Pastor Doug Wilson, CREC, New Saint Andrews, Christ Church, Moscow Idaho, Breasts, Feminists Rape, Submission
“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!
Spiritual Sounding Board 
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
” A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality.”
Just wondering, Dale – do you have any women on your board?
LikeLike
Dale, welcome to SSB. Thanks for your comment 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your response, Dale. I’m glad to hear that. Your church’s structure is as it should be 🙂
LikeLike
Carmen – Thanks! I wonder. Why did you ask? Did you not trust what I said at first? Did what you quoted of me not convince you?
LikeLike
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)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
@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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
HUG a lot of your comments resonate with me.
LikeLike
“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!
LikeLike
“…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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Clearly the author is an idiot. The Pastor didn’t say those words describe sex, he’s saying the left USES those words to make the idea of egalatarian sex seem crude and labeled as ‘rape’
LikeLike
Wow 😮
I know this is old. I am DISGUSTED.
Thank you for taking the time to write this article.
Doug Wilson is a terrible man.
LikeLike