The Problem Wasn’t the Necktie
“Then why is the spirit of the age standing on your necktie?” Hmmmmm. When was the last time I even wore a tie? Well, at any rate, it wasn’t at any stinking guilt fest! ; – )
Adad
Adad, yes, guilt-fests are a problem. I think we should start calling them fusstivals.
Thanks, Pastor. Much needed.
Dave
Dave, thankee. Could you loan Adad a necktie? He somehow got in here without one.
The Dalrock Deal
I’m not especially familiar with Dalrock, and don’t follow his blog, but I was particularly disappointed with his selective and preconceived treatment of Wilson. I left the following comment under his latest post, titled “Wilson deflects”:
* * *
I was hoping for a more honest treatment of Wilson by Dalrock. Clearly Wilson isn’t perfect in his appeal to “moma’s happiness” when quotes are being cherry-picked from two different contexts, and from two different decades. However, if Dalrock has any sense of avoiding friendly fire, he should make some effort at a more gracious reading of Wilson’s actual points, rather than the worst possible reading. Dalrock wrote: “For any given claim Wilson makes putting women in charge, you can find another instance of him teaching that men are cowards for listening to just this kind of advice. But make no mistake; this doesn’t make Wilson stand out in the complementarian world. Teaching men that their wives are holy barometers of God’s approval while castigating men for failing to lead is exactly what complementarianism is all about.” Wilson is not “putting women in charge” of any sphere that Scripture doesn’t charge them with. However, the context in each case makes it very clear that Wilson is talking about two different kinds of unhappiness. One kind of unhappiness is that of a woman who wants to rule over her husband (to manipulate him), and Wilson is very clear that this kind of unhappiness is not the barometer of anything. The other kind of unhappiness is that of a woman whose husband really is foolish and unchristlike toward her, in ways that Scripture defines foolishness and Christlikeness. This is a real thing too, and a true barometer of a man’s obedience to God. The tagline to Dalrock’s blog is, “Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world.” Why does Dalrock’s blog feature happiness in such a prominent way? If we wanted to create a plausible narrative, we might suppose that Dalrock wants to appeal to emotional states as justification for something. We could construct a dichotomy that Dalrock must either be referring to his individual happiness, regardless of his wife’s longsuffering agony in the relationship, or else Dalrock means to include his wife’s happiness in the declaration of his happy marriage. But if it is the latter, then Dalrock is conceding that he understands perfectly well what Wilson has referred to, and that his wife’s mutual happiness in the marriage is a powerful barometer of something. In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that Dalrock makes use of the tagline precisely to avoid the charge that his blog can be dismissed as the bitter rantings of a broken, frustrated, alimony-paying, ex-husband. Even Dalrock recognizes the power of a happy marriage and happy family for the credibility and authority that such strong relationships can bring. Obviously there are a lot of compromising pastors out there, but I would invite Dalrock to take a step back and acknowledge where Wilson actually stands, and the punches that Wilson regularly lands against feminism. Dalrock needs to show some integrity and fairhandedness when critiquing and quoting Wilson, otherwise he’ll just hurt his own credibility.
Katecho
Katecho, thanks. Much appreciated.
One area of confusion is that husbands are constantly exhorted to emulate Christ in His passive obedience using Eph 5:25 as if that sacrifice is the exclusive expression of Christ’s love. In holding to the exclusivity of sacrifice as the only expression of love, men are vilified for emulating Christ’s active obedience particularly in the execution of His authority and headship. On the one hand, husbands are accountable for the home, but the tools of responsibility (literally the ability to respond and affect change) have been deemed as unloving, selfish or tyrannical by the church and its incorporated parachurch partners. But you have shown the temerity to insist on passive obedience alone and then blame husbands for being passive. Christ loves His bride, He also disciplines all that He loves. The contemporary church inc. configuration is the husbands love their wives by being disciplined in the church because she is not feeling it. Her tingle is the holy sign your doing God’s will. Your work has not moved the church toward a Christ and the faithful church model, but rather continued to cheerlead the apostate church who wants a better less holy and demanding Lord. If you truly want to reform marriage stop bashing men in public, their wives are listening and eating it up. It stirs in them discontent and rebellion (although you might be giving some of them those holy tingles). Start rebutting the lies that are the group think of evangelicalism; like “submission doesn’t mean being a door-mat.” Being like Christ might mean being doormat and 1 Peter tells women this is the extent that they ought to submit, unto death or even being beaten unjustly. I could go on ad nauseam on the twisted lies from “conservative Christians,” but will keep the focus on your acquiescence. Pastor it is time to stop playing both sides of the fence hoping to win more women fans, the time for hard words is well past. Either support the authority and dutiful actions of husband, not just make him accountable, or at least stop giving aid and comfort to those of the usurpation. Fragging the officers while supporting the more traditional mutineers will cost the mission and decimate troop morale.
Dave
Dave, the problem with your analysis is that it is playing at identity politics. You are thinking in terms of husbands/wives. But there are four key variables, not two. There are husbands/wives and there are also people who are obedient to God/disobedient to God. This gives us multiple situations—a happy marriage is obedient husband/obedient wife. But we also have many other possibilities—the most miserable being disobedient husband/disobedient wife. But there is also the obedient husband/disobedient wife and disobedient husband/obedient wife. If you have some kind of a mess that you just heard about, but you already know whose side you are on because you happen to share their sex, then you have already been captured by the cultural Marxists. From the outside, a godly man’s sympathy should go to the godly partner in an unhappy marriage, whether that person is the husband or wife. The same goes for a godly woman. Her sympathy should go to the godly partner, not the one who happens to be part of the sisterhood.
A Plausible Theory
Re: Wut? I think Ken is referring to your posts that consist of quotes from Empires of Dirt as being like Twitter.
Jess
Jess, that makes sense. I see it all now.
Malachi Being Disruptive
I posted Nathan’s quote—“in any meeting that runs over twenty minutes, someone will propose something which, if implemented, will ruin everything”—on the door of my office conference room. Given the furor that broke out, it’s probably good that I didn’t sign it.
Malachi
Malachi, well, now you know . . .
Spelling Privilege Right is a Sign of Privilege
Re: Woke with the Wim-Wams & Wasting Privilege I wholly and fully concede that privilege is not evil in and of itself, and that most “wokeness” is guilt-based in a way that is unbecoming of one covered by the blood of Christ. Yet, I am having trouble reconciling these facts with the simple observation that restitution is a thing that exists (someone would say is mandated) in Scripture. Exodus 22, Leviticus 6, etc. The obvious difference is that the OT Law is largely dealing with specific people and specific sins with specific, quantifiable losses to the victims. Privilege (if it is indeed caused by some historical evil) is much more amorphous. It may be the result of untold number of sins from untold number of individuals, and is literally impossible to quantify in any meaningful way. BUT. . . it being amorphous in nature doesn’t automatically make it exempt from principles of restitution, does it? If it doesn’t, what is to be done about it? If it does mean principles of restitution do not apply, then what? Certainly God will make all right on the last day, but honestly (rightly or wrongly) that feels like a cop-out. Maybe that’s my problem?
Gary
Gary, I agree with you completely. Real restitution is a real thing in Scripture, and it can cross generations. I would have no problem, for example, if the Federal Government paid restitution to the Nez Perce for all the double dealing. But in such a case, we can go back and read the treaties and then look at the performance of the parties relative to those treaties. It is objective and verifiable.
But the guilt-mongers of today hate the idea of objective verification. They hate it because objective guilt means there could be such a thing as objective innocence. Consequently, they want to raise the taxes of some white guy whose grandfather moved here from Poland in 1975, in order to make payments to another guy whose grandfather moved here from Bahama in 1976. It doesn’t have to make sense so long as it works.
Doug writes (in a 3/27 “Letters” response): What is the difference between “privilege” and “blessing”? I write (after thinking on this for a few days): First, privilege is one of those words I have a TERRIBLE time spelling. (Priviledge? Privelage? Privlege? the possibilities go on and on…) Second, and more importantly, I would say they are about the same thing. They are both benefits. But I think privilege could have a down-side, whereas I would have a hard time saying a blessing ever has a down-side. Being born into a wealthy family—Sir Thomas Bertram’s in Mansfield Park—would be a privilege, but being separated from hardships that might spur spiritual growth would take away from it. That would be a privilege with a down-side. But failing to consider God’s sovereignty over that situation may simply trivialize it to the point of uselessness. A tragedy or hardship can be accompanied by a blessing. A blessing can follow it and work a greater good, as it always does for the Christian (8:28). There’s Joseph’s being sold into slavery, Ruth’s husband dying young, Paul’s thorn. In that light, maybe the initial hardship should just be called a blessing, though that seems a stretch especially in Ruth’s case. But I’m not sure a blessing ever has a true down-side, the Grateful Dead notwithstanding (. . . every silver lining’s got a touch of grey . . .) This certainly requires more thought and especially precision in defining the terms— blessing, curse, tragedy, hardship and of course privilege. Third (and I think this point most important) I would say it is the source of the benefit. Rightly understood, God is the source of both. But let’s stop for a minute and consider the use of the words in our cultural moment. Our society doesn’t buy into this whole “God” idea. So in the society’s vernacular, there is no such thing as God, thus no such thing as blessing. Privilege remains, but it ends up being the product of men or dumb luck, depending on which came first (the chicken or the egg?). Was I merely born into a situation of privilege or were there men who created the privilege into which I was born? (Many would further say that privilege was built on the backs of slaves, which is partially true in some cultures, but completely misses the point for one who is born with or without privilege.) If one tosses out the Person of God, then one must simultaneously toss out the idea of objective morality or goodness. When one tosses that and is left looking at privilege, it could go either way. It could be good or bad. Or neither because there is no such thing; there is only guilt. So the privilege of having been read to as a child, or having Christ and the church involved in your family becomes just another variable that, while it may be good for the person who has it, is bad for all the people who don’t and therefore becomes a morally bad thing (if such a thing as morality, at that point, could even be said to exist). But there is always guilt. (It seems much easier to get rid of morality than guilt.) So without God, there is no such thing as a blessing and a privilege is a negative factor because it just leads to guilt. I’d be interested in your comment on it, with your training in philosophy and biblical theology.
