must, of necessity, view all women as objects. Such men are misogynists through and through–without reference to how they may or may not communicate their misogyny in particular instances. In my opinion.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I’m simply gobsmacked. How does this man even have a congregation anymore? Who would sit and listen to this week after week? Even if the subject isn’t female body parts, the attitude and condescension surely is present at all times.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I’m simply gobsmacked. How does this man even have a congregation anymore? Who would sit and listen to this week after week? Even if the subject isn’t female body parts, the attitude and condescension surely is present at all times.

    Still Reforming,

    I would not be surprised if women in his church have body image issues. Because this man from his bully pulpit has given the green light for every male to inspect the shape of women’s breasts.

    Like

  16. Eva said:

    i was not familiar with the term “blondisity” Guess because Wilson made it up.

    Eva,

    The spellcheck feature on Word Press had a heyday with this post of Wilson’s quotes. It didn’t like a LOT of Wilson’s words – you know, the highfalutin words that no one says. Part of a good communicator is to speak in a way so that others can understand you. Even in his choice of words to convey messages, he wants to be in control where only he knows the definition (and gets to change it on a whim when someone disagree).

    Like

  17. Wilson believes that women need “godly masculine protection,” yet his words provide nothing of the sort. If he truly believed that women need protection by men he would not be so loose tongued to name women in such derogatory ways. His words only go to show that it is okay for men to verbal assault women. Nice way to protect.

    His words also violate Jesus’ commandment of loving others as you love yourself. I can surmise that he must have a very low view of himself otherwise he would not make such derogatory remarks about women. However, his persona makes it seem like he loves himself (a lot) and thinks quite highly of himself. Which means that he should be loving others a lot and thinking highly of women too.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. “unattractive feminist scientists” – denigrating their brains by reference to their looks. Not very pastoral. Not at all.

    And who is he to say whether one person or another is attractive, anyway? I have a lot of friends who consider their spouse a total Venus or Adonis, when I would beg to differ. Not that I do, of course, but you get what I mean.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. If he truly believed that women need protection by men he would not be so loose tongued to name women in such derogatory ways. His words only go to show that it is okay for men to verbal assault women. Nice way to protect.

    You are absolutely right, Kathi!

    Like

  20. “…it does not make it any more ACCEPTABLE….”

    Please, for future reference, acquire and learn to use a common dictionary. I wrote “understandable,” not “acceptable.” There is a difference in the meaning of those two words.

    Like

  21. This was a difficult one to read. Even after being away for over a year, it is so easy to drop into the mindset of W and his cronies.

    The positive mentions of breasts in the bible are positive because they are the breasts of women (even when symbolic of God and his care for his people) who are living as they were created and intended, in proper submission.

    Women are only beautiful if they are fulfilling the purpose they were created for (unless they were created for destruction, which is a whole nuther topic), “resting in the center of His will” by being properly submissive. Otherwise they are harpies, etc., and objects of scorn and feigned pity.

    The women without headship (father, husband, son, brother, uncle or other male relative) would be properly (and spiritually) protected if only they would submit themselves to the elders of the church. Let the elders control their decisions and their finances and even find husbands for them. Because it worked out so well in the Sitler situation, and would have worked so well for the TVC pedophile’s wife if she’d only been godly enough to listen to and obey her elders.

    Like, yeah.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. “’Withheld’ is a moron.”

    Do you always make it a habit of deriding those you believe to be mentally defective?

    Like

  23. Like I keep sayin’, it’s impossible to make this stuff up. And as one commenter wondered upthread, how can his parishioners in all good conscience sit and listen to this horse poo-poo?

    Like

  24. Thank you Julie Anne and your commenters for continuing to expose Doug Wilson for the fraud that he is. I too have wondered why anyone would continue to attend his church. In Moscow, my home town, he and his followers, are generously viewed as deluded crackpots and bigots. Others of us know he remains a disgrace to the gospel, a self ordained and dangerous man. His congregants, in my opinion, are either afraid to leave (there is a big price to pay) or to weak to stand up to him. Many of the church officers are economically depended on his good will because they are employed by church associated businesses – Logos School, NSA, ACCS, Canon Press (yes, I know his son Nathan and Nathan’s close pal Aaron Rench now own Canon but it is still a Christ Church off-shoot with that silly, third rate Hollywood clown Darren Doane, a recent Christ Church member, now a part of the business too. Doug et al are not held in high regard in this town; but referred to in a shamefaced and embarrassed fashion by our more thoughtful citizens. Please know that we are not silent, that we despise him for his preaching, this self-absorbed narcissism, his inability to admit errors of any kind – even giant ones like arranging (through his proxy Ed Iverson) a marriage with between an immature New Saint Andrews student and convicted pedophile Steven Sitler. Doug may revel in the role of village idiot, but no one more richly deserves the title than he and the feckless gits who defend and support him through tithes.
    Rose Huskey

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Gary W said, “Insecure people have a way of trying to compensate by putting others down.”
    Funny, I always thought that, too. But just yesterday I learned in my psychology textbook that that is a misnomer. Most likely DW has way too much self-esteem. Learning that has definitely lowered my compassion for his narcissism, if it could get have gotten any lower.

    Like

  26. Check out Doug Wilson’s Facebook Page. Someone posted and linked to this blog with a negative comment about us. Cool!!! I hope all his FB friends check it out
    !

    Liked by 2 people

  27. “But just yesterday I learned in my psychology textbook that that is a misnomer. Most likely DW has way too much self-esteem. Learning that has definitely lowered my compassion for his narcissism, if it could get have gotten any lower.”

    This is not a diagnosis by any means but Wilson exhibits sociopathic tendencies as in narcissism and lacking in empathy. The shock jock positions garner him the attention he craves. He then revels in what he thinks are clever witticisms in response. This is entertaining to him. He could care less about people. They exist to feed his supply.

    What is amazing is how people are easily taken in by such types. But some are more obvious than others.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. In creation, the woman was God’s final achievement, His crowning glory. Truly, there may be nothing more beautiful in all of creation. Adam saw what God created as a gift who was in all respects a part of himself and someone to be cherished. But the beauty is not merely found in a woman’s physical attributes. There is also a strength that flows from the heart of a woman who chooses to submit to and trust her husband to lead and set the example of headship in God’s name. Not all men see the beauty or the truth of that design or appreciate it but instead seek to exploit it.

    My former husband (an abuser) was a “conqueror,” a man who made me feel like his slave, as less, rather than his bride. The man to whom I am now married sees me as his prize and his glory, not as his possession or a body or a conquest. I so trust my husband with my life and my heart that I would truly follow him anywhere.

    Clearly, Mr. Wilson (not a pastor in my book) has no idea what a godly marriage – or a healthy sexual relationship – is supposed to look like.

    “So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church…” Ephesians 5:28-29

    Liked by 2 people

  29. “. . As I pointed out to you.”

    Actually, you pointed nothing out to me except either an inability to read or a failed attempt to, figuratively speaking, to put words in my mouth.