Nathan
Nathan, you touched the essential thing when your thought experiment excluded God. If there is no such thing as blessing, then I have a right to resent people who have privilege. And if there is no God, there is no blessing. But if there is a God, then I don’t see any way to distinguish blessings from privilege.
Dabney the Seer
What did Dabney see for him to make such an informed declaration while the Christian world scoffed at him?
And to add to my last comment, as wicked as the government schools are today, people don’t even have the capacity to see what is near let alone what is on the horizon. The pat answer is “not in our schools.”
Jeff
Jeff, what Dabney saw was a vain attempt to create a neutral, objective place in the realm of education where the reality of God could be dismissed. Tolerating a little bit of that is like tolerating being a little bit pregnant.
Baptizing Koalas
For the benefit of those who find the Koala reference a striking bit of hyperbole, please consider the following: https://tinyurl.com/yaartzfa Here’s a blessing ceremony for rifles. https://tinyurl.com/ybt3ejml Here’s a blessing of the animals (and the UMC “reasoning” for it) https://tinyurl.com/y8sjoawu For those who wonder about a blessing for their motorcycles https://tinyurl.com/y8rc9e89 Blessing stuffed animals. Certainly there are more examples. This is simply an illustration to bolster Pastor Wilson’s seemingly hyperbolic reference to Koalas. Difficult to out “crazy” these folks.
Ron
Ron, thanks. These are indeed difficult days to be a satirist.
Creation Accounts
I’m interested to hear if the Silmarillion has influenced the way you understand the creation account in the OT. I know it’s not Scripture, I know it was written less than a hundred years ago, I know I’m a nerd . . . but for some reason it sticks in my brain as I seek to understand the OT. It’s given mental images to some of my theology, and caused me to have more affection for God. Have I gone off the reservation? Is there anyone else like me in this regard? Do I need to repent? Bonus question: Where would you rank the story of Beren and Luthien amongst the great stories contained within the Western tradition?
TF
I believe that Tolkien was a great sub-creator, and a great writer. Reading The Lord of the Rings is like living in the house. The Silmarillion is for me (confession time) like the footings under the foundation wall. I don’t think Tolkien could have built the house in the magnificent way he did without doing something like what he revealed in The Silmarillion, so hats off to him. But I have read The Silmarillion just once, and that is all, I expect. But I anticipate returning to The Lord of the Rings periodically for the rest of my life.
As far as Beren and Luthien are concerned, the story is not enough to draw me back. I can acknowledge its high quality, coming from such a great writer, but for my taste it is too full of that trademark Tolkien sadness. But then again, Tolkien had the Grey Havens ability to make going to Heaven sad, and filled with autumn leaves and Celtic twilight.
Let the hate-fest begin . . .
” Pastor it is time to stop playing both sides of the fence hoping to win more women fans, the time for hard words is well past.” – Dave
Yep, a former commenter/hater from this blog already called DW an “overinflated windbag” for his conciliatory efforts. Of course her form of insanity is more bark than byte.
As for Gary and restitution, we’ve already had decades of such efforts (affirmative action, transfer payments, etc). Does he think we need even more?
Doug, “ From the outside, a godly man’s sympathy should go to the godly partner in an unhappy marriage, whether that person is the husband or wife. The same goes for a godly woman. Her sympathy should go to the godly partner, not the one who happens to be part of the sisterhood.” Why the emphasis on the happiness of either spouse? Consider the subtitle of this book by Gary Thomas: Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy? Which matters most to God, our holiness or our happiness? Happiness is… Read more »
OKRickety wrote: Happiness is an emotion and, by itself, is not an accurate measure of the state of a marriage. Happiness is not the standard, of itself, but it’s certainly a diagnostic of how things are going in the marriage, but only when the source of that unhappiness attaches to a genuine Scriptural obligation (as is clear from Wilson’s context). Even Dalrock acknowledges the role of happiness in the tagline to his blog, which is, “Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world.” Why the emphasis on happiness by Dalrock? I don’t take Dalrock’s tagline to mean… Read more »
OKRickety wrote: Consider the subtitle of this book by Gary Thomas: Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy? Which matters most to God, our holiness or our happiness? Indeed. God has called us to holiness even when it hurts, and even when it calls for deep sacrifice. That’s a great distinction that needs to be repeated in the present cultural climate. But husbands shouldn’t be using this principle to excuse themselves when they have become a stumbling block to their wife’s Scripturally instructed attitude of joy. That’s not prioritizing holiness… Read more »
If happy is too modern, think content.
bethyada, It’s not its modernity that matters, it’s the focus on one’s own emotions as a measure that is the problem. I do like the word contentment better than happiness. Rather than Christian women focusing on being unhappy and wanting out of their marriage, there should be a desire to be like Paul, who said he had learned to be content regardless of the circumstances. I said “Christian women” and not “Christians” for a reason. I believe studies show that women are far more likely to be discontented with their marriages than men, and about 2 of 3 divorce filings… Read more »
Upvote (something I can’t officially do right now). Making “if mama ain’t happy” a standard in today’s culture and church milieu is recipe for disaster in many cases.
I don’t much like the “if mama ain’t happy” formulation because it makes me think of a discontented wife making sure that everyone in the household is as miserable as she is. I am sure that happens, and that is regrettable. I would still prefer to phrase it differently. Mom is in some ways the emotional center, the heart, of the home. When she has the serene spirit that comes from doing her job well, knowing that her work is important, and feeling that she is valued, that spirit will cast its warmth over everyone else. She will have, not… Read more »
Jill,
“I don’t much like the “if mama ain’t happy” formulation because it makes me think of a discontented wife making sure that everyone in the household is as miserable as she is. ”
Of course it does, as that is the general usage of the phrasing. Hence Wilson’s attempt to repurpose it is regrettable, as it leads to misunderstanding and confusion.
Whether the use of that phrase is actually regrettable or not, it doesn’t follow that Wilson can then be dismissed as a feminist, or a woman-worshipper, etc, etc, as several on the Dalrock blog are doing.
Again, there is no problem with raising a critique about Wilson’s delivery of his arguments, but there is a problem with assigning views to Wilson that he consistently teaches against. Dalrock and many of his blog guests have a problem with bearing false witness.
Katecho,
I won’t argue with you. I do know however, from personal experience, that attempting to argue the point is essentially a waste of time and effort.
You are bearing false witness. You couldn’t defend Wilson’s words at Dalrock’s blog, so you declared victory and left. Here’s the quote from the introduction to Wilson’s Reforming Marriage: “The health of all other relationships in the home depends upon the health of this relationship, and the key is found in how the husband is treating his wife. Or, put another way, when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” Here’s a quote from chapter 2 of Reforming Marriage: “When a couple comes for marriage counseling, my operating assumption is always that the man is completely responsible for all the problems.… Read more »
7817 wrote: Can you defend that? I defended it in my original response on Dalrock’s blog. It still stands. I’ll summarize it again. Wilson never argues that unhappiness is a standard unto itself. Ever. Period. A wife’s unhappiness can result from her own sinful desires and expectations and discontent. Her unhappiness can also result from her husband’s failure to live up to actual Scriptural obligations toward her. The only way to know which kind of unhappiness is in view in the introduction to Reforming Marriage is by reading the context. If Dalrock bothered to include the context, he would see… Read more »
As a thought experiment, let’s change a few words in the quoted passages to give us a different perspective. We are told in the Bible that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, after all. “The health of all other relationships in the home depends upon the health of this relationship, and the key is found in how God is treating his people. Or, put another way, when mamma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” “… my operating assumption is always that God is completely responsible for all the problems. Some may be inclined to react negatively… Read more »
I think that is the point. Doug would say that as the leader the man has to take responsibility/ initiative to sort this out. God took the initiative and sent Jesus to die for our sins even though they were our sins. The criteria of faith remains, but salvation is possible from our sins because of what Jesus did.
Great. Then if we are to take God as our example of a loving responsible husband, then there is a whole range of responses available to a husband of a disrespectful or wayward wife, as God has shown in his treatment of the children of Israel, up to and including abandonment in the case of unfaithfulness, as God abandoned his wicked people to die in Jerusalem in the final siege. God used a lot of tough love with Israel, and didn’t seem to be primarily concerned with their happiness. He turned them over to their enemies multiple times. Christian husbands… Read more »
Knowing exactly what to do takes a little wisdom. God annihilated the Canaanites. I don’t think he permits us to execute our wives.
But read Ezekiel, even in his abandonment he sort to restore.
He did seek to restore, even as he called them whores who sought after partners whose “members” were the size of horses. If you follow God’s example, not nearly as much is off the table in regard to tactics as the present day church culture would like to think. In the prophets multiple times God shouted at the Israelites calling them whores. Now, this was not for small failings, and the kind of correction needs to match the kind of offense. But there are a LOT of options that (it looks like to me) are ok with God, in the… Read more »
7817 wrote: If you follow God’s example, not nearly as much is off the table in regard to tactics as the present day church culture would like to think. Even if we allow 7817’s point, in principle, that more aggressive tactics are available to husbands, it still wouldn’t exempt a husband from being a fool if he simply escalated in the present culture. 7817 can’t suppose that wives hold all the power in our culture, and then encourage pastors to teach that it’s a good idea for husbands to challenge them head on. Is 7817 frustrated that not enough pastors… Read more »
Where, in your analysis, do you consider the example of God? Did God escalate aggressively? Probably not, but He definitely escalated. My position is that husbands need to follow God’s example in love and correction. Do you think that women have all the power in the culture? If so, is that a good thing? “Think of the children” is a rhetorical ploy meant to freeze the husband in place, worried that he may do something wrong and so the best option is to safely do nothing. After all, confronting a rebellious or sinful wife is so dangerous (according to Katecho)… Read more »
7817 wrote: Do you think that women have all the power in the culture? If so, is that a good thing? I was referring to what appears to be one of the central doctrines of the wounded red-pill crowd, which seems inconsistent with the message that husbands should just man-up and challenge wayward wives by using more aggressive tactics. That advice would seem foolish, given their own premises. I see that women are being shown partiality, as a class, in our current identity culture, and I don’t think it is just, or good for women in the long term. I… Read more »
“…it still wouldn’t exempt a husband from being a fool if he simply escalated in the present culture.” Escalation would mean the husband is a fool. Got it. “marital suicide mission against their wives” confronting a wayward wife is a suicide mission, got it. “escalating aggressively is not automatically a sign of wisdom. There may be children to consider in all this as well.” Escalate and lose your kids. Got it. You seem frightened. As I have stated several times in different words, a husband MUST calibrate any corrective action to the behavior he is trying to correct. For clarity,… Read more »
7817 wrote: You seem frightened. More equivocation. Consideration doesn’t mean fear. Another miss. 7817 wrote: A happy home is what is wanted by both husband and wife, but what if the husband wants to honor God more than he wants to make his wife happy? There is a significant opportunity for agreement in this, because no one here, least of all Wilson, has ever suggested that a husband should prioritize his wife’s happiness above honoring God. This accusation is one of the central errors made on Dalrock’s blog. What Wilson said was that a wife’s unhappiness (Scripturally qualified), is a… Read more »
“What Wilson said was that a wife’s unhappiness (Scripturally qualified), is a pretty reliable indicator of whether the husband is actually honoring God. Wilson nowhere sets up the wife’s unhappiness as an authority apart from the authority of Scripture.”
Ridiculous nonsense.
If a Christian (as part of the bride of Christ) is unhappy, does that mean Christ has failed him or is in error?
If a church is unhappy, does that mean Christ has failed it?
Your argument is foolishness.
7817 wrote: If a Christian (as part of the bride of Christ) is unhappy, does that mean Christ has failed him or is in error? If a church is unhappy, does that mean Christ has failed it? I don’t think 7817 has been paying attention. Remember I keep saying that the only authority that unhappiness has is what it gets from the authority of Scripture. Unhappiness has no authority apart from Scripture. So if a Christian or church is unhappy with Christ, we must ask if Christ has failed in His covenant duties according to Scripture. If He hasn’t, then… Read more »
Let’s shift the perspective, for clarity.
– A husband’s unhappiness (Scripturally qualified), is a pretty reliable indicator of whether the wife is actually honoring God.-
What, if anything, is wrong with that statement?
Hi 7817, I am trying hard to understand your position. So, following God’s example, it would be okay to shout at your wife and call her a whore. I am wondering if this would be strictly reserved for catching her in adultery, or whether slutty clothing would be reason enough. You mention the plagues God sent the Egyptians, and I can see how they might give an outraged husband some useful ideas. It would certainly upset me enormously find frogs in my bed (or anywhere else in the house). Snakes would be even worse. Talk back to your husband and… Read more »
“I am trying hard to understand your position.”
Jill, you need to reread what I said, more slowly and carefully. This comment of yours is just a misrepresentation of what I said. You are being silly.
I did not mention the Egyptian plagues, after all, the Egyptians were not God’s chosen people. What are some plagues God sent on His people, and what was the goal of those plagues?
God is both longsuffering and severe with His people. That’s for sure. But He has a perspective, and prerogative, as Judge, that man does not.
So it is a leap to suppose that husbands, as husbands, are delegated the same level of sentencing and judgment that God reserves for Himself. God very carefully bounds the severity of correction allowed by authorities within each institution (Church, State, Family). So it would be a hermeneutical error for a husband to consider inflicting plagues on his bride, for example, even if God did it with Israel, His bride.
“God is both longsuffering and severe with His people. That’s for sure. But He has a perspective, and prerogative, as Judge, that man does not.” Of course no man has the power in himself to bring a plague. The plagues were examples of what God used to try to bring His people back to Him. So a husband, in your view, has no authority, only responsibility, and can do nothing to bring back a wayward wife. Your idea of a husband is a gelding. “So it is a leap to suppose that husbands, as husbands, are delegated the same level… Read more »
In this culture a husband is limited in what he can do “to bring back a wayward wife.” Recognizing that reality isn’t necessarily agreeing with it. It is acknowledging that the use of “corrective techniques” may backfire with dreadful results. A wife’s submission is of little value to a husband serving a prison sentence for domestic violence. Which I am told is defined very loosely and in the wife’s favor. Less drastically, anything you do to correct her behavior carries a risk that she will take the children and go. And no one will stop her, and no one will… Read more »
“I think what I am trying to emphasize is that pastors (and writers of marital advice columns) are not in the business of telling you how to blow up your marriage. And they’re not in the business of advising people to break the law knowing the likely result.” No one has advocated blowing up a marriage. No one has advocated breaking the law. Your perception what is being advocated is flawed. “None is without risk in our current society, but (where appropriate) withdrawal of affection, withdrawal of attention, withdrawal of provision, withdrawal of protection, and withdrawal of commitment, and outright… Read more »
I think that withdrawal of affection and attention are sometimes legitimate, but they will not work if the wife does not care whether or not her husband loves her. It is also a strategy that loses its effectiveness over time. But it certainly seems reasonable to me that if I have wronged someone, his manner to me will be less affectionate. I would regard that as a natural consequence rather than a correctional technique. I am not sure what you mean by withdrawal of provision. There are times when it might be prudent to restrict a wife’s access to credit.… Read more »
7817 wrote:
Why does 7817 sound so much like Cathy Newman trying to stuff words into Jordan Peterson’s mouth? Where did I say or suggest that a husband has no authority, or that he can do nothing? Another miss by 7817.
What can the husband do? What power does he have to correct a wife? You have consistently argued against the idea.
Your idea of a husband is castrated.
7817 wrote: What can the husband do? What power does he have to correct a wife? You have consistently argued against the idea. Who knows what 7817 means by “power”, but I’ve previously referred to a husband’s peculiar authority to apply Scripture to confront his wife’s sin, and to appeal to the authority of the Church if she refuses to obey a Scriptural duty. Of course a non-husband could confront a sinful wife in similar ways, but not with the authority that God sees residing in the husband when he does it (regardless of what our culture thinks of his… Read more »
Katecho provides no examples of what an appropriate use of power would be by a husband. “a husband’s peculiar authority to apply Scripture to confront his wife’s sin” this has no specifics tied to it. Since it lacks definition it is meaningless. “appeal to the authority of the Church ” this, being an appeal to separate authority, is actually a demonstration of powerlessness. My point stands. Katecho’s idea of a husband is gelded. This is clearly demonstrated by Katecho’s rhetoric here: “Is it the power to bark orders at her like a sea captain? The power to physically force the… Read more »
7817, these are things I would find entirely reasonable and likely effective, assuming that the wife is not hostile, eager to end the marriage, and suffering from BPD. I am happy that very few were ever said to me, but people who know me well could probably guess which. “Jill, light of my life, I have asked you three times now not to let the cat sleep on our bed. You know I have allergies.” “I am not letting a fourth cat enter this household. If you bring one home, I will take it right back again.” “No, I am… Read more »
The comment you are replying to was meant for Katech, as they have not even said that a husband’s disapproval is an appropriate use of correction.
Thanks for your response though. Sounds like normal everyday human conversation.