    Like

  30. “one of the purposes of the Bible was keeping women under the thumb of men for purposes of breeding at a time when life was relatively short and infant mortality was high” – Witheld
    Amazingly, the actual Bible starts out by saying men and women are made in God’s image, and both to rule. Chapter 2, likewise, uses several pictures of equality: Bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh (implying in that culture’s methaphors being his equal, not below like the animals or above like God) ezer (strength, rescuer, helper not as in servant, but as important and cannot be coped without) kenegdo (on his level), and ch. 3 saying subordination being one of the ugly effects of sin in an imperfect world, not an ideal .
    This is actually one of the first things that show me that God is real and people could not have written this: In the culture where the Bible comes from this kind of equality is unthinkable. I can hardly imagine any man in that society saying anything half as enlightened.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. @Retha,

    I’m so glad you requoted this –> ““one of the purposes of the Bible was keeping women under the thumb of men for purposes of breeding…”

    Really? Breeding? What are we – Rabbits? Dogs? Guinea pigs? Breeding?????

    I’m glad you put the quote in your comment because it made me laugh out loud. I need more laughter these days. Thanks.

    Like

  32. “I can hardly imagine any man in that society saying anything half as enlightened [as women being equal with men].”

    Why not?

    Like the Garden of Eden, it’s the perfect opening act for a well-orchestrated theology to justify the subjection of women and then blame them for it.

    Like

  33. “What are we – Rabbits? Dogs? Guinea pigs? Breeding?????”

    Then, please tell me what other significant roles do women play in the Bible over time.

    Why are women considered unclean during menstruation?

    Why is a woman unable to bear children considered second class?

    Why did the first man get to name the first woman as if she were one of the animals God created?

    Why, even in the New Testament, does the Bible tell wives to sumit to their husbands? (Sometime read the thoughts of Martin Luther on that one.)

    The point of the above it that, as written, the Bible is a patriarchal book. Perhaps it was even written by and for men.

    Like

  34. Still Reforming said: @Retha,

    I’m so glad you requoted this –> ““one of the purposes of the Bible was keeping women under the thumb of men for purposes of breeding…”

    Really? Breeding? What are we – Rabbits? Dogs? Guinea pigs? Breeding?????

    I’m glad you put the quote in your comment because it made me laugh out loud. I need more laughter these days. Thanks.

    Actually, Withheld either deliberately or accidentally got the timeline wrong. The Bible is currently being used to keep women under the thumb of men for purposes of breeding.

    They’re going to outbreed the heathen and bring America “back to its Christian principles” — or for the ones who denounce the Founders and the Constitution as ungodly and want to set up a theocracy here, the wording would be a little different, as they don’t believe America was founded on Christian principles. Same goal for the two groups, slightly different message and historical narrative.

    To outbreed the heathen, you need an army of broodmares, submissive, compliant, perhaps even brainwashed into craving a baby as soon as the current baby starts growing old enough not to be content just to snuggle. “I can’t wait to get pregnant again…!” of “It’s time to start thinking about having another…” (I remember hearing that, often, in the patriarchal crowd we used to hang with.)

    You need a social setup where women are honored for bearing children, and little else.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. To Cindy Burrell,

    Amen. Thank-you for providing accurate Scriptural reference in Ephesians 5 as to how the groom is to love his bride; love those trustworthy verses.

    I cannot believe a man of god (certainly not our LORD Jesus) would write such distasteful words in the form of a sentence. In my neck of the woods, people are chastised, criticized, and condemned by the pious religious folks when they hear a curse word that speckles the speech of many. I’ll be honest here, I would rather listen to a few curse words than this penned drivel written by a man who claims to know Jesus personally. Really? How in the world can Doug Wilson be a witness for our LORD Jesus Christ to the broken and the lost (yes, many of them women who happen to have female body parts) when he is writing such disgraceful and disgusting words that come from his heart…..out of the heart the mouth speaks or the pen writes.

    And Julie Anne, please tell us that people out there aren’t actually using their hard earned money to purchase this garbage authored by Doug Wilson. Please say it isn’t so!

    I know I could not sit under this man’s preaching and teaching or any form of leadership from Doug Wilson or the clones of his mindset. Already have sat under a sexually immoral pastor and his leadership minions having more than enough of that business; god’s police force so to speak. And would I want my daughters sitting under this man’s obsessive oppressive worldview fest? Jesus said that wolves would be wearing sheep’s clothing…..I feel sorry for you Doug Wilson for your teeth are like sharp swords…..do real men really speak this way……..I cannot find where Jesus said such words.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. It most certainly is so, Katy. He is well respected in many circles which is why I do posts like this. I suppose he wouldn’t be talking about small-breasted biddies in his classical education works.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. A question for those who make the claim that we gossip here…….

    1) Is Doug Wilson truly a born again Christian?” according to Biblical standards

    2) Where in the Word of God does He, the Creator and Author of the universe, endorse such blasphemous writings?

    3) How do we know, by the content of Wilson’s writings, that he loves Biblical truth for I find no evidence that he truly loves Christ.

    4) Does Doug Wilson gossip about others? Careful here, lest a lie be told.

    5) Do those individuals who defend the preaching, teaching, and penned writings of Doug Wilson, ever gossip about others? Again, careful here, lest another lie be told.

    6) Did Jesus or the Apostles ever wear a sweater vest?

    Liked by 2 people

  38. I haven’t read the original post on Wilson yet, but I will later and may comment later.
    I saw this story earlier today, and thought it sort of fit in with some of the themes of Spiritual Sounding Board (the topics that get discussed here):

    _Woman Who Grew Up With 41 Siblings in Polygamist Cult Speaks Out_

    A new memoir is shedding some harsh light on a largely mysterious way of family life: growing up in a religious colony of polygamists.

    Ruth Wariner, 43, spent many years teaching before marrying and settling down with her husband in Portland, Ore. But before that, she lived a childhood filled with abuse, trauma, poverty, and crippling amounts of responsibility in the rural Mexican desert, and she’s written about it all in her memoir, The Sound of Gravel.

    Like

  39. There is NO “propriety” in rape. Castration, anyone? what is he talking about?? If he means that a very seductively dressed woman is asking for the wrong kind of attention and leads a man on, I would agree that she should dress better. But RAPE? No woman is asking for rape! Are men then off the hook? What a bunch of hooey!!!

    Liked by 2 people

  40. The definition of “propriety” is: the state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals. The synonyms are: decorum, respectability, decency, good manners, courtesy. So DW is saying: “But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the DECORUM, RESPECTABILITY, DECENCY, GOOD MANNERS and COURTESY of rape.” RAPE!!! This “man” is EVIL!!

    Liked by 2 people

  41. “Withheld either deliberately or accidentally got the timeline wrong.”

    No, I didn’t get the timeline wrong. The goal of the Religious Right is to restore women to a 19th century-like existence.

    Their designs of out breeding the heathens is largely a fantasy. One reason is that, while older children tend to be more conservative, younger children tend to be more liberal. Essentially, the more children fundamentalists produce, the greater their changes of producing those likely to accept new ideas.

    Younger generations of women fail to understand that they were born during an aberration in human history. All it will take is for the United States to go through a crisis similar to that of the Soviet Union for their legal rights to disappear.

    Neither was the United States, as it exits today, founded on Christian principles. That twist of history was largely a mid-20th century invention. Those responsible for writing The Constitution would largely be considered infidels by the those of the Religious Right these days.

    Like

  42. “Is Doug Wilson truly a born again Christian?”

    While I have no idea, and don’t much care, of fact is obvious. This war of words in this theological battle of the sexes has is mirrored in the race to be president of the United States.