Yes she is being silly, intentionally. To illustrate the point.
Note I wrote wisdom is needed. The rebuke to Israel was after centuries of idolatry, the destruction of the Canaanites 400 years.
While divorce may be a last resort I suggest observing and emulating Christ.
Which Christ, the Christ Who said, “those I love I rebuke and discipline”, or some other powerless christ?
Gee, Bethyada, I was just getting warmed up! I had all sorts o f lovely examples up my sleeve.
I think this is where it’s necessary to remind ourselves that happiness lies not in doing what we like, but in liking what we have to do. I think that happiness is almost never found by pursuing it, but rather by practicing virtue.
I don’t disagree with you here. And I think you are correct in the current West that women are leaving. There are reasons for this including the state provision of welfare when a woman denies her vows for no valid reason; the feminist lies that encourage discontentment; toxic girlfriends who reinforce rather than confront sinful behaviour in women; unaddressed guilt. Yet it seems that men can be a little blind to their own sins. Doug sees this in his counselling. And whatever the sins of women, it is helpful that Doug tries to get men to man up: Be a… Read more »
And so you don’t think I am being one sided, I think advice to wives is important too. I believe that Nancy writes to women how to be more Christlike. But to give an example of how both sides can be addressed, let’s consider the sexual relationship. If there were an message for today’s Christian wife it would be have more sex with your husband. Just pragmatically, wives would find their husbands much more amenable if he didn’t feel like he was negotiating every act. The Bible clearly states that neither partner can deny the other. Women can say yes… Read more »
bethyada, “I believe that Nancy writes to women how to be more Christlike.” Whether Nancy Wilson writes to women or not does not negate the fact that Doug Wilson’s audience is not limited to men and thus he should take the opportunity to address women’s sins and failures equally to those of men. “The husband’s sin does not need to be greater, but it should be identified and addressed.” While it is true that “men can be a little blind to their own sins” (an understatement, no doubt), it seems quite clear to me that Wilson addresses the sins of… Read more »
OKRickety wrote: Whether Nancy Wilson writes to women or not does not negate the fact that Doug Wilson’s audience is not limited to men and thus he should take the opportunity to address women’s sins and failures equally to those of men. Anyone who thinks that Wilson doesn’t frequently address the sins of women is being dishonest. The suggestion that Wilson is avoiding women’s sins, or piling on men, is laughable. The demand for exactly equal treatment between men and women’s sins also fails because Scripture itself addresses far more sins in the context of men than of women, even… Read more »
“because Scripture itself addresses far more sins in the context of men than of women, even when the same sin can apply to both. ”
Where are you getting this? The Bible covers the lives of a lot more men (kings, prophets, disciples, etc.) than women, so I’m sure you can find more examples of men sinning. But when it comes to moral instructions–say in the Proverbs or Paul’s epistles–are you sure men’s sins are addressed more often…and that men get harsher judgments for their sins?
JP Stewart wrote: Where are you getting this? … But when it comes to moral instructions–say in the Proverbs or Paul’s epistles–are you sure men’s sins are addressed more often…and that men get harsher judgments for their sins? First, I didn’t say that men get harsher judgments for their sins. Stewart will have to take responsibility for that suggestion. What I said was that Scripture addresses and describes most sins in the context of a man committing them. In the quest for gender-neutral translations, feminists don’t seem to complain much about this, but it is true. For example, in Leviticus… Read more »
“First, I didn’t say that men get harsher judgments for their sins. Stewart will have to take responsibility for that suggestion”
Cute, Katecho, but you didn’t answer my question. Yes, old translations (and almost all older texts) use masculine pronouns to refer to all of humankind. Do you think women are allowed to curse God?
If that’s all you have, it’s a terribly insufficient argument to support the claim “because Scripture itself addresses far more sins in the context of men than of women, even when the same sin can apply to both. “
JP Stewart wrote:
The original Hebrew and Greek use masculine pronouns too. That’s the point. There is no equality of pronouns when addressing sins in the Bible.
JP Stewart wrote:
Of course not, but I don’t hear Dalrock or OKRickety whining that Scripture doesn’t “address women’s sins and failures equally to those of men”. So why hold Wilson to an egalitarian standard above Scripture itself?
Katecho, So are you admitting that you completely failed to support your claim “because Scripture itself addresses far more sins in the context of men than of women, even when the same sin can apply to both”? I think the quote below from someone at Dalrock’s blog best describes your constant shifting and goal post realigning: “Your opening salvo on the previous thread started: “I was hoping for a more honest treatment of Wilson by Dalrock. I pointed out in the thread that Wilson literally lied about the quote, and he engaged in a pretend swap of “honored guest” for… Read more »
Thanks for the downvote, whoever gave it to me (Katecho, Little Women, etc.). I’ve come to realize it’s a contrary indicator in these type of discussions. It means you’re actually reading and engaging with both blogs, not just throwing around pejoratives (“red pill”) and agreeing with the side that “edifies” you.
JP Stewart wrote: So are you admitting that you completely failed to support your claim “because Scripture itself addresses far more sins in the context of men than of women, even when the same sin can apply to both”? We are either dealing with a serious reading comprehension issue, or a preconceived conclusion that won’t be overcome by more words. In spite of Stewart’s sudden change of subject, I’m claiming complete success in supporting my original claim. Regarding Dalrock’s false assertions, I’ve already addressed the original round of them on his blog. At this point, I’m not sure I could… Read more »
Katecho, “Of course not, but I don’t hear Dalrock or OKRickety whining that Scripture doesn’t “address women’s sins and failures equally to those of men”. So why hold Wilson to an egalitarian standard above Scripture itself?” Actually, when it comes to scriptural references to marriage and the related commands and sins (which is the topic of interest), I think the New Testament (and perhaps the entire Bible) probably does not address the sexes equally. In fact, I have a suspicion that the wives are addressed more than the husbands. That is an interesting question that I may try to research… Read more »
OKRickety wrote: Actually, when it comes to scriptural references to marriage and the related commands and sins (which is the topic of interest), I think the New Testament (and perhaps the entire Bible) probably does not address the sexes equally. In fact, I have a suspicion that the wives are addressed more than the husbands. I’m sure OKRickety would acknowledge that he is adjusting the goalposts now, because he originally called for an equal address of men’s and women’s sins. Now he wants to compare the treatment of husband’s and wive’s sins. But if he were to find that wives… Read more »
Katecho, It is my belief that, at least when discussing marriage, most pastors are more than willing to harp on the sins of husbands but are very reluctant to address the sins of wives. If the scriptures are relatively equal towards the sexes, then this pastoral behavior is grossly inconsistent with the perspective of the Bible. If, in fact, the scriptures about marriage address women considerably more than men, then that pastoral behavior is egregiously out of line. If a Christian is truly interested in improving the state of Christian marriage generally (and I contend that this is my desire),… Read more »
Katecho,
“Anyone who thinks that Wilson doesn’t frequently address the sins of women is being dishonest.”
It is my perception based on what I’ve read over time. Honestly. But I can’t prove it, nor do I think you can prove otherwise.
OKRickety wrote:
So we are just supposed to assume Wilson is guilty and blameworthy of something in the meantime? Seriously?
There are mountains of instances of Wilson dealing with women’s sins (and wive’s sins in particular) on this very blog. To have somehow missed them is not Wilson’s fault, but it is a serious problem for his accusers.
Wilson is not “putting women in charge” of any sphere that Scripture doesn’t charge them with. Except that’s exactly what you did, Wilson. If your defender that you quoted were doing what they scolded Dalrock for not doing (I.E. giving a fair treatment), then he/she would be aware that Dalrock quoted you as saying the following in She’s the boss, you’re a guest. (a post linked to in the article in which your defender posted his/her comment that she then forwarded to you, and which you have quoted in this article above): A wife has authority over her husband’s sex… Read more »
Princeasbel, “The authority of I Cor. 7 is one which declares that neither spouse has the authority to refuse to have sex with the other. That’s it. It does not say, “wives have authority over their husbands’ sex lives”. Make an end of speaking when God does.” So a husband’s sex life, according to Scripture, begins and ends with his wife. She has authority over his body for sexual purposes, as you concede. Is there some other category of his sex life, besides with her, over which she has no authority? What might that be? What is the difference, to… Read more »
“What is the difference, to you, between authority and responsibility? Biblically the two are practically synonymous.”
Good luck with this. I contended this every week for nearly a month and was essentially accused of being a feminist shill.
Justin,
Not knowing where you “contended this”, I think the concern is that Christian husbands are being considered responsible but are not allowed to exercise the corresponding authority. If a Christian woman refuses to submit to her husband, who is willing to support him against her? Not the state nor its officers. Very seldom will a church or its leaders do so. Almost never her family or friends. Who does that leave?
The Bible. Faithful Christians. Wives should submit or be disciplined by their churches. Husbands have both authority and responsibility for the family – two sides of the same coin: responsibility implies authority and vice-versa – and they are supposed to delegate some of it to their wives. Whether or not these things that Scripture teaches are “supported”, they remain true, do they not?
Farinata,
Of course the Scripture is true, but I presume you are aware that there are plenty of false teachers saying husbands are to submit to their wives, faithful Christians are hard to find and a hard-hearted woman is going to ignore them, and finding a church that will discipline a woman is essentially impossible. In other words, reality is far different from the ideal. In other words, when it comes to authority in marriage today, husbands are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
As both a father and a husband, this is not news to me. I agree with you that American society handles this issue poorly. I just want to be clear that our failure to obey the Bible does not constitute an argument against its teaching.
OKRickety wrote: In other words, when it comes to authority in marriage today, husbands are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Indeed. The cultural deck is stacked against husbands in many ways. Parent’s are also stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to corporal discipline of their children. But what follows from this observation? Does it follow that we should blame Wilson? Does it follow that we should assign views to him that he doesn’t hold? Does it follow that we should petulantly demand a paint-by-numbers kit of answers from him? What I’m trying… Read more »
What Katecho said, and louder.
Katecho,
As some would say, “You mad, bro?” I will repeat that I am not making those extreme claims about Wilson. If you want to deal with those people, go back to Dalrock’s blog and do it there. I am not responsible for them, and, having tried before, am unwilling to bother to try again.
OKRickety wrote: As some would say, “You mad, bro?” I will repeat that I am not making those extreme claims about Wilson. Not that I’m the best regulator of anger, but if there was ever a place for righteous anger, I think it would be in defense of a front line servant of God against false accusations. I’m happy to see that OKRickety is distancing himself from the Dalrock accusers, but that is my bigger concern at the moment. If OKRickety has some differences with Wilson’s word choices, that’s fine and my intent isn’t to say Wilson can’t improve his… Read more »
Katecho,
It is my belief that you assumed I was a “Dalrock accuser” and supposed the worst rather than weighing the evidence carefully. I expect there are one or more statements in Proverbs that are relevant.
Yes, I did make a reasonable attempt to have Dalrock and friends view Wilson in a better light, all to little or no avail. In fact, it resulted in me being the focus, more or less, of the post If You Only Knew Wilson Like …. As I said earlier, I don’t see any point in trying again.
Agreed. I’m only doing selective replies now, and may drop out soon. The preconception there is like the Great Wall of China, with guards at every tower.
‘Rick, bravo that you were the focus of that March 12 Dalrock post! When it happens to me, as it did to you, (though not on Dalrock) I am still a bit surprised at the volume of crap sincere and valid comments like yours can attract! FYI, my “situation” is still bumping along, a bit more “upward” at the moment than I would have expected. For some, as for Hosea, “sticking it out”, if possible, has its benefits. Also, at a critical point in our difficulties, my autistic son spoke to my wife in the Prophetic voice, which changed her… Read more »
Farinata, I don’t think the question is one of principle, but of practice. Yes, the Bible “supports” a husband’s authority, except in the literal sense. It takes people to do that. For that matter, what meaningful discipline can a church provide anymore when the written law, civil authorities, and circumstances provide a woman such ample opportunity, and encouragement, to not submit? Kick her out as a last resort? It might be warranted, but she will just go down the street to the first church that will take her in and affirm her choice. The disapproval of the congregation might make… Read more »
“Kick her out as a last resort? It might be warranted, but she will just go down the street to the first church that will take her in and affirm her choice. The disapproval of the congregation might make a difference in a small town, with fewer options, though I do not have an example of this in mind. ” Yep, I’ve seen this happen. A woman commits adultery, but tries to justify it by saying her husband didn’t understand her, didn’t meet her needs or was even “psychologically abusive” (which can mean almost anything.) Then she has a throng… Read more »
JohnM,
Is your point that women are sinful and rebel against God’s word? I agree with you! So does everyone else here! Or is there something you disagree with?
Farinata,
My point is “The Bible” is not exactly an answer to OKRickety’s question, since the Bible does not in a practical sense support a husband’s authority. What it does is provide guidance to people who are supposed to support, as in do it or make it happen, the guidance provided. Quoting scripture is the right thing to do, but it doesn’t in itself enforce anything.
JohnM may be on to something here. Some of these red-pill folks may be frustrated with Scripture’s limited case studies on how to practically exercise their husbandly authority in a fallen and resisting world. They seem to demand a step-by-step and diagrammed (and retroactive) fix-all. I think their frustration with Scripture might be spilling over onto pastors like Wilson, who they seem to feel more comfortable stabbing in the back.
Authority and responsibility are two different things that are supposed to go together. au·thor·i·ty əˈTHôrədē/Submit noun 1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. 2. a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere. Note that authority INCLUDES enforcement. A person who cannot enforce obedience has zero authority. re·spon·si·bil·i·ty rəˌspänsəˈbilədē/Submit noun 1. the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone. 2. the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something. 3. the opportunity or ability… Read more »
Oscar, while I strongly agree that authority and responsibility (accountability) are intimately connected, and that authority implies the ability to to enforce; the question still remains what methods is one allowed to use to enforce. The point is that the Christian husband has techniques he is allowed to use and techniques he is not allowed to use. No authority is absolute.
Only God’s authority is absolute. As for the power to enforce, I’ve asked that exact question here multiple times, and never received an answer.
So, do husbands have the power to enforce the rules when their wives refuse to follow, or don’t they? If they don’t, they have no authority. If they do, then, how?
Not so: a man may have moral authority that’s far more ambiguous – say, in the case of grown children. Or there is a kind of social authority that regulates norms in a general way without necessarily enforcing them in any particular case. It all depends what you mean. Of course enforcement at some level is necessary, but it doesn’t always look like direct compulsion.
Neither adult children, nor “social authority” are the subject here. The subject here is a husband’s authority over his wife. Does it exist? Does a husband have the power to enforce the rules when his wife refuses to follow, or doesn’t he? Because if he doesn’t, then he doesn’t have authority. If he does, then how?
My point is that you’re being too binary in your thinking – as if “authority” were an all-or-nothing proposition. Husbands have real authority, but not ultimate authority. That’s not a contradiction.
I don’t have an exhaustive list of acceptable practices, but my general view is that a husband may enforce his will on his wife, but with the caveat that direct compulsion is only appropriate in some sort of crisis situation. As the ancients would say, a man should rule his wife politically, not despotically.
“My point is that you’re being too binary in your thinking…”
Or, maybe those who give only lip service to a husband’s authority prefer that it remains nebulous, vague, undefined and undefinable, that way it’s impossible to know when a wife has violated her husband’s authority. Enforcement is – by definition – part of authority. “Authority” that is either unenforced or unenforceable, is not authority at all. It’s something else entirely.
“… my general view is that a husband may enforce his will on his wife… ”
How?
The how is situational and contextually driven. I am fortunate in having a very submissive wife, to whom I need only make my wishes known in order to have her at least try to accomplish them. It is hard to know what I would do in a completely different situation with a completely different life history than I have in fact enjoyed. But if she did not listen to me, I think I would have no trouble being pushy about it. I would raise my voice if it were necessary. I would also be willing to take unilateral action –… Read more »
Farinata, “I am fortunate in having a very submissive wife, to whom I need only make my wishes known in order to have her at least try to accomplish them. It is hard to know what I would do in a completely different situation with a completely different life history than I have in fact enjoyed.” You are indeed fortunate. “If such measures didn’t work I would engage the help of the elders and the church community, even up to the point of excommunication.” Sounds good, but, to my utter astonishment, when my ex-wife blindsided me with a divorce request,… Read more »
I am not unaware that wives can behave abominably, and I am sorry to hear of anyone being wronged in such a grievous and underhanded way.
But you are mistaken if you think I am giving anyone advice, or setting myself up as a marriage expert. I have been speaking about the Bible, which does not depend on anyone’s experience. I would be glad to learn if you have anything to teach. But if the point you want to make is that life is difficult and sin is everywhere, I already agree . You don’t need to teach me that.