    There, too, each side has one candidate or the other to demonize. Republicans are crucifying Hillary while the Democrats are playing Whac-A-Mole with every Republican on the debate floor.

    In the process, much like Washington, Christianity has become a house divided. Only this time around, it is less Catholics verse Protestant than patriarchy versus matriarchy.

    Like

  43. Christianity has always been divided because it is a religious system ‘a divided house’, built with men’s hands.

    “The Most High dwells not in temples made with hands” – Acts x 2.

    The “I am of Apollos, I am of Piper, I am of MacArthur, I am of Wilson” junk is no different than the crap Paul was dealing with.

    Same harlot, different dress.

    The Reformation only changed the buildings, uniforms and titles.

    Same old works for salvation nonsense.

    Nothing has changed.

    Christianity = temple worship version 2.

    Or Rome Light.

    Whatever you want to call it.

    (I call it nonsense).

    Worship in Spirit and Truth.

    Not in the mountains nor in Jerusalem.

    You get my drift.

    Like

  44. “You get my drift.”

    Of course.

    Only, in this instance, there probably won’t be a Constantine to convene a council to settle who get the official stamp of approval and who becomes the heretic. In the absence of any centralized authority, every man, or woman, becomes their own theologian. That’s how Christianity winds up with Doug Wilson, et al.

    Furthermore, not only is Christianity divided, the religion is also becoming less relevant in industrialized nations. Along with this fact of life, the inability to get — in their eyes — the right women to crank out kids, is driving the male-dominated Religious Right and the Republican Party absolutely nuts.

    Like

  45. If DW had found the woman caught in adultery, I have no doubt he would have picked up stones to throw at her just like the Pharisees. Because, you see, the only women that deserve protection are those women that Doug Wilson believes deserve it. The women who don’t want masculine protection deserve to be raped because they are asking for it. Read between those lines. And here’s another observation – Wilson seems to have sex on the brain. With DW, it’s always about sex, even when it’s not about sex. (I got that from Rachel Miller…thanks Rachel.)

    Liked by 1 person

  46. I was just thinking about how similar Bill Gothard and Doug Wilson are. Bill Gothard got away with sexual grooming because it was confusing to the young ladies he violated – especially the cases in which it “appeared” that he stayed closer on this side of the fence. It would be easy for him to gaslight and change the reality of the young ladies by saying he was simply changing the position of his feet under the table, etc. I think this is an intentional abuse that gives the appearance that everything is okay, but beneath the surface, it is sexual, spiritual, and emotional abuse.

    With Doug, he uses his wordsmithery to paint a visual picture for our imaginations. If he were to display the pictures that he describes, that would out him. But he’s able to hide his sexual perversion behind unfamiliar words and then when he’s called out on it, he claims that we misinterpreted the true meaning. This behavior is evil.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Julie Anne, Bill Gothard playing footsies with the ladies reminds me of the leader of the Christian cult I used to be part of. I recall an incident where my husband and I were visiting him in his office and the cult leader was playing footsies with a girl young enough to be his daughter. Strange how brain washing affects one’s ability to see clearly, or to have that conviction deep down inside that something is very wrong but not have the courage to confront the evil head on. It was only after a sufficient amount of time and space separated me from that place that I gained my ability to confront what I knew to be evil.

    Doug Wilson is a slippery man, always providing a means of escape for himself should anyone call him to account. Those who confront him by addressing his words learn how slippery he can be. In his eyes, the problem is always those who misinterpret his words, or those who are out to get him.

    Liked by 2 people

  48. Hello Julie,

    I’m Karrie. I’ve written before on another post. When I was pregnant with my boys I couldn’t wait to breastfeed and have that bonding time with them. I considered it a blessing from God that allowed me to show them through this loving action how wonderful and boundless God is. Wolf in sheep’s clothing came into my thoughts when reading this. Our bodies and minds (men and women’s) are the greatest work of engineering and art and to have women shamed for their attributes and men reduced to 12 year old boys when it comes to that, is insulting and only serves to further alienate the relationship and intimate bond our Creator intended for us in marriage. Intimacy is unattainable if love, honor and respect for each other in our uniqueness both in the bedroom and out isn’t practiced.

    Thank you for bringing these things to light. They’ve been helpful in starting discussions with my children about things and amongst family and friends as well. Bless you Julie.

    Liked by 3 people

  49. “If DW had found the woman caught in adultery, I have no doubt he would have picked up stones to throw at her just like the Pharisees.”

    That’s probably true.

    Like

  50. “With Doug, he uses his wordsmithery to paint a visual picture for our imaginations. If he were to display the pictures that he describes, that would out him. But he’s able to hide his sexual perversion behind unfamiliar words and then when he’s called out on it, he claims that we misinterpreted the true meaning. This behavior is evil.”

    Yes! Back when I would read his blog (could not believe such a “pastor” existed!) I noticed that he painted “concepts” with words. When someone would try to counteract with what was being communicated, they would be accused of having a dirty mind or missing the point or something like that. Wilson never owns what he is really communicating or doing.

    What he does is pure deception and he delights in trying to influence and confuse people. (Narcissists create chaos and then manage the chaos). Then note in this instance he is painting a concept of “women” but when someone interprets it as “all” women, he paints that person as the sinner for thinking such a thing about him.

    This is a man who makes a living with words both spoken and written. He knows exactly what he is doing and he delights in it. the worse day of his life will be when no one is reading him and no one cares. And had it not been for Piper, that day may have come sooner.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. Doug’s vileness is certainly showing me a clearer picture of the ugliness and deceit of sin. It’s a scary mirror. One might defensively think “But I’m not as bad as…” and try to get off the hook but we need to learn. I’m in NO WAY making light of his deep evil. I just want to make good use of it in my life. And I appreciate the many insightful comments I’ve read here. – d

    Liked by 1 person

  52. Withheld said,

    No, I didn’t get the timeline wrong. The goal of the Religious Right is to restore women to a 19th century-like existence.

    Their designs of out breeding the heathens is largely a fantasy. One reason is that, while older children tend to be more conservative, younger children tend to be more liberal. Essentially, the more children fundamentalists produce, the greater their changes of producing those likely to accept new ideas.

    Do you allow for exceptions in points such as these?

    Or are you saying that every Religious Rightie is out to keep all women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, and that every single young person is liberal?

    Like

  53. A few of you have touched on this above, so maybe this is repetitive, and I’m sorry about that.

    Lydia and a few others have hit on one thing I wanted to address – Lydia just mentioned it here:

    What he does is pure deception and he delights in trying to influence and confuse people. (Narcissists create chaos and then manage the chaos).

    Then note in this instance he is painting a concept of “women” but when someone interprets it as “all” women, he paints that person as the sinner for thinking such a thing about him.

    This is a man who makes a living with words both spoken and written. He knows exactly what he is doing and he delights in it. the worse day of his life will be when no one is reading him and no one cares.

    And had it not been for Piper, that day may have come sooner.

    I agree completely, Lydia.

    And someone else up thread (I am sorry I cannot recall who, or what the exact comment was, I tried to find it again but could not) said something like,

    “When Wilson picks on one woman, he picks on them all.”

    The original post quotes Wilson as having written:

    “And if anyone reads these words and believes that I am attacking all women by them, that would provide great example of why we should not entrust our cultural future to people who can’t read.”