Farinata, For myself, I am generally quite aware of what the Bible teaches. Hence “speaking about the Bible” is preaching to the choir. I know the theory, but what is the practical application? I think that’s Oscar fundamental question, too. And the question is not just for us as individuals, but what should be done by the church leaders, etc.? We don’t see them as being on God’s side, at least in the marriage arena. How can we get them to understand their fault in the situation generally? Many of us perceive we are like Elijah (“I alone am left,… Read more »
There are lots of wounded men in the world. Some have been steamrolled by the sins of others. There is no easy fix when sin has done its thing. There is no paint-by-numbers answer to being whole again. However, none of this justifies those men to demand an easy fix, or to demand that the world change so it never happens again. Least of all are such men justified to blame pastors who had nothing to do with it (such as Wilson). Scripture offers layers of instruction on how to stay away from the sins that will deeply harm us,… Read more »
Yeah, Dalrock and co. are pretty shrill for my taste…
So a husband’s sex life, according to Scripture, begins and ends with his wife. It says he has no right to refuse to have sex with her. That. Is. It. Make an end of speaking when God does. She has authority over his body for sexual purposes, as you concede. It says she has authority in that her husband has no right to refuse to have sex with her. Do not re-phrase it. The text is crystal clear on its own. Is there some other category of his sex life, besides with her, over which she has no authority? What… Read more »
“For example, let’s say a Christian wife reads this text and says, “Aha! I have authority over my husband’s body! That means I DON’T have to have sex with him whenever he wants!… I mean, sure, it says he has authority over my body too, but I can simply tell him that I have authority over his, and I don’t want him to use his body to have sex with mine!” And then we move into Al Mohler Land: “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”… Read more »
I’ve been aware for a long time of those words by Mohler. It’s utter cringe. And it’s not even the most embarrassing thing he has ever said on sexuality and marriage.
princesabel, Yah know, for someone who keeps insisting that everybody else “make an end of speaking when God does”, you sure are chatty. Low-hanging fruit there, I know… The text of Scripture defines sex out of wedlock as fornication, and a sin. Do you agree? It follows from that by good and necessary consequence that a man ought not to be having sex save with his wife. So I am not sure what you are complaining about – that sex should be limited to marriage is the plain teaching of Scripture. “Authority over his body” is the language of Scripture,… Read more »
I am not going to get into any other texts until I am convinced you are going to be reasonable about this one. That includes a willingness to answer direct questions directly. Anyone can read my reply to you and know I was clear and specific and direct. I quoted individual sentences and responded specifically thereto. You are not “unconvinced” that I am reasonable or willing to answer direct questions directly. You know full well I am both. And I demonstrated that. The fact that you didn’t even try to interact with what I said tells me you’re dodging. (And… Read more »
Fair enough, That makes things simpler for everyone.
I think it’s possible to read far too much into the “he’s a guest” idea. I see it as a caution to behave considerately, especially in those areas for which the wife bears major responsibility. Don’t increase her workload unnecessarily. Put water in the oatmeal bowl before you dump it in the sink. Don’t eat the cookies that are marked “PTA Bake Sale”. Don’t track muddy boots over a white carpet. Don’t frustrate her efforts at maintaining an attractive home and then blame her because things don’t always look nice.
Being a considerate head of household and being a guest are two completely different things. They are not related. The head of household has BOTH responsibility for AND authority over the household, otherwise he’s not the head. The guest has neither. Otherwise, he’s not a guest.
As regards Gary’s comments about restitution. In the Tacoma, WA area, we locally interred US citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII. Businesses were lost and much financial damage was done, to say nothing of the mental anguish this must have all caused as lives were uprooted and left in ruins. Well, after the war those individuals were still alive and local and they were able to receive restitution because of the ability to be objective and verify the facts. Our city also has in its history the “Tacoma Method” in which we expelled the Chinese from the city in 1885… Read more »
I wrote: One kind of unhappiness is that of a woman who wants to rule over her husband (to manipulate him), and Wilson is very clear that this kind of unhappiness is not the barometer of anything. The other kind of unhappiness is that of a woman whose husband really is foolish and unchristlike toward her, in ways that Scripture defines foolishness and Christlikeness. This is a real thing too, and a true barometer of a man’s obedience to God. I want to add a clarification to this, before anyone accuses me of a gross asymmetry. Certainly a wife’s usurping,… Read more »
Katecho, ‘The tagline to Dalrock’s blog is, “Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world.” Why does Dalrock’s blog feature happiness in such a prominent way?‘ I’m going to start with a reminder that we all read with our own perspective. In this case, you do not seem very familiar with Dalrock’s blog as you suggest that his use of “happily” in his tagline implies that happiness is of great significance to his view of marriage. In actuality on his blog, emotions are primarily considered of importance to marriage only by misguided women. Most specifically, when a… Read more »
OKRickety wrote: It is certainly made more difficult when the phrase “mamma ain’t happy” is used, albeit not in the same document, to describe both of the “kinds of unhappiness”. Speaking of happiness, I’m sure that Wilson would be happy to be critiqued on using the same phrase to refer to both “kinds of unhappiness”. Feedback to improve clarity ought to be welcome. But that’s just not what I’m seeing from the Dalrock blog. While I think one would have to work hard to miss the “kind of happiness” referred to in the context of the quotes, it’s one thing… Read more »
OKR, the point that matters is that by using the term happly in his tagline, katecho is saying that Dalrock recognises more that one type (or cause) of happiness. I think Wilson’s teaching is quite clear and eminently helpful. Wilson is grabbing a common phrase and repurposing it. It is a rhetorical ploy. A woman despite all the work in the world can be complaining, discontented, and foolish. However poor “husbandry” can also exacerbate such feelings and behaviour. So if one’s wife is unhappy or discontent it is actually helpful for the husband to ask himself, are there ungodly ideas… Read more »
Dave wrote: But you have shown the temerity to insist on passive obedience alone and then blame husbands for being passive. Christ loves His bride, He also disciplines all that He loves. Where does Wilson insist on passive obedience alone? Does Dave suppose that engaging together with the wife in a Biblical marriage study, or appealing to the local elders is, by definition, passive? Dave may assume that the elders in every church today will do nothing with the appeal, but disobedience by the elders does not mean that appealing to them is passive. Wilson certainly confronts the breakdown of… Read more »
You know you’ve arrived when your blog has a dress code.
Maybe I should go change out of my pajamas now.
‘Wonder if I could squeak by with a bolo tie? ????
Pastor Doug, You wrote: “Those under authority owe certain things to their liege-lord, and the one in authority has the right to require it of them. But all the persons involved in this are equally bound in an organic, constitutional way. No one person is absolute” (How to Exasperate your Wife, p. 16) and… “The most important word in the marriage vows is ‘obey’” (How to Exasperate your Wife, p. 95) If both those statements are true, then the husband has the right to require obedience from his wife. But you also wrote in your 21 Thesis on Submission in… Read more »
A husband is not exactly like any of those things, which is why multiple analogies can be helpful. In the same way we’re told that God is like a shepherd, but we understand that not in the sense that He is just looking after us until we can be killed and eaten. We’re told He is like a father and like a husband to His people, but we understand that this is not incestuous or creepy. We’re told He is like a potter, but we understand that in the context of all the other things we are told about Him.… Read more »
God can be all of those things, because none of those things are mutually exclusive. A captain, a figurehead and guest are mutually exclusive because their respective levels of responsibility and/or authority are mutually exclusive.
So, does a husband possess the corresponding authority to enforce the rules when his wife refuses to follow, or doesn’t he?
You don’t think being a husband and father in the same relationship is “mutually exclusive”? It is in my neighbourhood. But it works in scripture because the two analogies are considered separately and tell us different (and perfectly compatible) things about God. I put it to you that this is what Doug has been doing with his various comparisons of husbands to captains and guests. Hence the “In a certain sense” at the beginning of the quote about guests. To your question, I’d say authority and responsibility are barely distinguishable in a marriage. If your wife won’t listen to you… Read more »
lndighost, “If your wife won’t listen to you and disobeys everything you say, your authority has been violated and you cannot be held responsible for her actions.” That is not what Wilson says in his book Reforming Marriage, he says this (emphases mine): “When a couple comes for marriage counseling, my operating assumption is always that the man is completely responsible for all the problems. Some may be inclined to react negatively to this, but it is important to note that responsibility is not the same thing as guilt. If a woman has been unfaithful to her husband, of course… Read more »
The term “responsible” is far too broad. I prefer “accountable”.
“Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man said,
“The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
God made the rule.
The woman broke the rule.
The man broke the rule.
The man and the woman were to blame.
God took responsibility Himself, for their fault.
adad0,
You – unsurprisingly – left out a step. God cursed the man, the woman and the serpent, and expelled the man and the woman from the garden.
In other words, God used his authority to enforce the rules. Now, does a husband have authority to enforce the rules with a wife who refuses to follow, or doesn’t he? And if so, how?
O’, “blame” comes from the curse, so nothing is left out of my “short” version.
People are not God, so the authority of any person is limited, because people do not have the same authority.
Husbands have some authority, God has all authority, yet even the authority of God is not respected by some. How does God deal with those who don’t respect His authority?
It varies.
“… ‘blame’ comes from the curse, so nothing is left out of my ‘short’ version.” False. The man blamed the woman, and the woman blamed the serpent before God issued the curse. “Husbands have some authority… ” What authority does a husband have? Does he have the power to enforce the rules with a wife who refuses to follow? “How does God deal with those who don’t respect His authority? It varies.” What doesn’t vary is that God always has the power to enforce the rules. And so does every human authority – government, employers, parents, the Church – except… Read more »
O’, this issue is resolved very simply:
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
We are all under authority. Most of us have some authority.
We should exercise what authority we have, in a way that we ourselves would know was ultimately good for ourselves.
Major props to Oscar for persisting as long as he has with Jill, JohnM, adad0, Farinata, Katecho, Indighost, and so on. It is amazing how one commentor can repeat the same question, clarify himself half a dozen times, quoting the dictionary even, just to ask a simple question: “Does the husband have the power to enforce the rules with a wife who refuses to follow?” only for every challenger to dodge and weave with everything they’ve got. They don’t have the guts to even answer yes or no.