    There are a couple of things I wanted to say about them. I hope I don’t forget both points.

    I am right wing and pretty socially conservative. So, I am not keen on a lot of left wing politics nor do I always agree with left wingers (including feminists) on social issues.

    I am aware that some left wingers and/or left wing feminists can be quite nasty and hateful towards right wingers (I recall how a lot of them made rape jokes and so forth about right wing politician Sarah Palin when she was running for office years ago, for instance).

    However, in spite of all that, I do not stand in agreement with conservatives such as Wilson who characterize liberal women (or secular feminist women) by way of derogatory terminology or by using derogatory labels.

    Wilson seems to be limiting some of his critiques of women to a very narrow group of women: ones who don’t support him, his particular brand of theology, his views on women, and so on, and further seems to think of this particular group of women as being secular, left wing, Democrat voting, bra- burning feminists.

    Well, hey, I’m not a big fan of secular, left wing, feminists myself, but I find his focus on, and mocking of, their physical appearance deeply immature, sexist, and inappropriate.

    Further, in the end scheme, Wilson is creating collateral damage; he is harming all women, even Christian, conservative women, with his anti-secular feminist screeds.

    In the same way, secular, left wing feminists who think they are “pro-woman” and feminist tend to betray these values every time they mock the Carly Fiorinas (Republican politician) and Sarah Palins (Republican politician) of the world.

    From what I have witnessed for years now, liberal, feminist women generally only support other liberal, feminist women – rarely have I seen them show equal loyalty and support in defending conservative, Republican, Christian, and/or pro-life women.

    Wilson is the flip side of that coin: he claims to value and cherish women, but he seems to mean only women who meet HIS opinion of what a “real” or a “good” woman is.

    I am offended that the man chooses to pick on liberal, feminist women using insulting terms and by ridiculing their physical appearance.
    Wilson needs to deal with the substance of their views and arguments, rather than bringing up the type or size of their chests.

    All women
    – whether they be liberal, conservative, Republican, patriarchal, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, atheist, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Democrat, complementarian, egalitarian –
    are often reduced to the same gender stereotypes by society and are often judged and accepted or dismissed based on their physical appearance.

    People who claim to be Christian as Wilson does should rise above this cultural form of sexism and bias, not wallow in the mud puddle with the rest of society. The Bible says Christians are supposed to be in the world, not of it. Wilson chooses to be of the world.

    Like

  54. This author either mentions Wilson directly, or in a round about way; it’s been months since I read it, but it addresses the male Christian preacher/ author habit of discussing a woman’s looks:

    _Pastors, Power, and Prettiness_ by Karen Swallow Prior

    One snippet from that page:

    If the purpose of Wilson’s post were pastoral, an attempt to offer instruction to women about the connection between inner and outer beauty, then we should remember that while the Apostles address this topic in Scripture, those same Scriptures assign the task of teaching the younger women these matters to older women—and for good reason.
    Like the student who complained about the professor, I would be uncomfortable going to a church where I thought the pastor sized up the women by their appearance.

    part 2
    I don’t always rise above mentioning a person’s physical appearance myself, but I usually do avoid it- but if I bring it up, it’s not a condemnation of the entire gender.

    Take “pastor” Mark Driscoll, for instance. The man is a sexist, rude, arrogant bully.

    Driscoll has said something in the past to the effect of, if a woman “lets herself go,” (ie, gains weight or what have you) she cannot blame herself if her pastor husband cheats on her.

    I have said in the past that Driscoll looks like a chubby potato to me. And he does.

    I just find it so hypocritical that a only tiny bit marginally attractive person who is a chubster such as Driscoll feels confident scolding the entire female gender for their weight, or for other physical characteristics.

    What I do not do is extend this to every man on the planet.

    In all my criticisms of John Piper, I don’t recall ever mentioning anything about his looks.

    I don’t recall bringing up small penis jokes or retorts when criticizing the rude or sexist things these male preachers say, and personally, I find some of these men deeply unattractive-

    So I could totally spend page after page ripping on their looks or making suggestions that these obnoxious male pastors must be “compensating” for something, if you know what I mean, wink wink

    But I do not fixate on their looks, male genitalia, or whatever unique male characteristics, the way Wilson seems to find it necessary to bring up a woman’s chest, sexuality, or looks every third paragraph of every article he writes about women’s issues.

    Like

  55. “From what I have witnessed for years now, liberal, feminist women generally only support other liberal, feminist women – rarely have I seen them show equal loyalty and support in defending conservative, Republican, Christian, and/or pro-life women.”

    Just for the record, Daisy, I am a liberal, (probably left-wing if I lived in the States), secular feminist. I have been and will continue to support ALL women; otherwise I wouldn’t have commented on and/or supported the women I continue to support on this blog.

    In my opinion, what we DON’T need is people who perpetuate the polarization of women. If anyone has any doubt about the power of the patriarchy, this is one aspect of what it’s done. Its insidious effects are continuously on display. (and have provided me with an opportunity for alliteration 🙂 )

    Liked by 3 people

  56. From my observation, many of the women I know and love who would probably be of the ‘let themselves go’ description (give me a chance)

    … became that way as a consequence of suffering abuse from men.

    People ‘let themselves go’ because they become worthless.

    The worthlessness comes from being abused by Fathers and Husbands and Narcissistic Mothers.

    No one glories is being a slob (maybe a few).

    The emotional consequences of abuse are pretty obvious to those of us who have been through it.

    Mine went the other way… I tried to compensate for my lack of Fatherly love by focusing too much on my appearance in order to attract ‘affection’.

    Thank God I’m not on that page anymore.

    I find it ironic that men like Driscoll identify the existence of women like this but fail to see that it’s men like him who create the problem to begin with.

    Bullying is abuse.

    That said, I had a gorgeous friend come over the other day whom always ‘makes an effort’ to look nice.

    I always say to my husband, ‘I’d love to look like that in 30 years from now!’.

    Is it wrong to identify this? I don’t think talking about this is wrong. The way MD and DW talk about it only gives us the insight that they think women WANT to look like slobs.

    Who enjoys being overweight and unappealing?

    Let’s be honest.

    People don’t sit down and gorge on a pack of biscuits unless

    A) the biscuits are ef.n amazing.
    B) they are struggling with emotional issues likely caused by a man

    Apologies if this comment is out of place.

    Off to have my morning coffee now.

    😊

    Liked by 3 people

  57. Carmen, yes, I realize some left wing secular feminist ladies will stand up for right wing women and so on – in my experience, that tends to be a little rare, though, at least in American culture.

    The average secular, left wing feminists and the secular leftist feminists entertainers in the United States tend to bash women who are right wing / pro life / conservative. They really said horrible things (including rape jokes) about right wing politician Sarah Palin when she was running as V.P. several years ago.

    I would never ever condone rape jokes about left wing or Democratic or pro-choice women, or anything horrible like that, so it really saddened me to see it from American women who are on the left.

    The blogs and forums can be a mixed bag. Some of the commentators at left wing secular sites I visit (some have a feminist outlook) don’t really have much to say either way about right wingers (in general or specifically about right wing women).

    But the tone of such blogs, by the main authors is to pick on pro life positions and the GOP (Republican Party – right wing/ conservative). Every so often you’ll see commentators bashing all GOP / pro lifers in the comments below, they lump all Republicans together, or all pro-lifers, etc. It’s kind of frustrating to see that.

    I am friends with left wing secular feminist ladies on other sites, and they are very nice people.

    I have to mention that I also found Wilson’s rants against secular feminist women annoying because not all of them are this caricature he makes them out to be, as though they’re all angry, man-hating, don’t shave their arm pits trolls. I think such feminists might exist, but are only a small percentage.

    Liked by 1 person

  58. Wilson wrote,

    unattractive feminist scientists flaunting what they thought was sexuality, attractive bimbo queens taking the opportunity, natch, aging beauties reliving the glory days, and all of them over the top, so to speak.”
    (Doug Wilson blog article, Boobquake and the Meaning of History)

    They’re all unattractive? Every single feminist scientist ever is unattractive?

    Not that their looks should factor into critiquing their views in the first place, as he is doing, but he really expects me to believe that there is no single conventionally attractive secular feminist scientist (or whatever occupation) anywhere to ever exist?

    And this is just straight up ageism:

    “aging beauties”

    Women’s beauty doesn’t have an expiration date. I’m sure his wife (he is married?) must be thrilled to know he likely considers her an “aging beauty” because she’s over the age of 25, or whatever Wilson deems the “cut off” age for women’s beauty.

    If Wilson is going to harp on looks: his photo is at the top of this post, at the very top, the screen cap from his Facebook page or blog, and Wilson is not a prize in the beauty department himself. He is no Clark Gable or Brad Pitt.

    Wilson would probably admit to that: ‘Why you’re right, I’m no Robert Redford.’
    – Okay, but it’s demeaning and insulting for someone to insert commentary about someone’s looks in the middle of an assessment of their political or religious beliefs; it’s irrelevant to bring it up (unless someone can cite a good connection or justification for me that I am missing).

    In the case of writing critiques about the views of women, it can be sexist to bring up physical appearance out of left field too, since, as I noted above, women historically have had their worth based on (but not limited to) their sex appeal and physical beauty.
    Men are not usually judged as harshly for their looks (or lack there of) or for being overweight or getting wrinkles and lines, and certainly not by authors who are in the middle of serious analysis of those men’s political or religious view points.

    I want to rewrite Wilson’s comment to do to him what he’s done to women.

    My spoof of what Wilson wrote but flipped back on him:

    … unattractive male, Christian patriarchalist authors and bloggers flaunting what they thought was sexuality, attractive man-whores taking the opportunity, natch, aging studs reliving the glory days, and all of them over the top, so to speak.”

    (Daisy spoof commentary, Manboobs and the Meaning of History)

    Liked by 1 person

  59. Hahaha

    Manboobs.

    This week my husband was standing in front of the bathroom mirror grimacing over his ‘dad bod’.

    “I have to do something about this”, he said.

    I just smiled lest I give my husband the impression that his flabby belly and almost man boobs is unappealing to this mother of three under four with saggy everything and ‘tiger stripes’ of the stretchy belly kind.

    Welcome to reality eh.

    The dad bod comes with sleepless nights… Movie dates with kids sprawled over you, watching Beverley Hills Chihuahua for the second time.

    Not like I’ve spent much time analysing the physical attributes of MD/DW… I’m sure they probably fit in the dad bod category. (Shirt on, naturally) 😊👍

    Perhaps we could be blessed with a 2016 ‘man of God/ Leaders from the Lord’ calendar to grace our kitchen walls… With ‘inspirational quotes’.

    No, not from the Scriptures.

    But from their Books.

    So many to choose from.

    Even plagiarised ones! (Allegedly) if that’s your thing.

    Left/Right… I’m feeling left out.

    Baby happy, quiver full, refugee loving, homesteading, Trump not loving, poor people helping… centre maybe?

    Wherever Jesus is on that spectrum… Let me know bc that’s where I need to be.

    Liked by 1 person

  60. Withheld said

    Understanding that one of the purposes of the Bible was keeping women under the thumb of men for purposes of breeding at a time when life was relatively short and infant mortality was high, makes this theological perspective more understandable.

    I’m someone who has been struggling to hold on to the Christian faith the last few years.

    Believe me, I have some misgivings about a lot of Christians and have been wondering about the faith itself.

    However. I find your opening line there unfair or inaccurate, and maybe uncharitable.

    From the Christian perspective, the Bible was written by God (through men). As such, one of its purposes (I’d say probably the primary one) was for God to communicate to humanity that they are lost (due to sin) and need a savior to be reconciled back to God, and that savior is Jesus of Nazareth.

    Many or most (or maybe even all?) of the Bible’s books were written in cultures that were patriarchal in nature, but that is hardly the God of the Bible’s fault.

    As others have said elsewhere, ‘patriarchy is the Bible’s backdrop, it is not God’s intent for humanity.’

    Christian egalitarians have written a lot of blog posts and articles explaining that it was never God’s intent (contrary to what Christian gender complementarians teach) for women to be under man’s rule; God intended for men and women to rule creation together.

    The Bible also contains teachings that contradict patriarchal beliefs, or that undermine them, and/or that show that God never wanted men to rule over women.

    This comes from _Why Christian Identity Is Never Defined By Gender_

    Here are selections from that page:

    Throughout the ancient world, gender was identity, and gendered spheres were guarded by the long arm of patriarchy.

    Yet, notice how Scripture boldly defies patriarchy by celebrating women whose achievements paralleled and often eclipsed men’s in business (Proverbs 31), in political strategies (Abigail: 1 Samuel 25, Esther 4:4-17), in military tactics (Jael: Judges 4:17-22, Deborah: Judges 5:7), in theocratic leadership (Deborah: Judges 5:7), in biblical exegesis (Huldah: 2 Kings 22:14ff, 2 Chron. 34:14-33, 2 Kings 22), and in righteously preserving kin (Tamar: Gen. 38:26, Ruth: Ruth 2:1-4:10).

    In the New Testament, Christian identity begins with rebirth in Christ and leads to a vocation of reconciliation regardless of gender. John 1:12-13 declares that all who receive Christ, who call on Christ’s name, become children of God, “born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12-13).

    Paul urges us to regard no one according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5: 17-21). Though identity was once measured in this way, as God’s new creation, we are no longer blinded or bound by the sin of prejudice and patriarchy that subjugates women and judges them inferior.

    Withheld’s quote again:

    Understanding that one of the purposes of the Bible was keeping women under the thumb of men for purposes of breeding at a time when life was relatively short and infant mortality was high, makes this theological perspective more understandable.

    Sadly, I do think your comments there are true in- so- far as today’s Christian complementarians (and patriarchalists) mis-use and twist the Bible and what it means.

    Complementarians claim the Bible favorably teaches that
    1. male rule over women was God’s intent, and they teach that
    2. the Bible condones male rule over women,
    but in reality, the Bible does not teach either concept.

    The purpose of the Bible is not to keep women as second class citizens or to limit women in marriage, church, or career, but that is what gender comps and pats would have everyone believe.

    Jesus came to redeem women from the curse of sin, one aspect of which is patriarchy (oppression of women), but gender complementarians very unfortunately view one outcome of the fall of humanity – male rule over women, which is sin – as being a virtue.

    Like

  61. Daisy, you’re not alone.

    Throw away the Christianity.

    Hold on the Lord.