Oscar, I get your point, but I think you are confusing authority with power. Nothing can take away either from God’s authority or His power. A man, on the other hand, can rightfully be said to have authority even if he doesn’t have the power to enforce it, just as a man can wield power without rightful authority. A mugger may have the power to force people to hand over their money, though he has no authority over them. The police can call on the mugger to halt in the name of the law, with the rightful, though perhaps not… Read more »
JohnM, No, I’m not “confusing authority with power”. Here’s the definition of authority. au·thor·i·ty əˈTHôrədē noun 1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. 2. a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere. Authority – by definition – includes the power to “enforce obedience”. A person who can’t enforce obedience – by definition – has no authority. Maybe you don’t like the definition of the word, but I didn’t make it up. So, does a husband have the power to enforce obedience over his wife? If not,… Read more »
The power or right… The “or” being not an addition by me, but part of the definition you provided. Whenever you see A or B is the answer then A is not required for the definition, given B.
Does the Bible tell us a husband IS the head of his wife? Yes.
Can human disobedience nullify the word of God? No.
Notice in what you quoted that Doug says “my operating assumption is…”. Because men have authority, de facto, in almost all relationships with women, and because nearly all problems in an organization trickle down from the head. So to assume that the husband is the one to fix the problem is not unreasonable. But that assumption does not imply that there are no cases where a wife is to blame, nor does it imply that wives never have to repent. To read it that way is a distortion.
OKR, I agree that an expert would be handy. I agree with Doug (and you) that responsibility is not the same as guilt. All I have in the meantime are some musings: I haven’t read the book you quote from, so I can’t comment on it in context. I’m not sure to what extent we should call (eg) Hosea responsible for his wife’s behaviour, and it’s important to note that he was thoroughly obedient to God in his dealings with his wife. In a very real sense there is always a joint-ness in everything that a married person does. Hosea… Read more »
“You don’t think being a husband and father in the same relationship is ‘mutually exclusive’?” I don’t know if you’re deliberately evading my point, or missing it accidentally, but for now I’ll assume you’re missing it accidentally. So here goes again. 1. A captain has BOTH responsibility for, AND authority over 2. A figurehead has responsibility for but, NOT authority over 3. A guest has NEITHER responsibility for, NOR authority over Therefore, in matters of responsibility and authority, the three exclude each other. 1. A father has BOTH responsibility for, AND authority over 2 A husband has BOTH responsibility for,… Read more »
I can’t answer that until you answer the question that has been put to you: what do you mean by ‘enforce’?
By “enforce” I mean the definition of the word.
en·force inˈfôrs,enˈfôrs/Submit
verb
compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation).
Why do I need to search word definitions for you? Can’t you do it on your own?
I’ve now read your replies to Jill and understand your angle. I don’t think I can answer to your satisfaction. Because the obligation of a wife is submission, and submission is an attitude of the heart, it is not possible for anyone else to enforce it.
A contentious and horrible wife will face judgement unless she repents. Her husband cannot bring her to repentance either. What he can do is pray for her salvation and for himself, that he would be strong and not be tempted to sin against her either by weakness or with malice.
Indighost, “… submission is an attitude of the heart… ” No, it isn’t. That’s a lie the Church needs to drop. Let’s look at the definition of “submission”. sub·mis·sion səbˈmiSHən/ noun 1. the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person. Note the words: “action”, “accepting (verb)”, “yielding (verb)”. Submission is an action, NOT an attitude. That’s why you can word it as a verb. sub·mit səbˈmit/ verb 1. accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person. The false doctrine… Read more »
There’s nothing uncomfortable to me about those definitions. The definition of submit does describe an attitude. Accepting is first of all a mental action. It will, as you say, be manifested in outward action. When a woman gets married, she swears an oath before God and other witnesses that she will honour and obey her husband. She publicly places herself under his authority. That vow, and the teaching of Scripture, is what binds her and should ‘enforce’ her obedience. If she is so willful and callous as to break an oath she made before Almighty God, and to disregard the… Read more »
Well said. Especially the extra toll on military marriages. Indighost wrote: I think prevention is better than cure. I think it’s important to notice that Scripture overwhelmingly addresses prevention, and has much less to say about curing the consequences of sin, after the fact. Sometimes there is no cure in this life. Being restored to relationship with God is much simpler than navigating the consequences of a broken culture, and the wounds of sin (our own sin, and that of others). There are a lot of deeply cut husbands and ex-husbands out there (and broken families), and they are clearly… Read more »
Blaming pastors who minimize and undercut the authority of husbands in their own homes is entirely appropriate and justified.
Not only should these pastors be blamed for the damage they do, they should no longer be supported financially.
lndighost, “… submission is an attitude of the heart ….” While I will agree that submission is an attitude, it is also, as Oscar points out, very much also an action. The same is true for love. We know that God loves us because of his actions showing us love. Another example is faith. James tells us that “faith without works is useless?” [James 2:20 NASB] I will also agree that submission cannot be enforced. However, motivation to submit can be provided by the church, friends, family, etc., and, ultimately, the power of the Holy Spirit. It is my contention… Read more »
OKR, I can agree with that.
OKRickety wrote: However, motivation to submit can be provided by the church, friends, family, etc., and, ultimately, the power of the Holy Spirit. Indeed. We need each other for sanctification and accountability more than we realize. This is why, in many churches, and in many baptisms, we covenant together, with a public oath, to hold one another accountable to Scripture, and to be faithful to each other in that way. But however rare this view may seem in the modern Christian landscape, why in the name of God is Wilson suddenly being singled out for arrows? I don’t mean criticism,… Read more »
I think you totally miss the feudal backdrop of the symbolism pastor Wilson uses. A king visiting a vassal like a duke or earl is both a guest and a lord in the medieval system. Whether this is a good or bad symbol for husband and wife is another question.
Micael Gustavsson,
Even if you are correct on the “feudal backdrop”, you are missing the point when you compare a husband in his own home to a “king visiting a vassal”. Specifically, the king is indeed a guest in another’s home, but not in his own home.
A King is not a guest in his own country. But at the same time he can be said to be the guest in the fief of a vassal in spite of that fief being part of the country where he is not a guest. As a said, I don’t think you understand the feudal backdrop of the analogy.
Michael Gustavsson,
I’m not a guest in my house. And I wasn’t a guest in my TOC when I was a company commander. And when I was the Battalion Battle Captain in charge of the Battalion TOC, I never would’ve dreamed of telling my Battalion Commander that he was a guest in his TOC. And if I had been that galactically stupid, I wouldn’t have lasted long.
Oscar wrote: And when I was the Battalion Battle Captain in charge of the Battalion TOC, I never would’ve dreamed of telling my Battalion Commander that he was a guest in his TOC. If Oscar invited the President to be a guest at his house, would he insist that the President must resign his office first? If not, why not? If the President has any type of civil authority over Oscar’s U.S. residence, does that automatically preclude the President from ever being invited as a guest there? I don’t see how that follows. Similarly, no one here disputes that a… Read more »
the reading comprehension issues on the Dalrock blog
Host and commenters alike.
See my answe to OkRickety
Oscar wrote: You didn’t answer my question. Does a husband possess the corresponding authority to enforce the rules when his wife refuses to follow, or doesn’t he? Yes, or no? All de facto authority comes from God. Since God has placed the husband as head in the marriage, the husband has primary responsibility (not dismissing the wife’s responsibilities in the marriage), and is given authority in accordance with that responsibility. This is the case even if the practical exercise of that authority is made extremely difficult by the surrounding culture. Scripture maintains its full authority over kings even when they… Read more »
Oscar, they’re not always mutually exclusive. I am fond of reading nautical novels and watching war movies in which the British navy sinks the Bismarck, so let’s use that analogy. The captain is indeed the commander, and his authority, lawfully exercised, is absolute. To many of the ship’s company, he is a remote figurehead whose will is made known through channels of authority. In actual practice, most of his authority is delegated. In domestic terms, when mom instructs the children to do their homework and clean their rooms, she is using the authority of her position, knowing that his underlies… Read more »
Jill,
I’m a 23+ year military man, both enlisted and officer, who’s commanded men in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. You watched movies. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You have addressed exactly zero of the points I made, and added straw man arguments to boot.
Oh dear, Oscar, and I thought I had learned so much from The Caine Mutiny! I defer to your superior knowledge!
Quick Jilly!
Binge watch all the episodes of “Gomer Pyle”! ????
Extra credit for “Mchale’s Navy”!????
He does not have the authority to use physical force to compel her obedience. He may not starve her, hit her, lock her up, or put her in fear of her safety. Even if a church advocated such measures, they are all illegal. I am not sure what kind of enforcement you have in mind that would neither violate the law nor cause her to grab the children and run. Nor am I clear what you are envisioning as a wife’s refusal to follow: are we talking a dirty house or staying out drinking all night with the girls? In… Read more »
JIll, With all due respect – and I should have added before that I do respect you as an older sister in Christ (and I apologize for not doing so earlier) – you’re still not addressing the actual problem, or the point I’m making. Frankly my point is clear, but you insist on making ridiculous straw man arguments about physical violence. You wrote: “Nor am I clear what you are envisioning as a wife’s refusal to follow”. We’ve been over this before. I wrote you a whole list of appalling behaviors I’ve witnessed by “Christian” wives, including one pastor’s wife.… Read more »
Hi Oscar, no offense taken, and I’m sorry to seem to be trivializing a very real problem. I think I have been extremely lucky to have lived around very pleasant people. I believe you that there are women like that out there. I have been fortunate not to have had many dealings with them. Most of my friends’ marriages have muddled along with neither spouse being anywhere close to perfect but nonetheless determined to love and care for each other even through unhappy times. I think this can only happen when there is real care taken to get to know… Read more »
Jill,
“But where a silly, sinful, and undutiful wife still loves her husband, I think it is possible for him to use that love to inspire better behavior.”
Unfortunately, that premise seems to seldom be true. In fact, I wonder how many women actually love their husband, and how many are instead simply temporarily infatuated with having a wedding and being married,
That stuff about four key variables is a bunch of jazz intended to confuse the issue. A misbehaving wife unhappy with her husband has the authority to – lock him up (via a 911 call to the police); – use physical discipline (hit him and make him fear for his safety because he lacks not only authority to enforce good behavior but permission to defend himself against bad (if he does she’ll call 911 and get him locked up); – deprive him of his children, property, job, and life (restraining order); – drag him before the elders who will censure… Read more »
Caspar said: ‘You mean where he exercises “authority” by the sheer weight of his personality or words or charisma? Good luck with that. Do you know what the exercise of that sort of authority is called these days (when it’s exercised by a man)? It’s called abuse, spiritual abuse, psychological abuse, or manipulative and controlling behavior. The church is gone the way of the world in this.‘ Good point. The definition of abuse has been expanded in the world to include almost any behavior where a woman’s feelings have been hurt. This has been readily accepted in the church, too.… Read more »
I was talking about authority that is real without being attached to an explicit enforcement mechanism, like that of a man and his grown children. I respect and love my father and don’t want him to be disappointed in me, so his advice weighs heavily. I don’t think that my feelings toward him mean that he is enforcing his authority. The thing is not a simple either/or. I perceive this answer will be disappointing to you, but reality is complicated (and often messy due to sin) and sometimes doesn’t fit neatly into binary categories. There is authority given to husbands,… Read more »
On what do you base the number of 50% domestic violence being instigated by women?
Jill, Thank you for the thoughtful response. I wanted to make it clear that, although you and I sometimes disagree, I respect you. Though I don’t know you, you strike me as an honorable Christian lady, and I in no way place you in the category of the women I’ve observed. Nor do I place all women in that category. I’ve observed chronic wifely disobedience, disrespect and contentiousness far too often to ignore it. But the Church sure ignores it. On the rare occasion that the Church addresses the problem, they ALWAYS blame the husband. The reason she’s a contentious… Read more »
Jill is honorable and probably the most fair-minded commenter here. While other ladies here are more conservative (Jill is a moderate Catholic with strong traditional roots), they toe the DW/Reformed Evangelical/tribal line…it’s obvious from the way they defend DW and upvote each other. Saying that won’t make me popular here, but it’s the truth.
O’, My dad was a career Naval officer, so I understand Authority better than most. My dad has worn his authority well for his whole life. Wilson’s dad and my dad were classmates at the USNA, hence the relationship. “Luke 7 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I… Read more »
It is extremely sad, and I am not surprised that young men are in no hurry to get married. Even in my young day, people did not listen to their parents when it came to choosing a mate. If they did, a wise parent would say, “For goodness sake, look at how she treats her parents before you propose to her. Does she ridicule her dad and disregard everything he says? Does she throw hissy fits when things don’t go just right? Is she essentially agreeable? Is she light-hearted?” (I would have other questions for daughters, but that’s not today’s… Read more »
Oscar wrote: You had no answers for me then, and you have no answers for me now. No one ever does. That’s exactly the problem. No one (including Pastor Doug) ever has any answers for men who every evening dread going home to their contentious, rebellious, disrespectful, disobedient wives. Wilson addresses this problem head on, and repeatedly on this blog, and in several books. So we have to wonder what Oscar means by “no answer”. Does he mean no snap cure is forthcoming? I agree that Wilson doesn’t offer any snap cures or pat answers. But Wilson does cover many… Read more »
A husband is not a guest in his own home. I don’t think that Doug thinks that at all. But if a husband recognises that a wife is to rule her home he can’t keep getting in her way. Think of the ship’s galley. The captain certainly has authority over it in an absolute sense and if the cook is the instigator of a mutiny then the captain rightly takes him down. But if the cook tells the captain to get out of the kitchen, that he is frustrating his efforts, and burning all the crew’s food, then a wise… Read more »
bethyada,
“A husband is not a guest in his own home. I don’t think that Doug thinks that at all.”
If Doug doesn’t think that, then it was a poor choice of words, implying that the husband is not the head of the marriage and family. It would have been far better had he used “Honored Husband” or even “Honored One”.
I would prefer, “The husband, while head of the house and the marriage, respects his wife’s domestic arrangements, often showing consideration and appreciation as an honored guest would do.” (He does not encourage the children to ridicule their mother’s cooking, and he does not cannibalize her sewing machine for spare electronic parts.)
OKR, actually I think there are people who either over-read Doug, are a little Aspergers, or who don’t read him in the best possible light (or at least in a way that is consistent).
There are things I disagree with DOug about and don’t mind saying so. But in many of these discussions I am left wondering if some people even read the same book or blog post that I have.
I think we are best to clarify until we understand, then disagree where we disagree.
bethyada, “I think we are best to clarify until we understand, then disagree where we disagree.” I will repeat that I am not a fan of Doug’s writing and often do not read a post until a see a comment about it. The problem I see with the principle you present is that Doug does not often directly address many of the questions that readers have, so the desired clarification is not provided by him, but by someone who thinks they know what he meant. In other words, the principle is good when there is dialog, but this blog is… Read more »
I find that Doug tries to be funny at times, and at other times gets very symbolic and it can get difficult to follow. But when Doug says things like children should not even know that their mum and dad are different people until they are at least 16, it is clear that he is not being literal. When Doug wrote about the woman running the house I found this helpful. I know what I like and have opinions about colours, layout, renovation, etc. But if my wife spend more time in the house, and wishes to beautify it, then… Read more »
I didn’t think it’d be at all edifying to click on a link to Dalrock’s blog, but then my eye caught Katecho’s name, so I read his comment, profited, and left.
“I didn’t think it’d be at all edifying to click on a link to Dalrock’s blog”
Based on what?
JP, I would suppose the basis is the typical human behavior I have often seen on blogs. Regular commenters/readers of blogs often respect the blogger so much that they suppose that the blogger must always be correct. So, when the blogger says someone else is guilty in any manner, they suppose it must be true. Similarly, when the blogger is attacked by someone else, say another blogger, they presume that the attacker must be wrong. Rather than considering the possibility that their blogger friend might be wrong to any degree, they either ignore it altogether or read it with a… Read more »
Very true, though MeMe is an equal opportunity hater when it comes to this blog and Dalrock’s.
JP, I enjoy Dalrock sometimes, but the language in some of the comments can be a little startling to gently nurtured ladies.
Based on his reading comprehension (anybody who can accuse Pastor Wilson of liberalism makes my eyes roll) and the reasoning skills I’ve seen from some of his followers.
I am sympathetic to so much unhappiness and frustration. But it is hard to be edified by arguments that sound like laments for the good old days when men could secure wives’ obedience by threatening to rearrange their porcelain veneers!
I’ve seen the same reading comp and reasoning problems on both sides. Part of the problem is DW’s refusal to say “I should’ve said this instead of that in my book” or “that wasn’t the best way of explaining that.” It’s the same problem he’s had in other debates, such as with the “stout” crowd in FV. He tries to hold untenable positions and it appears his pride won’t allow him to say “I was wrong.”
JP,
Having seen many pastors and church leaders refuse to acknowledge their failures, I am not surprised to see Wilson behave in the same manner. It befuddles me, as I would think Christian leaders demonstrating how to confess and repent is an excellent way to teach godly behavior.
OKRickety wrote: Having seen many pastors and church leaders refuse to acknowledge their failures, I am not surprised to see Wilson behave in the same manner. It befuddles me, as I would think Christian leaders demonstrating how to confess and repent is an excellent way to teach godly behavior. Since he doesn’t specify what Wilson is actually supposed to repent of, I assume OKRickety is referring to what he personally thinks was a poor choice of phrase by Wilson. Interestingly though, OKRickety seems to be completely overlooking that the Dalrock blog is falsely accusing Wilson of being a feminist and… Read more »
The number of retractions and corrections he’s posted on this blog rather disprove your last sentence.
kyriosity,
I suppose you were addressing JP, but, because of the way this commenting system works, I am uncertain. That is why I try to always specify who I am replying to in my comments.
I won’t argue the truth of your claim but I don’t recall any. I am surprised as I expect that I would notice such behavior. I am not challenging you to produce evidence, but am simply stating my perception, and will be looking for this behavior in the future.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/13afwRCVuFCEFWIIh7LFa4?si=_ThSPEOcTOWCdZTycFGKow
Malik,
When you put a hyperlink in a comment, would you please be courteous and include an overview of the content for others’ benefit? Without one, I will simply ignore it.