    One is religion. The other, so wonderful it brings tears of joy to my eyes.

    You won’t find Jesus in the temples.

    Spirit and Truth.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. lifewithporpoise said,

    Hahaha

    Manboobs.

    Heh. 😆 I am so glad someone noticed the Manboobs reference and got a giggle from it.

    Your screen name reminds me: when my mother and I used to watch scary movies on cable together, anytime the ghost movie “Poltergeist” came on, she would keep calling it “Poultry Geist.” I’m not sure why she did that, except it struck her funny bone.

    Like

  63. carmen wrote

    SURELY, Daisy, it’s painfully obvious to you that MEN wrote the Bible, not any god(s).

    The Christian understanding is that the Bible was written by / through people under the direction or inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    The funny thing about my semi- lapse of faith of the last few years is that the Bible is not really my stumbling block, not for the most part.

    I might have one or two quibbles that are marginally Bible-related, but that’s not my hang-up with the Christian faith. I’m pretty much okay with the Bible, depending on the one or two niche issues that are my minor quibbles with it.

    I don’t know if I want to get into the long, detailed nitty gritty of why that is. The shorter version is that I did a lot of studying from the time I was a teen into my 20s of the Bible.
    I studied about the Bible’s formation, I studied about the manuscripts the Bible is based on, oral history (how ancient people passed down beliefs / history, etc), how we got the biblical canon (which books went in the final collection and why), I studied about the supposed contradictions it contains – stuff like that.

    I did some reading on atheist web sites that criticized the crud out of the Bible. I read lots of Christian apologetic literature on the Bible. All this was like over a 15 or so year period. I read so many books and web sites.

    My doubts (or whatever you want to call it, I’m not sure what labels to put on my views at this time) about the faith have little to do with the Bible and more along other lines.

    Like

  64. No, Withheld, Christianity is not divided between patriarchy and matriarchy. It is divided between patriarchy and equality. I know of no women, Christian or otherwise, arguing that men should be submissive to women.

    Liked by 1 person

  65. “[Christianity] is divided between patriarchy and equality. ….”

    That is certainly interesting since Marxist equality is often a component of women’s studies in higher education.

    Like

  66. “…are you saying that every Religious Rightie is out to keep all women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen….”

    Again, I am considering the trend rather than nitpicking particulars.

    If one closely scrutinizes what Republican candidates are saying, it becomes obvious that much of it is geared to restoring a Republican hegemony closely resembling the outcome of the 1896 election and the political and social conditions surrounding it.

    Like

  67. “The Bible also contains teachings that contradict patriarchal beliefs, or that undermine them….”

    Right now, while there are hotspots in megachurches, Christianity in American life if both splintered and dying. Some mainline congregations are even holding dual services to keep their churches from splitting.

    Like

  68. What do you mean by Marxist equality, Withheld? I assume that was aimed at me since I have a doctorate from one of the Seven Sisters colleges.

    Like

  69. “I assume that was aimed at me since I have a doctorate from one of the Seven Sisters colleges.”

    Please spare me the paranoia.

    Like

  70. “If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.” Sirius Black, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

    Wise words. One can easily tell that Doug Wilson views women as inferior. It’s all in his words, his attitude and his action of supporting the marriage of a convicted pedophile to a young woman.

    Liked by 3 people

  71. Withheld, in starting my taxes this year, I find I have to prove to the IRS that I purchased health insurance or am in trouble. How is that for hegemony and growing Marxism? Or just the new normal?

    Like

  72. @Withheld, re: the Bible being a patriarchal book, nice try, but doesn’t fly. The testimonies of the daughters of Zelophehad, the involvement (and lineage to Jesus) of Rahab, the women who closely followed Jesus and reached his tomb first (and with whom He first spoke after His resurrection), Deborah the judge, Ruth (a non-Jew) in the line of David, Jesus speaking with the woman at the well, male and female being one in Christ, and so many more examples all speak against your weak point.

    Like

  73. Marsha, it appears to me, that Withheld is yet another random looney of the sort that seems to be attracted to any blog that doesn’t support his wackiness.

    Like

  74. WIthheld said

    (quoting another poster) “[Christianity] is divided between patriarchy and equality. ….”

    That is certainly interesting since Marxist equality is often a component of women’s studies in higher education.

    I don’t know of any Christian women who disagree with the conservative Christian interpretation that sees support for Christian patriarchy due to Marxism or women’s studies.

    I was a devout Christian for much of my life, and was brought up to believe in gender complementarianism. I had a small suspicion in my youth that gender comp was bogus, and finally rejected is as being bogus by around my mid-30s.

    However, I am not a Marxist nor am I a liberal or a secular feminist.

    I am right wing and actually tend to disagree with liberal, secular feminists quite often. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to see that they can be right on some points occasionally, but I disagree with some of their positions.

    I rejected gender comp because I finally saw it’s not what the Bible was teaching. Gender comps misinterpret, misapply, or misunderstand what the Bible teaches about women, marriage, and men.

    Again, I arrived at that conclusion based first and foremost of my own ponderings of the Bible, not due to women’s studies. I never even took any women’s libber courses while in college, though I did have several lady professors who were women libber’s who would sometimes say disrespectful things about right wingers and Christians during class, and as I was a right winger and a Christian, I found their put downs insulting.

    Yours seems to be the same attitude that Christian gender comps hold: if a person disagrees with gender comp, it must be due to influence of secular feminism.

    (Their other fall back: if only you really, truly UNDERSTOOD gender comp, you wouldn’t possibly object to it.

    You just need to learn more about it. My response: No, I don’t. I understand comp quite well because I was a comp myself up until my mid 30s or so, and I read tons of stuff on the topic and was exposed to it in church sermons.)

    Misunderstandings about Christian gender egalitarians about – I just saw a lady Christian egalitarian have to explain to a male gender comp on social media that she is pro-life on abortion; she is not pro-choice.

    She had to explain this to the guy, because he wrongly assumes that rejecting complementarianism means you must automatically accept standard left wing, secular feminists positions on issues (such as being pro-choice, being pro- casual sex, etc).

    Which is very wrong. You can be pro-life, have a conservative understanding of the Bible, not support the legalization of homosexual marriage, and yet, still be an egalitarian (or reject comp).

    I’ve never yet seen a Christian egalitarian argue that men and women are 100% identical. One of their main arguments is that people in the church should be assigned to positions based on giftings, not gender.

    Jesus treated women as equals, and there are verses such as Galatians 3.28, which says,

    28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that Jesus and the Bible are teaching “Marxist equality” or not. In previous posts, you’ve said the Bible is supporting patriarchy.

    Like

  75. According to Doug Wilson, a man who makes any effort to satisfy his wife sexually is somehow violating Natural Law. This belief is extremely common in that realm of the internet known as the “Manosphere”. It’s common on the blogs of “pickup artists”, who advocate a relational system they call “game”. One of the ideas behind “game” is that men have to be the aloof, commandeering “alpha” at all times, which means playing with a woman’s head to keep her insecure, constantly on guard against prioritizing her interests in any way, which is “beta”. All the better-known game bloggers, none of whom I will mention by name, counsel indifference to a woman’s sexual pleasure.

    There’s a lot of overlap between PUA (pickup artistry) and complementarian Christian thought. You’d be surprised at how many people think game, which focuses on manipulating women into sex, is compatible with following Jesus Christ. There are even blogs that focus on synthesizing the two. Even Christian bloggers who’d never admit to it are clearly influenced by “game”, which is influenced in turn by pornography and other culture that caters to worship of the self. I don’t know if Wilson reads any of this stuff (though perhaps his trashy language gives him away), but he doesn’t need to. The same mode of “me first, and it sucks to be you” thinking can be found all over the media. The point is that, aside from advocating monogamy, Wilson’s sexual philosophy is indistinguishable from that of pickup artists.

    Given the Song of Songs and other Biblical verses mentioned here, it’s clear that Wilson’s theology of sex doesn’t come from the Bible. This is truly another gospel, one that is ultimately rooted in porn and the BDSM that infests the genre. Certain men have relabeled the paraphilia that is the dom/sub relationship they picked up from porn as Natural Law. They want to indulge their loveless self-interest and call it Godly too. This is much worse than being an honest degenerate.

    Many Christian men agree that they shouldn’t watch porn, but they’re unwilling to let go of or even examine the pornographic mindset they internalized while consuming it. Thus we see Mark Driscoll entreat his male readers to give up porn while burdening wives with the responsibility to make husbands feel like they’re sleeping with a porn star! The concept of dying to self only applies to half the population, apparently.

    It’s no coincidence that virtually all Neocalvinist celebrity pastors, including Wilson, endorse economic libertarianism. Getting rich off the evangelical circuit and cranking out books you haven’t even read is fine if you’re doing it for Jesus. In all ways, these men want to have their cake and eat it too: good old American liberty for men, and near-purdah for women. Since they already think they can have their Christianity and Mammon too, it’s not all that surprising that they’ve attempted to sacralize their worldly sexual kicks as well. Declare yourself a sinner and say the word “gospel” a whole lot, and your can pretty much carry on as usual. Nice work if you can get it.

    Liked by 1 person

  76. I’m sure Doug sincerely believes that every word he types is profound and dazzling and cerebral,,,

    “WILE E COYOTE — SUPER! GENIUS!”

    Like

  77. Wilson is not a prize in the beauty department himself. He is no Clark Gable or Brad Pitt.

    More like…

    Like

  78. Dash said:

    “I’m sure Doug sincerely believes that every word he types is profound and dazzling and cerebral, but honestly, everything he writes simply shouts of unbridled, brain-damaged, stupidity-level idiocy.”

    The very creation of the phrase ” déclassé décolletage” proves this in spades.

    “Next time you are in a grocery store check out line check out (no, I don’t mean check out) the partially dressed female on the cover of the nearest women’s magazine, the kind my kids call a day-old doughnut. Right, the one with the fake bake tan, the abs of a sixteen-year-old boy, the boobs of a wet nurse, and the knock-your-eye out bottle blondisity.”

    You know, in spite of Doug’s disclaimer I have the sneaking suspicion that he does just that with the cover models on women’s magazines.

    In the comment thread of the trip for two to Scotland post, CNW made me laugh out loud. I can just about see Doug actually doing this.

    “The remarkable thing about the response from The Douglas is that he did not, even once, use the word “boobs”. I thought he’d at least end his message with a “P.S., boobs”. He’s losing focus.”

    Liked by 1 person

  79. HUG,

    Haw haw haw!! I love that vid with Wile E.!

    And I was just thinking recently that a lot of these high-handed and authoritarian men act like the Coyote in that bit. They don’t notice their ruin coming at ’em until it’s three yards away. When they do notice it, they figure they can make it go away by shutting their eyes (or the blinds).

    Like

  80. In the film “Donnie Darko” Patrick Swayze played a clichéd motivational speaker and new-age guru who had a secret storage room full of kiddie porn in the basement of his mansion.

    I don’t know why Doug Wilson’s constant references to “boobs” makes me think of this, but it does.

    Like

  81. Speaking of motivational speakers:

    http://hillsongchurchwatch.com/2016/01/18/why-pat-mesiti-is-still-a-hillsongc3-pastor-pat-mesiti-sermon-review-included/

    I had the pleasure of sitting under this ‘pastor’ when he was on the Hillsong staff – I mean servant – payroll.

    I am thankful for that experience.

    Many right now are saying, “He’s not fit for the Pastorate!”.

    That’s assuming the Scriptures endorse a ‘Pastorate’.

    Ahh traditions of men.

    All this boob talk reminds me of a moment I had several years ago with a recently married friend whose Sunday Religious Social Club had jumped on the MD ‘Real Marriage’ bandwagon.

    Why study Scripture when you can study smut, right?

    I remember being asked all manner of questions that made me incredibly uncomfortable.

    “is this OK to do??”

    “yes”, “no”, “NO!!”

    ugh.

    so glad my name is not Grace.

    Like

  82. Julie Anne – 1st time reader. Nice piece of work here. As a man, I can say that he doesn’t speak for me or for what I believe the Bible says. His obsession with female body parts makes me wonder about his private life. It makes me wonder about his church too. As a church board member, if my pastor ever spoke thusly, we would be having some serious conversations. My observation about men who act as Wilson focus on power and position and do whatever they can to maintain it. A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality.

    Like

  83. ” A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality.”

    Just wondering, Dale – do you have any women on your board?

    Like

  84. Carmen – You asked of me, “do you have any women on your board?” Well, I don’t have a board. However, if you’re talking about our church board, yes we do. We are a small, young church plant of a Holiness denomination that believes women can have any position in the church that a man can have and visa versa (I serve in the church nursery).

    Our board is comprised of three pastors (one is female) and a female worship leader (the pastors & worship leader can’t vote), a male treasurer (voting), 2 male voting members & one voting female member. Our nomination ballot for the board was probably about 40% female & 60% male. However, in our church we really don’t consider someone’s gender in regard to church positions. We consider how the LORD has gifted the individual.

    Liked by 1 person

  85. Dale,
    Just wanted to clarify that you really did mean equality. . .some churches’ idea of that extends only to leadership in defined roles. . like running fund-raising breakfasts or supervising the Sunday School . . . very glad you’ve got a female clergy person!
    For instance, at the local Baptist Church in this area, there have never been any female Elders. (I think they call them Deacons)

    Like

  86. Carmen – I suspected that you wanted clarity about what I meant, you don’t know me, so it was understandable… I also suspected that your desire for clarity was about your past oppression by men. And for that, as a man, I want to apologize for that happening to you. It makes zero sense that God would eliminate 1/2 the world 🙂

    I also receive opposition myself, BTW. When I stand up for equality I get rebuff and anger from complementarians and then extreme skepticism from egalitarians, as if I have to pass a litmus test.

    One of our goals is to have our female pastor plant her own church as a senior pastor. We have recently planted two churches with female senior pastors in our district as well as one with a man as a senior pastor. (Funny, the church planted by a male senior pastor went under, while the women’s are doing well)

    I just wonder was there something in my initial response that wasn’t clear? I want to be able to speak truth the first time so that people know exactly where I stand on this important biblical teaching.

    PS – My mom taught me the phrase “men of quality are not threatened by women of equality” at a young age. I can gladly say that after 32 years of marriage, my wife (and I her husband) don’t tell each other what to do. Never did and never will.

    Like

  87. Actually, Dale, I come from a church which has always valued equality of the sexes. In fact, it was a United Church minister – in the early 80’s – from whom I first heard, “Jesus was the first feminist”. 🙂
    Just wanted clarification. Thanks!

    Like

  88. “of the abundance of the heart, his mouth speaks”

    He is a deeply shame based person, trying to project his shame onto others.

    But who are his followers? Why do they follow him? This is the part that confounds me. What in the world do they see in him?

    Like

  89. Shy1,

    I had to ask myself the same questions on why we followed a cult leader. It was because he was preaching exactly what my husband and friends were wanting preached – a certain kind of evangelism, the dangers of Emergent churches, a strong Gospel message. So, when I think of Doug Wilson, what is it that speaks loudly for him? He’s strong on families, dads as leaders in the home (and over wives), women as submissive. He’s big on Christian education for children – absolutely no public education. He’s strongly pro-life, strongly anti-feminism, strongly anti-LGBT, anti-Liberal, he’s a weird brand of Reformed Theology, etc. He also has a lot of big-named friends in high places, so that is an appeal to pride.

    So, if any of those issues are what you are looking for, Doug Wilson would appeal to you. Oh, I should have sandwiched every word with womens’ breasts and/or sex, because he sure talks about those topics a lot!

    Like

  90. Julie Anne,,

    I have been super busy going on dates with my wife ,,, even to Hawaii, so I haven’t followed SSB lately,, Never even paid much attention to Doug Wilson’s or his Theology,,

    It doesn’t surprise me that he takes a rather reckless approach or interpretation to delivering his Calvin’s message.

    I remember about a year ago getting into a rather strange exchange on SSB with a man who embraced some kind of Reformed garbage of depriving his wife of intimate pleasure.

    If I didn’t have that exchange I would have a hard time swallowing everything that was written in this article

    I still have a hard time swallowing that Wilson actually said those things,, I’d like to think it was a mis-quote or something taken out of context,, but I still can’t get out of my mind, that strange exchange I had a year ago.

    My impression from my former Pastor was he didn’t have much respect towards women,including his wife…and even less respect if a woman didn’t embrace his brand of Calvinism,, though I know he would think differently…

    Like

  91. Jane D said: “There’s a lot of overlap between PUA (pickup artistry) and complementarian Christian thought. You’d be surprised at how many people think game, which focuses on manipulating women into sex, is compatible with following Jesus Christ. There are even blogs that focus on synthesizing the two. Even Christian bloggers who’d never admit to it are clearly influenced by “game”, which is influenced in turn by pornography and other culture that caters to worship of the self. I don’t know if Wilson reads any of this stuff (though perhaps his trashy language gives him away), but he doesn’t need to. The same mode of “me first, and it sucks to be you” thinking can be found all over the media. The point is that, aside from advocating monogamy, Wilson’s sexual philosophy is indistinguishable from that of pickup artists.”
    True, that.

    Like

  92. “There’s a lot of overlap between PUA (pickup artistry) and complementarian Christian thought.”

    If the primary purpose of organized religion is to control people, then getting the girls is merely a subset of that overall objective.

    Like

  93. Pingback: Seriously. Stop talking about them | CREC Memes

  94. @Jane D Thank you for your comments on the “manosphere” blog; DW may or may not read them, but they read him. The one’s I’ve seen, condemn comps as feminist enablers and call themselves pats. Some of them also call themselves “c”hristians while totally encouraging PUA philosophies. It is really hard to tell the atheists from the “c”hristians as all of them hate women. Sex is their god. They have pornified the marital bed and wonder what the problem is. They complain about women riding the c**k carousel but want to be the carousel themselves. I always find it interesting that when a man corrupts a woman sexually that they expect to be the only one that benefits from her corruption. Lust begets and only fuels more lust which eventually leads to spiritual death, for both participants.

    Like

  95. The similarity between DW’s Moscow (commune)ity and those of the FLDS, and the men’s mind set against women is astounding. I’ve basically left my church because it is patriarchal. I imagine I will be excommunicated as it is coming up on a year of no church attendance and after reading here and TWW I figure that will be the next step. At first I was really angry at learning about patriarchy, which turned to hopelessness and heart palpitations that God must really hate women. Now I spend my time listening to Doris Hanson and her Polygamy” What Love is This? youtube programs to de-program. I’m not reading my Bible or praying, I can’t bear to.

    Like

  96. “I’m not reading my Bible or praying, I can’t bear to.”

    I hope no one is trying to shame you about that. It is totally healthy in order to deprogram from it all. If it helps at all, during my desert time the thought that kept popping up is Hagars claim of the “God Who sees me”. I am convinced He totally gets it and is in your corner when it comes to “reknewing” your mind. And it’s not always the same process. Its different for everyone.

    It has been many years and people I barely know still feel free to shame me about church attendance or my views on forgiveness, reconciliation, etc. if it had not been for those years spent rethinking everything (because a God gave us brains and instincts!) , I would probably be offended and hurt. Now, all these years later I feel sorry for them!

    You go, girl!

    Like

  97. “…a certain kind of evangelism, the dangers of Emergent churches, …”

    How weird. The emergent movement has a lot in common with them. The leaders went to great lengths to prop up Tony Jones in his “spiritual wife/legal wife” teaching while trying to help him have his legal wife committed! His deep pockets helped him ruin her and even lose her children! The only mergents circled the wagons against her. There was a lot of money in his conference business and such to make –that even the so called feminists like Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Weber Bolz were making excuses for him!

    As a former church friend of mine used to say, “oh, all Christians are evil” as if it’s no big deal and to be expected.

    Like

  98. PEARL, similar boat. I realized that my view of God was completely screwed up. My god was an abusive, legalistic jerk who couldn’t stand me, but sent his son to save me so I didn’t burn in Hell.

    I was reading through the Bible and got stuck somewhere in the OT around that time. So, I started in the NT and got to 1 Cor before the baggage hit me.

    My new pastor had a great series on Ruth and Naomi. It was at a time where I was strongly considering walking away from the organized church. He followed Naomi, who was BITTER against God, and how God used Ruth to become a better son than Naomi’s sons could have been, ultimately bringing her an heir and grafting her into the line of Jesus. It shocked me that a pastor was saying that it was okay, even healthy, to be angry with God, as long as we pressed in to that relationship rather than walk away.

    I still feel that my interpretation of scripture has been poisoned by my patriarchal upbringing, but I feel that I can approach God in prayer in a way that I would have thought sacrilegious before.

    My best advice – look at who Jesus was gracious towards, and who he was angry towards. I realized the same patriarchal types that made me feel weak and unloved before God are the same type that Jesus had nothing but fury for.

    Liked by 1 person

  99. Considering how rampant rape is against women of colonized culture by men or colonizing culture I’m going to take a wild stab at it and assume this man’s is racist and sees rape as opposed to mutually pleasureable sex, the idea.

    Withheld understanding how prolonged breastfeeding and adequate child spacing reduce infant and maternal and even child mortality makes it obvious that high infant mortality was the goal of the later Abrahamic faiths.

    Perhaps that why today the regions of the world under Biblical law have th highest infant mortality and the among the most brutal against women. Christians by your love you will be known.

    Like

  100. Pingback: The Handmaid’s Tale (Margaret Atwood) – Raking Leaves

  101. Pingback: Domestic Violence: Education is the Key to Better Church Response | Spiritual Sounding Board

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s